Difference between revisions of "User talk:Renegade/Portal:Lonelygirl15"

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 341: Line 341:
::I may have already said this, but it's been changed so many times I'm not sure. Anyway, I think that how it looks ''right now'' is best. Rollover on the vids would be overkill IMO. [[User:Nancypants|Nancypants]] 22:01, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
::I may have already said this, but it's been changed so many times I'm not sure. Anyway, I think that how it looks ''right now'' is best. Rollover on the vids would be overkill IMO. [[User:Nancypants|Nancypants]] 22:01, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
So, I just want to say a couple things. First of all, I think that the rollovers, text and arrow have made it clear that the images are clickable--all set on that front. I DO think it's important to perfect the page, and I think its gotten about as good as it will. I do not, however, see the necessity in all the bickering. I really wish it could be slightly more civil and more importantly, on topic. I hate to say this, especially since I don't know Renegade or any of the admins and havent encountered them before this page, therefore I dont know anything about you guys...but I think most of the arguing problems here stem from you Renegade. Sorry :/ It just seems like you have a really bad attitude and are taking out your personal problems with Zoey out on all of us. Please, for the sake of the wiki, and the lgpedia and the whole community (also the young users who are exposed to the disrespectful language on this page) I personally would really appreciate it if you'd focus on the task at hand and not argue. I'm not admin or mod or anyone important, I am just asking on behalf of the community as just an "average joe" among us. Thanks, sorry for the long post. --abslch
So, I just want to say a couple things. First of all, I think that the rollovers, text and arrow have made it clear that the images are clickable--all set on that front. I DO think it's important to perfect the page, and I think its gotten about as good as it will. I do not, however, see the necessity in all the bickering. I really wish it could be slightly more civil and more importantly, on topic. I hate to say this, especially since I don't know Renegade or any of the admins and havent encountered them before this page, therefore I dont know anything about you guys...but I think most of the arguing problems here stem from you Renegade. Sorry :/ It just seems like you have a really bad attitude and are taking out your personal problems with Zoey out on all of us. Please, for the sake of the wiki, and the lgpedia and the whole community (also the young users who are exposed to the disrespectful language on this page) I personally would really appreciate it if you'd focus on the task at hand and not argue. I'm not admin or mod or anyone important, I am just asking on behalf of the community as just an "average joe" among us. Thanks, sorry for the long post. [[User:Abslch|Abslch]] 5:31, 9 May 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 21:31, 9 May 2008

Issues currently being discussed:


Well...it's ok. What I really like about the current one is the fact that it's really clean and attractive. This new one doesn't have enough contrast (too much blue) and has a lot of wide open spaces. Also, the rollover for the characters is really unattractive in my opinion. The old lgpedia format had more flair, like stars and flowers, but this new one seems to have only a filmstrip which is for the most part totally empty (only the right-most section being at all filled). And finally, I think the header is too big and flashy, not nearly as clean or "classy" as the old one. Sorry to the people who no doubt worked really hard on this, take my suggestions with a grain of salt, either of the two is fine with me but I really prefer the old one :/ User:Lumino
I love this new version it sick User:OldOak7
I think it looks great! User:nnnik
I have no criticism at all. Maybe it's that I'm not good at this stuff, so I think it looks perfect. Either way LOVE IT!!!! Can't wait to see the finished product. --Greenie 12:17, 10 April 2008 (CDT)
I love this redesign! You do a nice job, Renegade!- User:AzukiLotus12 April 2008
Ditto. This "living room" for the LGPedia "house" feels less like an information overload, and more like a "welcome! won't you come on in?" ;-) --Nieriel.Manwathiel
I don't know if we're still taking comments on the page, but just for the record, I like think it looks awesome. User:Elphielivesagain
I think maybe the background needs another color than white. User:Krisser
I love the new design and a dont find the character links hard to find now it has text over them User:Danielbeast24790

I really really really like the new design of the page, i say lets go for it!

I think it looks great, but my problem with it is... to much blue! Spice it up a bit, guys. I also think you should make larger spaces between the character photos; too close together, it'll confuse new people. Other than that... it's awesome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
I like it! I know there's a huge argument below about the character icons as links....so just to comment on that, I think that it's rather obvious that they're links. I mean, as soon as you roll over them it seems clear to me. I like the rollovers, as I find that they make this a lot more obvious, you know? But I'm not putting this down there in the argument, because it's getting awfully personal. :P I think the design's cute and attractive. Good job! I hope it works out. DreamHaze 19:00, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

It looks pretty slick and professional, easy on the eyes and a good arrangement. All in all i like it and say go ahead and use it. KindredPhantom


Shiori's happy nitpicks

  1. The contrast on the vid template is still too low. Can we crank it up or something? The "no image available" image is especially making it look jarring with the low contrast.
    1. Playing around in Photoshop, #9FC6F0 looks nice for the bars.
    2. Could you make the image background the darker color? I liked that... (Speaking of the image, tone down the "no image available" one; it's crazy dark.)
  2. Looks squished. Make layout width:100%, pwease.
  3. I don't even know if this is even possible, but I'll throw it out there anyway. When the layout is changed to 100% width, and then I make my browser window smaller, the character images eat up the side nav. If you could, fix it on the left and maybe set the width in between the images to a variable width so they'd stretch across the whole top bar?

Looks really good, Ren! - Shiori 14:31, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

  1. I can play around with the colors, but let's first hear other opinions. And the "no image available" one was actually made for the previous proposal, I just uploaded it 'cause it's the default filename if no image was set. I'll upload a new one once we know which color we go with.
  2. It's designed for 1024px width; can't make it wider without some more photoshop love. So let's hear what others say, first.
  3. Given that the character icons should stay away from the dark blue part, if possible, I'd be opposed to that. But then again, I don't know what exactly you did and didn't do to achieve width: 100%, so I can't even reproduce the problem.
More opinions, anyone?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
I think the only real thing that's bugged me on the design is the fact currently all images (whether character or video) are on the right hand side of the page. Previous versions always had some on both sides. Now, I know you don't want the characters anywhere near the dark blue of the banner, and I agree with you there Ren, so I don't even want to imagine how much it would take to test different (and I'm not suggesting the whole thing get worked over), but I wanted to point it out and see if anyone else noticed this as well. Plus, I finally had some time in this busy semester to gather some opinions for this discussion. --Pheon 03:02, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Character Row

What happens if, at some point, we need to have more or less character icons? Does this require an entire redo in photoshop? --Zoey 17:36, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

The "edit character row" link is there for a reason, Z ;) User:Renegade/Portal:Lonelygirl15/Character Row
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:21, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Right, but what if we add a character, doesn't that throw the width of the character row off? Based on the width of the header? --Zoey 23:14, 27 March 2008 (CDT)
Well, depending on how you modify the row, it shrinks or grows...?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 12:39, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

Vid Template/Image Color(s)

Resolved: Solution was to keep darker colors.
Images have been removed during the archiving.

