Material redesign

[DrDrij]

This PR is for a redesign of the material page.

• Highlighted title, summary and authors
• Added large buttons to launch notebook and access material source
• Added new styling to metadata listing

Launch URL

• Added script to launch notebook if the material URL ends in /launch

[llorracc]

Thanks for this update. Am looking over in detail now.

Thoughts:

1. We should add one more category of "Materials" to encompass the material we have put in the "examples" documentation directory.
   • Maybe just call it "Examples" here
2. We should add some simple automatic testing; Mridul knows how to do that.
   • Specifically, we should autotest whether all urls we generate actually still point to something
     • PortfolioBlogPost does not
3. If a bit of metadata is missing, would it be easy just not to print that metadata item on the "materials" page (as opposed to printing it as blank)
4. I continue to hanker for a system in which the metadata lives with the content, rather than being hand-entered in a MD file.
5. "Published" has always been a problematic category, because there are so many things it could mean. See below for a proposal for how to move forward.
6. More and more people know what "Binder" is, but I'm guessing it is still a considerable minority of, say, first year PhD students. So, let's relabel the "Launch Binder" button to something like "Live Interactive Version"
7. The name of the item in the "materials" list should correspond exactly to the pre-extension filename
   • So, for example, "ChangeLiqConstr.ipynb" is referred to in materials as "Change Liq Constr" with spaces; it should just be ChangeLiqConstr
   • This would make it easier for people to learn how to find files themselves

"Published", "date", etc.

There are various possible things people might want to know about a notebook, each of which might be thought of as being related to "publication" but none of which corresponds exactly to

1. Date it was originally posted ("first commit" if it is a standalone repo)
2. Date of most recent modification ("latest commit" if it is a standalone repo)
3. Reference to original resource (if it is a REMARK based on a published paper, a url/doi for the publication)
   • I see that you've added a "paper_url" metadata item; probably we should just designate this
4. Suggested BibTeX entry for citation of the object
5. BibTeX entry for citation of the original source (if any)

As always, my strong preference is for this info to be automatically gathered, rather than hand-entered, wherever possible.

Is there a master template somewhere showing all of the optional metadata items, and valid potential entries for them?

I think maybe you and I and Seb need to have a "sprint" to clean everything up, once the infrastructure is stable.

[DrDrij]

Adding your comments @llorracc into an issue #9