

Guardian Frontend – Source for the Guardian's responsive site - danso
https://github.com/guardian/frontend

======
buro9
This is wonderful.

LICENSE = Apache 2.0
[https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE](https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE)

And then...

[https://github.com/guardian/frontend/tree/master/resources/f...](https://github.com/guardian/frontend/tree/master/resources/fonts)

They have put under Apache license their commissioned fonts which are normally
available for a decent fee:
[https://commercialtype.com/typefaces/guardian](https://commercialtype.com/typefaces/guardian)
[https://commercialtype.com/typeface_images/guardian/Guardian...](https://commercialtype.com/typeface_images/guardian/Guardian-
collection.pdf)

This is extremely generous of the Guardian.

~~~
eterm
If this turns out to be erroneous, does anyone know what happens here? I
assume that if it is clear error then the licensing won't be valid and they
can revoke it?

~~~
dublinben
According to the Apache 2.0 license:

>Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby
grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free,
irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and
such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

~~~
vidarh
It is worth pointing out that this is only relevant if 1) they have the rights
to it in the first place, which is not a given, and 2) a judge finds that
someone trying to take advantage of the error is in the right, which is
certainly not a given depending on jurisdiction - a long list of
considerations might affect whether you could safely depend on the original
license.

In this case it appears the copyright to the fonts is held by Commercial Type
/ Schartzco Inc., not The Guardian, and so they quite possibly don't have the
authority to put them under the Apache license in the first place, making the
license moot.

------
unfunco
I think they need to work on their .gitignore file a little, for example:
[https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/nginx/front...](https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/nginx/frontend.key)
And also, there's cache fragments in the repository.

~~~
dchest
Self-signed certificate, not a real one:
[http://i.imgur.com/35Szn2S.png](http://i.imgur.com/35Szn2S.png)

~~~
untog
Yeah, I imagine that is used for testing SSL on dev boxes or similar.

------
ddebernardy
I'd like to praise the Guardian for their effort in making their site readable
on a tablet.

The large font, the speed at which the page is rendered, and the ability to
zoom into the article make it reasonable to not use Safari's Reader button.
And keeping the functionality and usability of a normal site (e.g. instead of
trying to slam a bizarre left to right pagination) is appreciated.

This is _much_ better than the likes of OnSwipe or Slate.

~~~
kaelig
Thanks! Glad you enjoy the reading experience.

------
dageshi
The best improvement for me on this site was the ability to collapse certain
sections. Personally, collapsing the flame bait comment is free section made
the site immeasurably better.

~~~
freshyill
Prepare for your life to get even better:
[http://stevenf.com/shutupcss](http://stevenf.com/shutupcss)

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Exactly that. I've been using a variant of that on the Guardian site for a
while and it makes it so much better:
[http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=18](http://www.systemed.net/blog/index.php?post=18)

------
mattpointblank
It's been open source (on this URL) since ~May 2012...

~~~
aduth
They've likely been committing to a private repository and only recently made
the source publicly available on GitHub.

~~~
kaelig
Matt works at the Guardian, and what he says is right: it's been an open
source project since ~ May 2012.

------
lukasm
Am I the only one that thinks the publishers' websites are unbelievably ugly
and cluttered ?

~~~
bradleyg_
The responsive site is pretty nice imo, the link in the repo description is
wrong:
[http://www.theguardian.com/uk?view=mobile](http://www.theguardian.com/uk?view=mobile)

~~~
bassclef
yea, i clicked on the link from github and thought to myself, there is nothing
responsive about this site. this is a bit different. Still not crazy about it.

~~~
gorhill
> "Still not crazy about it."

It worked very well from here. Went down to 100px wide and whole site fit in
neatly.

edit: fixed wrong quoted sentence.

~~~
bassclef
oh it worked, i'm just not crazy about it.

------
maxst
I heard they wanted to use WebP, but I don't see any?

~~~
kaelig
Thanks for your interest, we now use webp on the mobile site (look at your
network tab in the dev tools: the mime type of most images should be
image/webp).

~~~
slinkycurtis
But do you think it's wise to keep the AWS keys in the public repository?

------
Bahamut
I notice some usage of Knockout here - what is the Guardian's frontend dev
team's thought about it?

~~~
jamesgorrie
We use it in some tools at the moment, but haven't found a user case to use it
on the user facing site.

We're looking into Web Components and patterns there, as, personally, I think,
they're the way forward.