We're basically agreeing that the colors look good in the vid template, but Ren and I are argue-discussing whether the darker color should be used for the image border or not. So please decide whether the top or bottom version looks better: [image] - Shiori 20:34, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

I like the bottom one better.
--TimiN 19:45, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
I have created an actual (not fabricated :P) comparison:
I agree that, put next to each other like this, the darker scheme looks slightly better; but keep in mind that, on the portal, the news are placed next to a giant, dark box, which generates a much different contrast:
And, though I agree the difference is marginal, and the darker scheme doesn't look bad, I do think, placed against the dark box, the lighter scheme works slightly better.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
My does not think the lighter version is better. :p (When taken from a full-page standpoint, the difference is almost unnoticeable. Meh. - Shiori 21:44, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Character Icons

One problem I have with the design now is that it is not clear that you can click on the individual character icons to view the main characters' pages. The icons simply look like part of the design at present. Perhaps putting the names back under the icons will help people understand that they can click those... or does anyone else have any ideas? --Zoey 22:52, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

You get the normal link hand icon over them, so those not familiar with mediawiki in general should get it by instinct. And even if they don't, Characters is the first link in the first content box. In a worst case scenario, a confused person just takes one click longer.
Not to mention that the names of the current character boxes don't look like links either. I click them because I know from experience they are links, not because it's actually obvious.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 11:40, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
The hand icon appears over every image, so the fact that they appear on the icons does not provide any real clue to the fact that the images actually take you to the characters' pages. The whole point of putting the icons on the front page like that is to give people an easy way to familiarize themselves with the characters. People won't just automatically click the Characters link. That's like saying we only need to put the stills from each new video, because people will click on them knowing they can get to the video transcript pages based on the fact that the hand icon is there... and if not, they'll be able to click the "List of Videos" link on the sidebar, which takes them to the list of videos anyways, so what's the point of listing the videos on the portal page anyways? The point is ease of access, which is why the character icons are there in the first place as well.
And I think there is a big difference between the character icon placement you proposed and the one we have now. Currently, they are in a separate column and each icon has a box with the name of the character underneath. It is much more obvious that you can click those images and/or the links to learn more about the characters than it is on your proposal, where there is no text and the images just look like part of the header design. I think it's important that people know to click these links, so we should find a way to make it obvious that they can. --Zoey 18:46, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Random idea: Would overlaying a link-indicating icon or something work? I can't imagine it looking right with text, which is kind of a problem... - Shiori 18:49, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
I added alt text, I think that helps a little. Not sure it solves the problem entirely though... --Zoey 18:55, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Hence why I said "those not familiar with mediawiki in general should get it by instinct". Those who are new to LGPedia should instinctively react to the cursor change, those who are familiar with LGPedia also know that the portal icons can be clicked.
Of course largely labeling them as links would make it clearer, but a caption box like on the current portal will definitely not work. An overlay with the name might work. But so far, you're the only one mentioning it, so let's hear what others say before we change the design in such a drastic way.
In addition, your analogy is wrong - the latest videos are changing almost daily and are on the front page as news, not as permanent content. We are not just providing a link, we are reporting the latest video - and that requires a date at least. In addition, a random still is by far not as clear as a frontal face shot. Some shot of the general LA area, or of Daniel in the rented house, could fit dozens of episodes, so the link wouldn't be clear without text. The List of Videos is also not a replacement, because it shows neither a date or posting, nor a description, nor a viewing link.
A link to Daniel's page on Characters is the same as a link to Daniel's page on the front page.
A link with poster on List of Videos is not the same as a full news post with posting date and watch links.
You cannot compare news posts that inform users of the latest information of a video to a static link.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:59, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Okay, but how is a person supposed to differentiate between the hand icon that comes over the images for the icons and the hand icon that comes over the image for, say, the graphic that says "Lonelygirl15 portal." That image doesn't take them anywhere of relevance, so why should people assume that the icons, which appear to be a part of the larger image, take them anywhere?
I agree with you on why we need the whole video template. But I am unsure why this is relevant. Are you trying to argue that the icons shouldn't be there in the first place because they do not report the news? Could you please clarify this?
And I completely disagree that a link to Daniel's page on Characters is the same as the link to Daniel's page on the front page. The Characters page contains an image, a clearly identifiable link, and a brief description of the character. The icon on the front page does contain not anything but an image link. And really, on the Characters page, people aren't supposed to be clicking the image to get to the page (otherwise all of the characters would need images, which most of them do not have), but the images redirect there as a "just in case."
They are not equal. They are different. The icons are on the front page because providing easy links to the main characters is important. We need to find a way to make sure they are emphasized, otherwise they might as well not be there. And unless this is what you are suggesting (in which case we'd need to have an entirely different discussion here), we need to make sure people know they are there and will take them to the content they will, in fact, take them to. --Zoey 20:50, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Well, I for one would prefer names next to the characters. Now, I think Ren said that would be difficult code-wise (I wouldn't know any better, as that's not my expertise) but I still would lean toward names with the characters if only for new visitors to attach names to the faces they see. And while I'm sure that there won't be so much white space on the Portal -- due to the fact this is merely a sandbox and such -- I do want to express that I'm not a fan of so much blank, empty space (i imagine there's something in the works, right Ren?). Again, maybe it's just me, but those are my thoughts. --Pheon 21:29, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
This looks awesome, but I agree with Pheon about the names. I as well am not an expert at coding, but how impossible would it be for it to only say the name when you roll over it? I don't know if that's completely out of the question but I figured I'd throw it out there. Please don't laugh me to scorn! Nancypants 21:37, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
To take it a step further, (I'm pretty sure it's not possible in the Pedia, so you can just consider it rambling) we could do rollover images to let you know the character's name... I think the best idea would be an alt tag with just the character name and some superimposed image letting you know it's a link. - Shiori 21:43, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
I can easily code a div that says "Click here for this Character's page - Daniel" or something when you hover over Daniel's pic. If it works in Internet Explorer, however, depends on if the programmers were drunk one day and actually wrote standards compliant code.
You misunderstood me, pheon. Code-wise, it'd be easy to write. But if you add captions to these images, the design is destroyed. Period.
As for the white-space, it's currently fixed width optimized for a 1024x768 resolution. As noted above, I can try creating a variable width version, but that requires a lot more work on the image. However, given that more whitespace is generally regarded as "lighter" and "easier to grasp" by users, and I don't see anything lacking space, I honestly don't quite see the problem. The news boxes would not be smaller anyway - if anything, they would be just as high, but longer, with the descriptions only filling one line, and the content descriptions would all be in one line.
You missed my point, Z. All I was doing was showing how your analogy of comparing the character icons to the news was invalid. I was not making any statements about the validity of any content item on any page.
And btw, the header can easily be turned into a link to the portal to de-confuse the users, or overlayed by an empty div to de-linkify it. Or used as a CSS background image. Or whatever. What matters is not that the header is a link, but that the character icons are links.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Variable width FTW. Make it so! (If you can) - Shiori 22:09, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
The headers are not links anymore and the layout is variable width now.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:08, 2 April 2008 (CDT)
Just added charbox template, generating a special overlay effect on FF and IE 7 and upwards, and also changing the link to the character page directly, not to the image page. (Thus making very obvious that this image is a link to a character, not to an image page.)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (CDT)
Looks perfect! I love the rollover names, that's awesome! Nancypants 18:16, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

