Shiori's happy nitpicks
- 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.
- Playing around in Photoshop, #9FC6F0 looks nice for the bars.
- 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.)
- Looks squished. Make layout width:100%, pwease.
- 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)
- 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.
- It's designed for 1024px width; can't make it wider without some more photoshop love. So let's hear what others say, first.
- 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?
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
- 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)
Vid Template/Image Color(s)
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:
- 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.
- 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)
I love this new version it sick User:OldOak7
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.)
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 126.96.36.199 12:17, 10 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)
- 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)