Template talk:WIGO title

I'll send every CSS user who stops using rounded corners a dollar. It's becoming the new hammer of web design. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 13:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda agree, but there's a huge difference between our main page and this, and I think this is fine. -- Nx / talk 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference. I think they were a great novelty and the mainpage then used them to good novelty effect. But now Opera 10 supports them and I've started seeing them more often, it's looking clunky and annoying. I gather the same is true for people who have been looking at them for a while longer too. However, looking up some of the examples where pro designers have used them on corners or changed the border radius so it's non-uniform, it can look pretty good, and the extension is quite powerful and can produce amazing results when used properly. Okay, so the code is 5 times longer than it needs to be, but that's an under-the-hood issue. ^moral 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That too. And Internet Explorer is going to support them in version 9. -- Nx / talk 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with using purely rounded corners here is that it doesn't match the angular corners of Monobook. Bastard drug Hoover! 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not like we can't change the default skin ... -- Nx / talk 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between this and the main page, and this actually looks pretty good. I'm just venting. It always strikes me being a novelty. Circles just aren't rational. I'd rather see a gradient any day.^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gradients are shiny too, maybe we'll get those implemented universally soon enough. ^moral 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, gradients have been used before, except now they can be done properly, without images and hacks. The css gradients also stretch properly with the element, unlike images which are always the same size (unless you're using a browser that supports background-size, but that browser probably supports gradients too) -- Nx / talk 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant CSS gradients. So much better than having to load up a ton of images for it. ^moral 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't stop people from using gradients, even MediaWiki's new skin does that, that's why my main page revamp looks better on rationalbeta than here. -- Nx / talk 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Double rounding

I don't like, it squishes the title. - π 01:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved the title over by 3 nbsp's, did it fail in practice? All we need to do is force the title over by, say, 40px (the radius) and all will be well. Can you do that better than I did please? Maybe what I did only works well on FF? ħuman 02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is the visual line that the curve creates that is the problem. There is white next to solid colour, next to white text. The white is closer to the text at the top then at the bottom. It is made worse by the fact that the first letter is a W as a W is wider at the top than the bottom. - π 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How about just centering the title? I added two more spaces, is that better to your eye? ħuman 02:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing the page title over, have a look at the name in the tabs and the bar at the top of the page. Centering would fix the visual problem, but going back to the straight edge would was well. - π 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with straight on both sides, perhaps even with a gradient drop on the right. Centering would be nice, will it muck up the tabs (I just saw that side-effect now)? ħuman 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect so. I thought the single curve was alright, but the problem with a symmetric title stems from the fact there is no right-hand border on the page. - π 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have put it back for the time being. A fad might be nice, but that effect only works with the newest browsers. - π 02:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, no right hand border? And this isn't a fad, it's an attempt at good graphic design. I put the left curve back, but I also centered the title. ħuman 02:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant fade, I still don't like the double curve on a inherently asymmetric page. There is no right border have a look, it is open on that side. - π 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I killed both curves, they both look awful on the page. I don't know where to look for the "right border" thing. ħuman 02:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The curves would be better if they were all four corners. ħuman 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The block colour was even worse, you might as well not have a styled title. Could you leave it as it was until other people comment? - π 02:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm telling you the single curve is awful design. If it led directly to the CP template thing, it might look good, but all it does is confuse the eye into thinking there is something "there" to go to. "Block colour"??? No one else seems to care but you and I. ħuman 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad page design, have you looked at your webpage. I like it, it reminds me of power-dot package I created. - π 04:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Which one of my webpages? I don't use "packages", I write the html to get the job at hand done. ħuman 05:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean my business web page, you insultive person you, it's generated close to a quarter million dollars in revenue. Seems to work well. It does what it has to do, it doesn't have to have bells and whistles. ħuman 05:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Humanthoughts one. - π 09:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And what's your problem with it? I implemented "random page" before wikis had even been dreamed of. And what on Earth does this have to do with RW? ħuman 09:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, where's your personal website that you are so proud of, that includes 100s of poems and essays, an entire album of music, and the crazy experiment that is the "mind" part of the site? Now you have not apologized, so fuck off with your personal, unfounded, insults that have nothing to do with this wiki. Seriously. Fuck off until you apologize for your rudeness. ħuman 09:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was not insulting your site's content, merely the your page design. I am sorry if this offends you, but I don't think much of the old fixed width, picture background webpage. - π 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Only that I don't take your opinion on page design too seriously. - π 09:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Humans constant insistence