I really like the rollover names too, and I definitely think it helps, but I don't think it solves the problem entirely. We really need a clear indication that these are links. I think that part of the thing here is that the people who are commenting are people who are familiar with the current layout, and already know that these images should be links... but any new viewers that LGPedia draws in could very easily be confused by the proposed setup. Perhaps something like.. a little arrow that says "Click here to learn more about these characters"... or something to that effect should be considered? I'm not sure how to best do this, as obviously I want to keep it as aesthetically pleasing as possible, but I also think functionality and navigability for new users is really important and something we should all keep in mind. Other than that, I really like this design and am on board with going forward with it! --Zoey 18:30, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Has there been any additional thought given to how to solve this issue? Like I said, as soon as we can fix this, I am totally on board with making this design live... --Zoey 10:47, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
A suggestion from the person who doesn't really know anything (so please don't take him seriously because this would probably really hard to do) but what if we put "Characters:" to the left of the images? Now the thing that would probably be impossible to do on a wiki: I think it might be cool if we could put buttons to the left and right of the images that when you roll over them, they scroll. This way if there are any additional main characters, we can add them in, and people can just scroll through the list. Yet again, I know nothing so don't yell at me for my incompetence, just an idea. -R- 18:51, 11 April 2008 (CDT)

Video List

I love the design, but I wanted to point out that the video list column extends far beyond the other one. Maybe instead of four video boxes we could have three? Just a thought. --FH14 13:25, 19 April 2008 (EST)

I agree, because it's so long, it leaves such a gap at the bottom-left side (me no fan of huge-white spaces). Three video boxes could work, or maybe even making the section titles (i.e. "Lonelygirl15 Universe," "Behing the Scenes," "Other Series & Content") could be bigger? Just throwing out thoughts . . . --Pheon 19:51, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
Another option could be to just remove the "recent videos" list and just have the link to the complete video list. What good do those additional five videos do, anyway? (I was also trying to innovate a bottom bar for the most recent five videos, but that would probably look weird.) - Shiori 20:07, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
I have no idea what you guys talking about. When re-sized to 1024, the columns are almost equal, when wide on 1280, only the recent videos peek over. I don't see anything extending "far beyond". Screenshots? Arrows?
And, most importantly, are those showstoppers for you?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:22, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
In my post I'm refering to the "Recent Videos" list. While its not major, I'm just not a fan of such a huge amount of white space. That said, I'm cool with Shiori's idea of just dropping the list all together, leaving just the link to the complete video list. --Pheon 17:30, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
Are you on a notebook?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
Bah, since even *if* you count this as a design problem (which I, personally, don't), it still looks better than the current layout, I'll go forward with the move unless there are objections within 21 minutes. If the list is a problem later, we can put it in a collapsed, expandable div/table.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:09, 21 April 2008 (CDT)



We are going forward with this? I do not see any resolution on the character icon issue...? --Zoey 22:23, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

The resolution is, I had a notice directly on the portal for the past eleven days (getting very direct two days ago) telling people to note objections and criticism. You are still the only one who complains about the character icons. In the entire time, people mostly said they liked the design. I had one suggestion to totally change the background color, which was unsigned and not taken serious by anyone (and would look like crap), one suggestion to put "Characters:" next to the characters box, which, permanently, would destroy the layout, and on hover would be the same time of fix as now, and these remarks about the video list length now, which a) is minor, and can be fixed later, b) I can't even reproduce/understand in the first place, and didn't come up in the month before, so it's likely a taste question anyway, and c) one column has to be longer anyway. Period. It's forced by the way I coded this. Not to mention I already proposed a fix above (collapsed expandable div). So we have one non-serious, anonymous suggestion, one suggestion that only seeks to please you, not specifically mentions the poster actually dislikes the current state, and this minor taste issue today. In the same time, we got three "this looks great!" type of answers, and no one really objects. FH14 and Pheon don't really object - they just don't like the length of a certain content item. Neither do you really object to the design as a whole, you'd just like to put giant arrows on the character icons.
Nobody really objects to this redesign, after I made it as public as possible on the pedia, and there was enough time to discuss it. Even with the minor nitpicks people still have, it's way better than the current version. You can argue "OMG THE LINKS ARE INVISIBLE!" all you want, even if they are, the users are not retarded - if they really want to know about the characters, they can click "Characters" until we found a solution for the icons. So yes, I'm moving forward with this now.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

