Hi, As part of the 6.0 Roadmap we have as entry the creation/integration of a new Skin inside XWiki. Currently there are 2 proposals for the new skin: Flamingo http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Skin4x Junco http://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Proposal/JuncoSkin = Similarities = * Both skins have been done using the Twitter's Bootstrap framework ( http://getbootstrap.com) * Both skin are thus responsive = Differences = * Flamingo is just a proposal, while Junco is an extension. The difference is that while for Flamingo I have just a prototype, Junco is functional and installable (with some integration problems/dependencies discussed in another thread). The difference matter just from a development time perspective (if we choose Flamingo it will take longer to implement). * Flamingo provides a new look while Junco offers 'Themes', one of themes being very similar to Colibri, see http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Junco+Skin#HTheme:Coli… This vote mail is about this difference. What to consider: A. Freshness Advantages of Flamingo is that its interface is centered around Applications (it has a new left panel used for navigation). It will provide a visual difference from Colibri and looks more similar to current applications found in the wild. Advantages of Junco is that it provides Themes. Junco's Themes are very similar to our current ColorThemes, the difference is that they can change also the font used, the colors and can also add some esthetic effects (gradients, borders, shadows, etc. - CSS effects) to Bootstrap's components (buttons, navbars, alerts, tables, etc.). But except minor changes, the layout is similar to Colibri. Improvement consist in using refreshed style for font, forms, buttons, messages, etc. B. Extensions Integration One of the reasons I choose to make Junco similar to Colibri was extensions integration. The advantage of XWiki is that you can extend it how you like. The problem is that because the extensions are developed by our community (and not by a single entity) each application is providing it's own style. On extensions.xwiki.org we have applications that provide an unique style, while others are build around and for Colibri. Adding a new skin with a different style (like Flamingo) will make current extensions not look unitary. This problem is more general than just this Colibri/Junco/Flamingo discussion and it the problem of having extensions that adapt to the skin used (without creating special versions for each skin). Junco was created to look similar to Colibri (preserving layout, style, colors) while updating the 'back-end' (created on Bootstrap, it will put at developer's disposal the Bootstrap's guide style and components). One of the reasons we are having this extensions 'incompatibility' is because we are lacking visual standards and guides (maybe using the ones provided by Bootstrap can improve this area - I will send a separate mail about the CSS Framework selection). So from the style standards perspective having Junco integrated first could represent a transition step between our current Colibri and a new skin with a different look, because the developers might use Bootstrap style/structure guides in their extension development (not guaranteed). C. Parallel skin support Another advantage of Junco is that (by having the same layout) is using the same templates as Colibri. Having just a set of templates to maintain is very important from a development perspective especially if your development resources are limited. This is one of the reasons XWiki is not supporting multiple default skins. Flamingo will need some templates changed, so important from a development time and maintenance perspective. So this vote is about: 1. Keep Colibri's current look which is supported by the Junco skin, or 2. Have another look for 6.x which is proposed in the Flamingo skin Thanks, Caty