User talk:Armondikov/gravelbox

Okay, this is my far more intensive change to the main page. I'm not 100% sure on it, mostly because the WIGO has shifted to the bottom. This is good for visitors to the site, but not so good for regular users who are most likely to use these links. The stars by the WIGO section I intend to replace with custom stylised graphics for each one if the idea appears popular. The WIGO:RW is an idea I've been thinking about for a while that would involve people essentially WIGOing the hot topics and discussions. Sort of what RWW is sort of like, but regularly updated and less hatchety. ^gnostic 09:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The featured article is usually much longer than the about section so there's too much space and it looks unbalanced. Maybe move the FA to the left, and put about + a shortened version of RationalWiki:contents (without the dpl) on the right. Also, it doesn't feel right without some borders.

On the other hand, I love your Wigo box. -- Nx / talk 10:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried it on the left and it didn't feel right either. Though that may have been because the pictures were thumbnailed on the right, if they were on the left it'd probably work better, however, you'd expect the "about RW" bit to appear on the top left. The balance is definitely an issue, I'll try adding a shortened contents section and see how it goes. As for borders or no-borders, I could be swayed either way at the moment. I'll keep tweaking and see how it looks. ^gnostic 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, since you made the right side wider, at 1680x1050 the image is now usually higher than the text. -- Nx / talk 10:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also also, I'm disappointed that noone likes my awesome gradients. -- Nx / talk 10:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this version would need a lot of tweaking for different resolutions. I'm currently only working from a widescreen netbook that can't change resolution to check! What gradients, by the way? I was thinking that gradient backgrounds to the title boxes may make it look good with Vector, but that'll need some images. ^gnostic 10:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Nx/mainpagerevamp, needs Safari/Chrome or Firefox 3.6+ (for now, I didn't bother making a fallback using images for browsers that can't do css3 gradients) -- Nx / talk 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

140px cover images sounds good to me. I was setting it as default out of habit, but I imagine that could cause problems on the mainpage. ^gnostic 10:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I really like the idea of that WIGO presentation. I saw Nx's gradients on another page and thought they looked supper cool and professional.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't get them in Opera because half of CSS3 isn't a stable web standard yet. But I'd certainly favour them if possible, but not at the expense of the site's compatibility or it being a little messy, the code to put in rounded corners was a mess. ^gnostic 11:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the unfortunate reality of web design. For browsers that don't support css gradients, I'll have to use an image instead. Fortunately, making fallbacks is relatively easy, and Firefox 3.6 is smart enough to not download the image if it finds the css gradient instead in the next background image declaration (and I imagine Webkit does that too). However, that also means I'll have to add it to common.css, so at least the wikicode will be a bit cleaner. -- Nx / talk 11:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be a standard soon enough, but I'm a fan of standardised web design, even if it does mean some of the nifty experimental features are left behind. Am I right in saying that the "hover" tricks only work if they're in the common CSS file? There's just some fairly cool list things that can be done. Although at this rate, we may as well abandon media wiki and go straight up HTML for the main page! ^gnostic 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like this

And Nx's. And Toast's. I am enjoying seeing new designs and ideas. The current front page is a bit old and wasn't that creative to start with. - π 11:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. However, I'm now out of ideas for the icons so have stalled slightly. ^gnostic 12:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

See also User:Nx/mainpagerevamp/buttons

I like the icons, in fact I think I'm going to steal them and use them on my mockup :) Two nitpicks though: Could you give them more contrast (the brain looks like a white blob to me), and the CP icon should have stars.

Secondly, I don't like the Windows95 gray 3d effect on the headers, this is better, but it's still boring, it needs MOAR HITLER color. -- Nx / talk 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put up a border free version. Actually, I must have accidentally missed a bit of code and left a 1px border at the bottom of the titles and kind of like it that way. I do agree on the contrast for the icons but I don't want to over-kill the colour. ^gnostic 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, added a few stars. I agree, looks much better - I was originally skeptical that the scale of the image would be appropriate for them, but I've found a compromise size that looks okay and you can still tell their shape. Contrast wise, I'm going to start experimenting, but the brain is a big hassle because of the fiddly detail and there's no easy way to simplify it and let it be known what it is, unless I completely block it white and add the brackets. ^gnostic 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant something like this: <- that's just a crude color level adjustment.

Though it would probably be better to increase the contrast of the brain only, and leave the background as is.

I love the color icons, they're brilliant. -- Nx / talk 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing though: could you make the background transparent please -- Nx / talk 14:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. Though I don't want to inundate the wiki with uploads so I'll grab a few other opinions before pressing on. Do you think switching to the colour ones will work best? And secondly, would the RW one benefit from a darker colour to boost the contrast - say, swap the blues of RW and CLOG? ^gnostic 14:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the color ones would stick out too much on your version because the rest is monochrome. Hey, here's a thought: we could use the color ones for the hover effect.

As for the brain, yeah, the darker blue would probably work better. -- Nx / talk 14:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've found a nice dark purple and re-did it with a different edit so that the features are more prominent. Looks nice so far. I wasn't aware the hover effect worked, but if you can set it up, I'll get the images made. ^gnostic 14:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For hover we'll need to use css (i.e. set a background-image for an element instead of using an img tag), and in that case I'd use this technique to save a few http requests - so I'll need a single image with all the buttons, both monochrome and color. -- Nx / talk 14:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is going to sound a bit like a silly criticism, but is it a good idea to have a crap symbol as blue, and them the rational wiki icon as another hue of blue? (yes ok, its cyan, but some people call that light blue) Furthermore, in the proposed layout, the crap symbol actually ends up over the brain symbol. Sen (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The positioning can be tweaked easily enough, this is just the order I got from jamming it in randomly. Also, with the hover, would it be too cheesy to have a "glow" effect for the coloured ones? ^gnostic 14:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't fit in with the cartoonish style. (But as long as you keep the image dimensions the same, you'll be able to swap out the image to test it out if you want) -- Nx / talk 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ew. Glow is horrible. Fine without, with not-very-saturated colours - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having just uploaded and added those colour ones, I think they work with the fairly monochrome scheme here. Sure, they stand out, but in a good way. But I'd definitely like to see the hover in action if it works. ^gnostic 15:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There, it's done. I didn't use your monochrome icons, instead I just duplicated the layer and desaturated, because I was lazy. Feel free to replace the image, just keep the dimensions and arrangement the same. The buttons should be 50x51px. -- Nx / talk 16:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! ^gnostic 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Love the icon selection

Though I'm unconvinced a link to RationalWikiWiki will be of use to readers, 'cos in practical terms it's as dead as Article of the Weak - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See here ^gnostic 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

RW:SHORT

Oh, apparently WIGO:BLOG and co don't actually exist and only CP is on the shortcut menu. Ah well. That's a little more work to look at. ^gnostic 01:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grey boxes with shadows

I don't like them. Reminds me of Windows 95. -- Nx / talk 06:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This version!! ADK^{...I'll tear your tapioca!} 11:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)