Renegade, I really did not want to do this, but since when do you have the authority to overrule admins... muchless to disrespect me... or ANY member of this wiki, for that matter? I am reverting your edits until a calm and rational consensus can be reached on this issue. And please take this as your warning, if the attitude displayed in these posts continues, there will be consequences. --Zoey 00:29, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

I did not realize that this was this close to going live, and I was surprised to see it happen. Frankly, although most people did agree that the new design looks good, the portal is a very highly viewed page, so I think we need to be absolutely sure we're ready before we make such a change. And in this case I think that means admin backing as well. The old portal works for now, and since there is a dispute we're going to leave it at that until a resolution is reached. And please, please, PLEASE, keep things civil. Respect is the name of the game here. Just keep that in mind. Kthx.--Jonpro 00:40, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

Once more, Zoey fucks over community discussion and consensus. Surprise! How many weeks this time until you can be arsed to go on with this? Three? Four? Five? Never?
Let's be honest here: You're just pissed off because I didn't give you the opportunity to shoot it down in silence. I dared to post it out in the open, so you couldn't just say "no" without reasoning in the shadows. Now you're fucked because your made up reasoning finds no support, so you just claim there is no consensus, even though there was really no objection to the current design, and even though the note was on the fucking portal for almost two weeks.
I am sick of this shit. If you want to dictate this redesign away, do it already. But stop making up bullshit reasons. Our users are not retarded. They can click "Characters" for character information if they don't realize the icons are links. And there is no need for more discussion for a consensus that needs to be reached, because everybody already likes the design, you just think our users are too stupid to find character information. In fact, I have been working together with the community for weeks to create the current state, and the progress and process is very visible above. The only thing standing in the way of this redesign is you. Don't claim anything else.
And for the record, no matter what you may try to construct here in order to justify your dictatorship - I did not overrule any administrative decision. You did not tell me to stop, even though it clearly said I was going to do it 29 minutes later. Had you wanted me to stop, a simple "stop!" would've have been enough. Do not lie and pretend there was an order not to do this. There was a clear favor of the redesign over the current design in the community, the redesign works and has been tested in both browsers, and there was no administrative overrule.
I behaved perfectly within the policies and traditions of this encyclopedia. I just happened to do something you personally don't like.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Okay, really, give it a rest. I don't care about your personal feelings about Zoey or whatever. You can disagree with Zoey all you want, but there's absolutely no reason to attack her. And it's not just because she's the head admin; you shouldn't talk like that to anyone on the pedia. So here's what I suggest: Everyone just calm down, take a break, and come back later when you're capable of being respectful and not just vindictive. The portal we have right now has lasted this long--there's no reason why it has to be changed very soon, so let's try to work this out first. But please, only in a respectful manner.--Jonpro 01:37, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Ren, before I say anything else . . . heed Jon's word of advice. Even if we're all adults here, there's simply no need to bring that kind of language and attitude here. You're angry and peeved, we get it. We don't need to read what could be very well be considered a verbal attack. Seriously Ren, keep it civil -- not only for respect of your fellow LGPedians, but also for the sake of not reducing another discussion into a shouting match.
Back to the discussion, while there have been about ten different posters on this discussion page, that just not a good consensus. Granted, I know we'd never get every user to give their opinion and I know you gave them "ample" time to even give an opinion, but like Jon said the Portals are perhaps the most frequent viewed of pages . . . . and we're not even talking about a small change to the Portal like pattern of the character boxes or design of the video column, this is on the WHOLE portal, man. And yes, Admins don't need to rubberstamp yes or no to every decision, but we do have the final judgement whether or not we beleive a proper consensus has been reached. And, IMHO, the lack of discussion here (myself included) just shows such a consensus isn't there and that even some of the more die-hard LGPedians haven't had a chance to properly assess the redesign. Honestly, would waiting a little longer for some actual discussion be so bad? We do have lives outside of this Pedia, you know. --Pheon 02:00, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