Personally I like the asymetrical rounded edge (not edges). The square are cheap looking. Anyone else? Aceⁱ⁹ 05:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Symmetry is overrated.....the original design seems more interesting and appealing to me, and don't really like the centered text. I am no expert, merely offering an opinion. I could be swayed certainly, but I am not sure why geometrical symmetry on a boarder is so important. It looks bland, the one rounded corner seems more visually interesting. tmtoulouse 05:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your (Ace) opinion is taken into consideration. It always made me look for where the curve "went". Nowhere. Is was like a bad 80s haircut. Remember them? ħuman 05:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Trent, it's not so much about symmetry, it's about the curve guiding the eye. It sways "look here" (down), but there's nothing there to look at. It's a block header over a block of text. I'd rather see a left and right fade, though, if we can do that. ħuman 05:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I had many of those haircuts once upon some time ago. Anyway, what Trent said. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is more homeopathic to use rounded edges, so long as they are dillutted to .001 parts per million. FrankThePseudoscientist (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Urgh man, the block looks fucking hideous. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but I've been ignoring that part. ħuman 05:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@ Trent, "visually interesting" can also become rapidly fatiguing. For now I completely rounded the corners, looks like the London Tube sign a bit. To some of us, "rapidly fatiguing" is instantly painful. It's not reflective of any other part of the site's style, and not particularly "edgy" or anything. IE, it communicates nothing, while being clumsy and awkward. And it really is a tiny issue. The drop down shadows on the icons are really embarrassing and need to go away ASAP. Other than that they are really cool. ħuman 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus your last edit was fucking atrocious. How many fucking times we gonne play the "Human doesn't like it" game. Jesus. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not good with everything rounded. The entire point of rounding is to do it subtle and stylish, not apply it in a blanket way that looks childish. But if Human insists on it, I'll probably find a way of disabling the feature as I didn't find the IE version too offensive. ^moral 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not? The single curve says "follow me", and no one is fucking addressing what I'm saying, you're all just bitching because it's me. The huge 90 degree curve was not "subtle and stylish". ħuman 05:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is bitching just cause it is you, and this isn't the kind of argument where there is a need to refute your claims with evidence. It is all about a visceral feel for what looks cool or not. My visceral feel prefers the original version from what I have seen so far. tmtoulouse 05:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC X 100 or so)I dunno. I kinda like it being a oval shape. It looks more exciting to the eyes. But that's just my opinion. Gooniepunk2010 as FrankThePseudoscientist (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What Trent said. Secondly, "because Human insists" is a piss poor way to run a community project. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit to the template. Pi engaged me a revert war. I made more edits. Pi reverted me, Ace reverted me. I made repeated comments here, most of which have not even been replied to. This section could just as easily be called "Pi's constant insistence", to be fair. No has yet addressed my simple comments about graphic design. ħuman 08:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How about we just scrap the entire thing? Okay, so I'll address the point, you "the curve says follow me" thing is questionable, at least until we have the finances to do a proper eye-tracking study, but I certainly don't see it and it seems no one else does. Secondly, you're not the only one with any graphics skills so harping on about how you must be correct about everything is just, well, business as usual really. ^moral 08:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What everyone else has said (except Human). Aceⁱ⁹ 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so obviously I am wrong, in spite of the complete lack of arguments responding to mine. Armond, if you can't figure our why a curve draws the eye, then you you have no idea what you are talking about. I rest my case, and yield to the mob. Make it ugly if you want. ħuman 08:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So your argument says "if you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough, keep looking until you see what I do". Nice. You're still in denial that people have responded to you, though. People are. ^moral 08:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What argument do you want? No one else sees what you do, that's the argument. Its like saying no one else has argument against your insistence your imaginary friend is real. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(puts hand up) I somewhat agree with Human. The curve annoys me a bit, and eyetracking sounds like the reason. That said, I dislike it less than the bright colour. And I like the drop shadows because they're cheesy in a way I like - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the curve, what I think it needs is a background colour so that heading stuff appears to look like a box. - π 09:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We didn't do that because the subheading (i.e. where the redirected from WIGO:CP and other stuff appears) would break it apart. Now it looks like it's all in one box - even when you edit and hit preview, the preview warning and the edit notice appears to be in the box. We also tried side borders, but aside from this problem they also made the box look thinner than the rest of the page, and that looked bad IMHO. -- Nx / talk 10:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)