Wotwiki:Cascading Style Sheet
From A Wheel of Time Wiki
- moved from Current events on 10-25-2005. nae'blis (talk)
| This page is a proposed policy, guideline, or process for A Wheel of Time Wiki
The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Contents |
[edit] Logo
- Irregardless of stylesheet, find a transparent logo --Gherald
- Yeah, good call. nae'blis (talk) 01:32, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- *YAWN* Got one! See what you think (may have to force your cache to reload. See what you think; I'm going to bed. nae'blis (talk) 07:59, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Looks a little blocky (both text and background), but otherwise it is kind of nice. Perhaps too bright for easy legibility (30 to 40 percent?) too bright (that is, unless we default to a dark skin like Memory Alpha, not that I'm advocating any particular change, I sort of like monobook's plainess for the moment) --Gherald 08:07, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we're constrained somewhat by the PNG bug in Internet Explorer; full alpha transparency, which would allow the soft edges you're talking about, renders for $#!+ in Internet Explorer for Windows (apparently IE7 will fix this). The cleanest workaround, which is what I did, is to save it as an 8-bit PNG instead of 24-bit... which gives it the harder edges. I did apply some fuzzing filters and darken the gold just a bit, but I haven't uploaded that copy yet. Other than that, all I was able to do was clean up a few stray pixels on the edges of the snake, and make the center of the wheel more regular. Any other suggestions? (By the way, under daylight or night conditions, I can see read it just fine for brightness). nae'blis (talk) 14:22, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't using GIF a bit cleaner than resorting to 8 bit? --Gherald 16:30, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I'll check when I get home, but I'm pretty sure GIFs are indexed too, *and* not even sure if "Wiki.png" can be "Wiki.gif" or not... P.S. Any thoughts on the colors below? nae'blis (talk) 19:54, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Go ahead and implement them. They can be easily adjusted later, right? --Gherald 19:59, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I abandoned the transparent background, since monobook.css (and any other stylesheet we choose to make) has a white background too. It made the edges much less jaggy, because now I can use a full 24-bit PNG. Quite a bit more orange than it used to be, but I think it's better (and I think the colored eye is a nice touch). Anybody else? -- nae'blis 06:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, this does look much better than any of the previous images (including the 24-bit one that's only broken in IE). But it is kind of too orange as you say. And it it looks somewhat blurry now, of all things, quite different from the previous graniness. If it could be made to look sharper that'd be cool, but this is certainly better than grainy. --Gherald 10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I abandoned the transparent background, since monobook.css (and any other stylesheet we choose to make) has a white background too. It made the edges much less jaggy, because now I can use a full 24-bit PNG. Quite a bit more orange than it used to be, but I think it's better (and I think the colored eye is a nice touch). Anybody else? -- nae'blis 06:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead and implement them. They can be easily adjusted later, right? --Gherald 19:59, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I'll check when I get home, but I'm pretty sure GIFs are indexed too, *and* not even sure if "Wiki.png" can be "Wiki.gif" or not... P.S. Any thoughts on the colors below? nae'blis (talk) 19:54, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't using GIF a bit cleaner than resorting to 8 bit? --Gherald 16:30, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we're constrained somewhat by the PNG bug in Internet Explorer; full alpha transparency, which would allow the soft edges you're talking about, renders for $#!+ in Internet Explorer for Windows (apparently IE7 will fix this). The cleanest workaround, which is what I did, is to save it as an 8-bit PNG instead of 24-bit... which gives it the harder edges. I did apply some fuzzing filters and darken the gold just a bit, but I haven't uploaded that copy yet. Other than that, all I was able to do was clean up a few stray pixels on the edges of the snake, and make the center of the wheel more regular. Any other suggestions? (By the way, under daylight or night conditions, I can see read it just fine for brightness). nae'blis (talk) 14:22, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Looks a little blocky (both text and background), but otherwise it is kind of nice. Perhaps too bright for easy legibility (30 to 40 percent?) too bright (that is, unless we default to a dark skin like Memory Alpha, not that I'm advocating any particular change, I sort of like monobook's plainess for the moment) --Gherald 08:07, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- (de-indent) Yeah, I can make it less orange. Do you really think this is too blurry? I mean, I have to wonder if it's just too different from the previous jaggy one for us for right now, but I'll see what I can do. -- nae'blis 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] test images
(test images removed from original example -- nae'blis 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)) I think the middle one looks fine, although the improved colors did a lot for that. What do you all think? nae'blis (talk) 04:15, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I go for the first: the gif isn't nastily grainy, but it is a gif, and the 24-bit png at least does not have hideous jaggies. --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:19, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the gif is a dead duck anyway, since the file has to be called "wiki.png". But the first one has transparency problems in IE that I can't ignore... anyone with better graphics skill than I is welcome to take a stab at it. I have the original XCF file, and can convert it to Photoshop (or whatever). nae'blis (talk) 04:23, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stylesheet
- What about a stylesheet, beyond just monobook? Something that will blend the colors of the logo and wiki.png would be nice... --Someone other than Gherald
- How about a different colored link -- such as green -- for interwiki links to Wikipedia? Perhaps accomplished by means of a template, e.g. {{wp|articlename}} instead of [[wikipedia:articlename|articlename]].
- As an example of why this would be useful, suppose one were to write a "shawl" article about its significance to Aes Sedai. In it, one might want to link to Wikipedia:Shawl as simply shawl. A different color would help signal what the link was for; it might be confusing otherwise. --Gherald
- This could be cool, but I'm a little shaky on how well all of the CSS options play together on MediaWiki sites. I know we can make links to wot.wikicities.com different from interwiki different from external links, but you want one specifically for linking to Wikipedia? I can't think what other interwiki links we'd be likely to use on a regular basis... however I'm pretty sure there's already the capability to make interwiki links a different color, you just have to be careful with how you define them (otherwise you get so many different colors going, it's like the Rainbow Connection - or else they're all too similar to be useful). Dark green for unvisited, medium green for visited/active, maybe? nae'blis (talk) 21:04, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I was thinking a slightly brighter green for unvisited and darker for visited, since for regular links blue is brighter than purple. Whether it applies to just Wikipedia: or all interwikis isn't of much concern to me, since I think 98% of our links will be to WP. What do you mean by "active"? --Gherald 21:14, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- CSS defines four states for href links: 'link' (unvisited), 'visited', 'hover' (mouseover), and 'active' (clicked, but haven't released the mouse button yet). I don't find much use to a:active, but I like your point of making a:visited darker, like the purple. 'hover' could be slightly bluer... let me mock something up here real quick:
- http://tinypic.com/eziv6f.png
- The last two are not as pretty a shade, but they're also the least often seen. nae'blis (talk) 21:56, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Well regular links seem to use the same color for "hover" as "link" (hover may just be undefined, I guess), so lets do the same. Active is orange for regulars, so lets just use the same orange color for that.
- My main suggestion is to try and get the overall brightness as perceived by the human eye to be very similar to regular links for the 'unvisited' and 'visited' states.
- Okay, I'll ask my wife the artist about hue matchers, too. Are you any good at CSS, or should we put this on the general to-do list? nae'blis (talk) 22:24, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I know enough to be dangerous ; ) Keeping it here is fine though, this is part of the todo list. --Gherald 22:28, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll ask my wife the artist about hue matchers, too. Are you any good at CSS, or should we put this on the general to-do list? nae'blis (talk) 22:24, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