And you actually think confirming that the portal is one of the most viewed pages through a second admin is helping?
All you're doing is confirming that there was a notice for almost two weeks on the probably most-viewed page of this encyclopedia. All you're doing is confirming that this was not a surprising move at all, and that this discussion was as public as it gets. It's ridiculous to pretend there'd be a sudden influx of new discussion participants if we waited longer.
The only way to make this discussion more public is to put the notice in 500% font size, bold and red.
If you wanna cower in fear of Zoey's wrath, please, do so. I don't blame you. But everybody knows the discussion itself if not going to change. Maybe over a month, we'll get a new nitpick or a new comment, but nothing's going to change. This discussion has discussed everything there was to discussed. The design was adapted again and again and again to fit the community's needs. There was an open discussion from the start, then the participate link, then the general notice on the portal, then the specific notice on the portal, then the direct statement on here.
Let me reiterate that: The portal itself said the redesign was coming almost two weeks, and the portal itself said, for two days, it was coming on monday. It is fucking ridiculous you three are behaving like this was a great surprise to any of you.
The only reason this is halted is because Zoey is not getting what she wants, and she has the badge to force her will. It's as simple as that.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 02:16, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Ren, Jonpro seriously JUST asked that, "Everyone just calm down, take a break, and come back later when you're capable of being respectful and not just vindictive." Despite this, you have continued to personally attack Zoey. Enough man, this just isn't the place for that. Now, posting a civil response is fine, but you have no reason to just continue attacking Zoey. As it stands, the three of us don't feel the redesign is necessarily ready to become live, nor do we feel that there's any reason why it has to become live THIS very second. The date it was "planned" to go live was chosen I imagine for efficiency's sake, but it's not like we have a deadline like we did when the KM Portal was first being created.
But once again, before you respond please take the time to take a deep breath. We really don't need another shouting match here. --Pheon 03:41, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
I have been following the design discussion for some time and not felt the need to comment because I pretty much felt Zoey's comments on that thread said it all. I think the design is quite nice and thanks to Ren for all the hard work. However as pointed out it can be just a little better if we can figure out how to make it clearer that the pictures are icons. Yes, I get the point that it has never been totally clear even with the old design. However this is the perfect opportunity for us to get it right. I am a Mac user and as such i strongly believe that good design should be inherently intuitive to the user. The film strip looks nice and the roll overs were a good first step but I cannot help but feel we are missing one small adjustment to the design that will solve the dilemma once and for all. Now is the time to do that and I would be more than happy to try out designs or contribute in any way to finding a really great solution. I fear that if we take the design live now the importance of this design decision will just be lost and may never reach that final awesome end point that will do the design justice.--modelmotion 05:31, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Pheon, the only thing that really stands out to me in your reply is that you don't deny at all that the notice was very visible, and that it was very visible Monday was planned. Yet none of you complained. So either you are lying, and you knew full well when it was planned to go live with this, or you're not lying, which means the three administrators of this pedia failed to watch the most-viewed page on it for two to three days - iow, they failed to do their job. Majorly.
There is no ground for you to pretend this is oh-so-surprising. In fact, on this very page it is documented that you were here on April 20th, whereas I added the "it's happening Monday" notice on the 19th. Yet, there was no "OMG STOP!!!" from you.
Unless you're blind or illiterate, it was very fucking obvious when I was going to do this. Yet, you guys are trying to build this up as a kind of sneak attack where I tried to circumvent the decision-makers. Not gonna happen. If you want to shoot this down, fine. Do it. But I will not let you make up bullshit to justify it.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 10:41, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
I for not did not see the notice that the design was going to go live on Monday, and it's not fair to call me either "blind or illiterate" because of that. You posted it in one place, on the portal, and made no mention of it here until 21 minutes beforehand. And frankly, I've been pretty busy these last few days, and even if I happened to see the edit in Recent Changes, I probably assumed it was just an update for a new video, as there was no edit summary. And in the few times I likely viewed the portal, I didn't think to look closely at the notice to see that it had changed to indicate a date when the design would go live. In other words, it wasn't as obvious as you make it out to be, and there's no reason to yell at us for missing it. Having said that, you still did indicate that you were going to make the change a few days beforehand, and there was no direct objection (although I'd consider Zoey's edit an indirect objection), so you did follow procedure for the most part. However, that does not at all justify your disrespectful comments toward any of us, and your refusal to stop making them isn't helping your case.--Jonpro 16:04, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
I also missed the notice on the main page and I use LGPedia quite a bit. I think that just goes to show that our eyes (or optical sensors in my case) are creatures of habit and that goes to why design is so very important. I was following the discussion thread and from what I saw the design issue in question had not been resolved and I think thats what we need to get back to.--modelmotion 19:59, 22 April 2008 (CDT)


(Ignoring the arguing) Well, I might as well propose a possible solution to the character box problem. Maybe next to Bree's icon there could be a sideways strip of text that says "Characters" something like:


But, again, on it's side at the end of the row (I'm not exactly sure what the names of the colors used are, so I just used these). --FH14 08:50, 23 April 2008 (EST)

or we could add something to an extra icon in the film strip row that would just make it clear the icons are buttoms but still keeping the slick design.--modelmotion 07:54, 23 April 2008 (CDT)
Making my own solution, as it seems graphical options might still be in the realm of confusing, I added some text above the character images explaining that they are, in fact, links. It also doesn't kill the layout all that much, so (assuming it can be considered to do the job), everyone should be happy. - Shiori 10:06, 23 April 2008 (CDT)
I like the nice (very small) text that you added. I think it fixes the problem without killing the layout. --Greenie 12:19, 23 April 2008 (CDT)
I really like the page! --Elphielives
On my browser the text "Click on the character's image to go to their page." is burried in the blue so it is not very visible. Try adding it to the perforation below the characters since film actually does have text in the perforation.--modelmotion 22:16, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

I really, really feel that the pictures next to each video should have the same rollover effect that the character icons do. So...you would roll over the picture, and the black filter and video title would be on the picture. It just kinda throws me off-center when the pictures aren't standard. --Phisho 18:33, 23 April 2008 (EST)

Actually, I was wondering: now that the text is there, do we even need the rollovers? What does everyone else think? Also, mm, could you post a screenshot or something? - Shiori 08:59, 24 April 2008 (CDT)
I agreed with Phisho. Oh, and Shiori, I LIKE the rollovers. I think they look really good! --Greenie 11:36, 24 April 2008 (CST)
I also like the rollovers and think that Phisho's idea is good. Nancypants 15:51, 24 April 2008 (CDT)
The roll overs are good. The only problem with just roll overs is that you have to roll over the icon to see them. What we are trying to do is emphasize the fact that the icons are links when the page opens. One option, as I pointed out earlier would be to add an extra icon before the characters. (I played around with the KM portal and this shows where it could be done. [1]. Now right now it is just a black box, but the idea would be to have something that blended in with the film strip but convey that the icons to the right are links that should be clicked. The more subtly that can be done and the more it fits in with the design the better. Perhap an arrow of some kind embossed in the background color. I don't know but it is intended as food for thought.--modelmotion 18:47, 24 April 2008 (CDT)
To be honest, I like the way that was decided on a while ago (having the text that says "Click on the character's image to go to their page." above the images) a lot more than that black box. I just feel that we should make the text slightly bigger. I definitely think that that would get the point across. There's not much more we can do, right?
Don't get me wrong, I feel that if the black box is spiced up a little bit more, it could be beautiful, but it looks great now, and I'm not sure anyone needs to do unnecessary work, aye? --Phisho 20:03, 24 April 2008 (EST)
As I said before i have two concerns with the "Click on the character's image to go to their page". While it is direct it is slightly buried in the design and would be easy to miss. Also as currently positioned the words actually blend into the solid blue in my browser. Since there are other options I think it is worth considering them. Direct designs can get the job done but they are not always the ones that lead to the best interface. To the extent possible a design should be visually intuitive and the right use of visual clues can often be the best solution.--modelmotion 19:33, 24 April 2008 (CDT)
Absolutely, it's hard to see right now. I suggest that we move it to the left of the character icons, increase the font size, and make it black and perhaps bold. It's direct, which is good, and it's hard to miss, which is great. It's also...easy, which is wonderful. --Phisho 20:42, 24 April 2008 (EST)
I think that one of Ren's original concerns was that might affect the esthetic of the design and that is important. These are difficult factors to balance.--modelmotion 19:59, 24 April 2008 (CDT)
Which is a problem in of itself... Ren and I talked over a link icon overlay originally, but that would lead to the problem of, not only looking intrusive, but people still wouldn't know what it's telling them. The "characters" label, while a nice idea, still leads to the same problem. I don't know, as far as I can see, all of this would still need to be used in conjunction with a secondary solution.
I think we might have to just pick a solution and recognize that it's not going to satisfy everyone. The characters link is right there, anyway, for the users who, despite a gigantic bump on the noggin, still can't notice that the images are links. (I've also mulled over the idea of drop shadows and character labels, both of which end up looking horrible and not really helping any more than the solutions already proposed.
As for the text that's there currently, I can make it the standard size easily if people think it will help. Bold and black will definitely be negatively affecting the design, as far as I can see, though. And, mm, I shortened the sentence it was using so that should solve the overlap issue you're getting. (If not, please post a screenshot or something. I've checked the code in Firefox, IE, and Safari and it works for me in each, so I'll be very confused.) - Shiori 20:02, 24 April 2008 (CDT)
Hmmm . . . I like the rollovers as they include the names for each of the characters, so I would keep them even with the new description at the top of the the "filmstrip." As for the color of the text, maybe not black, but something darker, sure (maybe the shade of blue in the Portal banner as opposed to the blue in the filmstrip). --Pheon 02:49, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
I tried to take the "icon" solution a step further.[2] Clearly this is not intended to be a final solution but just a very rough indication of where it could go if someone could develop the right icon.--modelmotion 04:46, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
I can easily make a "characters" icon or something for the bar there (I think it would really need to say that, and not just on a rollover in order to be effective), but I'm not sure it's necessary. If enough people ask for one, I'll make one. - Shiori 05:44, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
Yea, the rollover is just there because it was in Rens code. I was thinking the word Characters could be written vertically (in a matching color) and the icon be a slimmer strip but with an embossed arrow pointing to the right to give it a sense of movement. Again the idea is to draw the eye to the film strip in a way that creates the impression they are active links. Thats how I think intuitive design should work. --modelmotion 06:26, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
Okay, is anyone up for making said icon to see how it looks, or do people think it's unnecessary? Once we have this worked out, I think we'll be pretty much ready to go live.--Jonpro 03:05, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
I think it's unnecessary. I do, however, think that we should add the rollover effect to the vid list pictures. --Phisho 07:13, 29 April 2008 (EST)
The problem with that is that the video images don't actually link to the video pages. So, adding the rollover effect to them will make them look like they do and only confuse people more. And we've considered having the images redirect to the video pages, but that seems to create more problems than it solves. And besides, the title of the video is right there anyway to be clicked on, so it's not like it's missing information like with the character names.--Jonpro 07:02, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
I agree with Jon. Stylistically, having a set of images that are rollovers and a set that isnt looks funny (which is why I was wondering if they were even necessary), but having rollovers over there could be potentially more confusing than not. How often do people roll over the video images anyway? I basically ignore them as it stands now... - Shiori 08:19, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
Ok, I also think that Jons right about the vid images and change my vote about that, however, I think that it's pretty obvious the character pages are rollovers. My friend who had never seen either portal said that she would be able to figure out that they're rollovers and also pointed out that there are no instructions on the current portal to click on the characters image. Her suggestion was to make the pictures a little further apart and to have a box that says "characters" (maybe diagonally but an obvious link) linking to the Characters page which would lead you to figure out the others are also links. Another thought I just had would be to put the characters name to the left of their picture (our left) vertically, maybe in white(?) My biggest complaint is I hate where it says "click on the characters picture.." because I think it looks sloppy. Just throwing ideas out there, really. Nancypants 21:52, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
Just adding my 2 cents in (from the perspective of someone who loves the lgpedia but doesn't edit). I don't like the "click in characters picture..." as I thinks its obvious that you would do so, it seems kind of patronising. It also looks out of place and doesn't seem to match the rest of the portal. Oh, and I have no idea where to say this so I'll just put it here: Thanks heaps for all the hard work you all do on the lgpedia! Charlie_star 21:07, 30 April (NZ time)
I will try and make an icon when i have time. We have already been over the fact that the currently live page was not perfect and the idea is to solve that problem with the new page (not repeat it).--modelmotion 18:42, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

Text overlap.jpg This shows the text overlap with the solid blue.--modelmotion 18:07, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

Yah, that's ugly. Nancypants 18:47, 30 April 2008 (CDT)
mm, what resolution are you on? I could only get it to do that at something less than 1024x768 (on OSX, since I know that's what you're on). And if you're on a resolution below that, the whole design should like a little odd, to be honest. If it's more than that, I'm just plain confused. - Shiori 09:33, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
Yep, 1024x768.--modelmotion 20:39, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
If someone could make an icon, that'd be great, since I think it would look less tacky than the text, although I suppose that will do if we can't get a good icon. I'm not exactly a design person myself, but I know some of you could make something that would look really good. So, thanks in advance guys!--Jonpro 12:41, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
I made one (it's not the greatest in the world, it's more just a mockup), but I still don't think it's making the icons any more intuitive... - Shiori 12:55, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
That's what I get for not looking at the page before I post :p. And I think it has potential. What do others think?--Jonpro 15:11, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
I agree, that looks way better, definitely on the right track! Nancypants 19:07, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
I think it does help suggest the line of icons is character links. The text could be clearer and the arrow could be slicker.....perhaps a single solid triangle. I like how you made it fit in with the overall design.--modelmotion 20:32, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
I like it, but the image should link to http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Lonelygirl15_characters. And...I'm still pulling for the rollover effect on the vid list, but I can stop fighting if most people agree with Jon.
By the way, the vid images COULD link to the actual pages. I'm just not sure how much work it would be. I think it would look better, stylistically, and I really want to make that known. However, I'm terrible at coding, and if it's too much work to fix all of that, I'll drop it. -- Phisho 23:00, 1 May 2008 (EST)
Okay, I changed the characters bit to text (especially since it's just all-around easier) and put in a unicode arrow. Does everyone agree that's better? And, more importantly, does that solve the whole "these are links" issue enough to remove the "click" text? - Shiori 09:40, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
I like the solid triangle. If we could create an alternate with just the triangle I think that MIGHT be a viable solution. What we are playing with here is very subtle visual clues. Having the word character there certainly clarifies it, but it might just be overkill for what is needed. I think we can keep the idea of the direct method ("Click a character's image to go to their page.") as a "plan B" if we get feedback that it needs more once it goes live.--modelmotion 14:21, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
I think you might be right about the Characters text. I made the alternative with just the arrow on the KM Portal redesign because I figured a picture might be a little confusing (at least how I was planning on doing it). So compare: The current design (with the characters text) and The KM design (using just the arrow). What does everyone think? The arrow still links to the Characters page, BTW. - Shiori 14:40, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
I think the design on the LG15 page works better in terms of the arrow. The way the curve draws your eye in, and then the arrow points to the characters just seems to flow. I think all we need to do is test out the current LG15 design without the actual word "characters" and I think we might have a great solution. In comparison the design on the KM page does not have the same organic flow to it.--modelmotion 14:57, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
I have no idea what you're talking about with the KM page, considering they're exactly the same, but I changed the current layout to use solely the arrow. - Shiori 15:00, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
Dratz, I wanted to get a screen capture of the last version so that I could show you what I meant but it does not show up in the history because of how wiki works. Could you put back the version with the word character so I can screen capture it, or can you just post that icon below. Basically I thought it drew in the optical sensor (eye for you humans) better with more of the curve showing as it was with the word character present and then the triangle worked to move the eye to the character icons. The current version does not do that.--modelmotion 16:05, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
Done. Do you mean maybe that the arrow just shouldn't be aligned vertically to the middle? 'Cause that would be an easy fix... BTW, mm, "you humans"? You trying to tell us something? :P - Shiori 16:41, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Portal trial.jpg Thanks. This gives you an idea of what I thought would work visually.--modelmotion 18:19, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

OH. I see. MM, you're getting things rendered differently than everyone else. (I noticed this in Safari a few weeks ago and thought I had fixed it.) Normal browsers are rendering the characters images all on the right. Let me see if I can fix it and then you can see if you still feel the same way. - Shiori 18:41, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
Okay, it's working properly in Safari. Of course, now I've brought back an old bug that caused the problem in the first place. I'll see if I can fix that, but in the mean time, make judgments based off of the proper layout design. Stupid Safari anomalies... - Shiori 19:19, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

Portal render safari.jpg That is how it renders on Safari now. Now with that version I would think you might try the triangle a darker blue without the word "characters".--modelmotion 19:32, 2 May 2008 (CDT)

I really like the way it looks right now on the page, even with the "click on the characters..." thing. As long as it's not overlapping the dark blue I think it looks good. When it overlaps is when it looks kind of sloppy, but that might just be my computer/browser(?). Anyway, I think it looks best right now. Nancypants 19:43, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
Okay, I got the bug out again, but it's still there for Safari. (If you're interested, the "bug" was more of a design flaw that when the browser window gets below a certain aspect ratio, the character row juts out, covering up the links on the left.) Anyway, I got rid of the Characters text and made the arrow about the darkest color I'm comfortable with.
Nancy, I've tried to fix the text thing by putting a white background up there, but that looks even worse. Where it's at right now, if it's overlapping, the whole design should be getting some serious overlap. So it can either be left as-is or be relegated to an "if needed" status. - Shiori 20:00, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
Well it isn't overlapping to me anymore, I think it all looks really good, but without the word "Characters" doesn't the triangle/arrow seem kind of random? Nancypants 20:31, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
I think the triangle serves its purpose as a visual clue to draw your attention to the fact their is something special about the icon strip. I think deductively people will conclude they are active links but we can probably only test that out on the wider community. I think the text is a good back up if we find that readers are not following the visual clue. Does Media Wiki have any analytics that will tell us if people are clicking on the icons?--modelmotion 14:48, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
So wait...on one hand, you're arguing we need visual clues because the users are too retarded to click "Characters" when they want character information, but on the other hand, you're arguing they're smart enough to "deductively [...] conclude [the icons] are active links"?
You people are fucking ridiculous.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:20, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
I think we were actually trying to respect the original design by offering a visual clue that would have minimal impact yet suggest that the icons were something that are more than just pictures. If we failed to do that to your satisfaction just say so.--modelmotion 19:39, 3 May 2008 (CDT)

Portal latest copy.jpg The latest version as rendered by Safari.--modelmotion 19:45, 3 May 2008 (CDT)

"Minimal impact" - yeah, blue stuff in the middle of the whitespace is very subtle, thank you. You ignored my point, though (why am I not surprised?) - you cannot argue that way. Either you assume the users are smart, then we don't need this bullshit because they're smart enough to click "Characters" for character information, or you assume they're retarded, then you can't go with solutions that need deduction and conclusions.
Pick a side.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:50, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
It is simply a question of whether the design leads the mind to the correct conclusion or not. That is why the Mac user interface dominates the world today. Remember that windows had to copy it. Of course Apple copied it from Xerox but thats beside the point. Good design just works.--modelmotion 20:34, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
As far as I can see, Vista looks like KDE with Compiz(Fusion), and doesn't have a dock. So other than copying the basic layout some 20 years ago (a layout that was obviously focused away from in favor of the dock by Apple), I don't see much stealing going on in the interface. Not to say that especially Vista's interface isn't annoying - I just don't see that alleged dominance you speak of.
But, all of that is besides the point - the point is, hypothetical conclusions are irrelevant. If you assume the users are smart enough to draw conclusions from anything, then you assume the users are smart enough to click "Characters" if they need character information. Which means, although it may be unfortunate if they overlooked the header links, it's no big deal.
If you assume they're too stupid to click a link named "Characters" for character information and need largely pointed out links instead, then they're too stupid to draw conclusions from anything but a giant red arrow as well.
So - pause your fanboyism for a moment and decide what user you are designing for instead: Does he have a brain and can read, or not?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:11, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
I think you miss the point of having a good user interface. Ideally it should work well for all users and that is what we are trying to achieve here.--modelmotion 23:39, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
You are still avoiding answering me - are you designing for retarded users or for smart users?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 03:29, 4 May 2008 (CDT)

Take Two

Okay, ignoring the dick contest above, does everyone think the layout as it is now properly conveys that those icons are clickable. (We're not going into whether this is necessary or not. Certain people think it is, so for the time being, it is.) Note: We are not talking about design issues here other than the character icons. ONLY BRING UP ISSUES WITH THE CHARACTER ICONS OR I WILL MOVE YOUR COMMENT SOMEWHERE ELSE. Voting Yes or No (with an explanation following) would probably help this thing get moving along faster, so if you could do that, that would be awesome. Thanks, guys. - Shiori 12:04, 4 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes. I think the design manages to communicate that the icons are click able. If someone still fails to recognize them as links, then they can just use the "Characters" link listed on the left column. --FH14 13:30, 4 May 2008 (EST)
No. It is not a "dick contest", it's a fucking legitimate question - this entire discussion exists because Zoey (who, surprise!, has been absent from this discussion) assumes the general user is too retarded to click "Characters" for character information. If your solution to the problem now admittedly requires the user to stop and think for a moment, then this solution is, in required brain capacity, absolutely equivalent to what we had before, this entire discussion was redundant, and your fuck-up of the layout serves no purpose at all and does not fix the problem.
Zoey stopped the redesign and aggressively reverted it because she wanted a no-brainer. If your solution admittedly requires "deductively [...] conclud[ing] [the icons] are active links", then it does not fulfil the requirements that made this discussion necessary in the first place. If you assume the user can think, a link "Characters" for character information is 100% enough, and there is no reason to fuck up the layout. If you assume the user can not think, a solution that requires "deductively [...] conclud[ing] [the icons] are active links" is unacceptable.
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
You know, Ren, I wasn't referring to the icon thing being the dick contest, I was more referring to how you and mm were arguing about OSX for whatever reason... I agree with your stance, but like I said, since someone higher than all of us has already dictated something else is necessary, there's not much point to complaining about it. As for Zoey, she's basically relegated the whole redesign's moving forward to Jon and Pheon's opinions. So stop complaining about her and start catering to them. :P - Shiori 13:50, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, because creating a redesign by custom-fitting it to the administrators' personal tastes is so very much community based. *rolleyes*
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
Ok...I'm going to give my two cents here. Its probably not worth much, but whatever. I just want to say that I've edited the LGpedia maybe once...so I'm mostly a lurker around here. I think you guys are making too much a fuss over a tiny little thing. Most people will be able to figure out that the pictures are links without direction, but getting confirmation from a little text ("Click the character's icons blahblahblah") is nice too. Personally, I like it without the text, but that's just me. Honestly? I don't think the visitors will care if there's text or not. I don't.
So in short...simmer down. Please. I think everyone would benefit from it. --Ordinarylucy 17:42, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
I like the cleanness of the pic without the text, but i think the text is necessary because most people will not easily figure out the pics are links. bruce hornsby told me, that's just the way it is. --Milowent 22:58, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
I resent being called a dick or the implication that I was involved in a dick contest.. I raised the Mac user interface because it was instrumental in the progress of the graphical computer user interface and I was making a point, which was perfectly valid in the context of the discussion. If others decide to take the discussion off in an irrelevant tangent please do not associate me with that part of the discussion. If you read the threat my comments stuck strictly to the topic on hand.--modelmotion 00:13, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
Fine. mm, Ren, I'm sorry. I'm just getting irritated by this whole thing. We currently have three "yes"e, one "no", and a "sort of". Two people like the text, so it'll probably end up staying. I'll wait for more responses obviously, but it looks like the text will stay, and a few more people commenting will make this be able to go up that much faster. Any admins are more than welcome to comment... *cough**cough* - Shiori 06:58, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
I have to agree with Ordinarylucy that this has become more of an issue than it has to be (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, so please don't accuse me of doing so). Truthfully, I think most users will be able to figure out that the images are links without the visual cues, but it never hurts to have them if we get a user who is not the brightest bulb on the tree. --FH14 5 May 2008 (EST)

I tend to look at things more in terms of Monte Carlo analysis. If you look at the probability of a new user discovering that the icons are clickable (in a reasonably short margin of time) it might look something like this:

  • Original design 50%
  • Original design with blue triangle added 80%
  • Original design with blue triangle and text added 95%

Now I am sure you would all have your own views of the probabilities but that is not the point. The point is that we need to balance the incremental impact a design element has against its utility. The only way you would probably reach closer to 100% would be to add a really large sign and an arrow saying the icons are clickable. Clearly that would not look good. The only way we could determine accurate probabilities would be by testing out each design scientifically and I really don't think we need to go that far.--modelmotion 09:01, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

I may have already said this, but it's been changed so many times I'm not sure. Anyway, I think that how it looks right now is best. Rollover on the vids would be overkill IMO. Nancypants 22:01, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

So, I just want to say a couple things. First of all, I think that the rollovers, text and arrow have made it clear that the images are clickable--all set on that front. I DO think it's important to perfect the page, and I think its gotten about as good as it will. I do not, however, see the necessity in all the bickering. I really wish it could be slightly more civil and more importantly, on topic. I hate to say this, especially since I don't know Renegade or any of the admins and havent encountered them before this page, therefore I dont know anything about you guys...but I think most of the arguing problems here stem from you Renegade. Sorry :/ It just seems like you have a really bad attitude and are taking out your personal problems with Zoey out on all of us. Please, for the sake of the wiki, and the lgpedia and the whole community (also the young users who are exposed to the disrespectful language on this page) I personally would really appreciate it if you'd focus on the task at hand and not argue. I'm not admin or mod or anyone important, I am just asking on behalf of the community as just an "average joe" among us. Thanks, sorry for the long post. Abslch 5:31, 9 May 2008 (CDT)