Template talk:Dungeon chest contents

Drop rate research
We have drop rate research, e.g. Drop rate/Hidesplitter's Chest. Should that be linked from the template? Is it worth anything? Should it be deleted? Improved? -- ◄mendel► 07:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I always thought it strange that drop rate research is a subpage of Drop rate, instead of sub to whatever we are measuring. That aside, there's probably a couple of things that can also be in this template:


 * The name of the quest and dungeon. In theory, they go together and should mebbe be in a Dungeon info box, but if it's in the "contents," such info could be used to display data in tables etc.
 * The NM/HM bonus points. Technically, that applies to the dungeon (or the quest), but it is also part of the overall reward.
 * A link to the drop rate (on whatever page).


 * Anything else? &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 10:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename it to Template:Dungeon rewards and include the reputation points, IMO. Quest/dungeon name is infobox content: on dungeon page, infobox should list quest (I'll bet we don't have a parameter for that); we should create an infobox for chests.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 12:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some checking, and discovered that every chest only drops 1 random item, 2 in hard mode. 5 chests have a guaranteed drop in addition to the random item:
 * Chest of Burrows - Lockpick
 * Chest of Kathandrax - Hammer of Kathandrax
 * Chest of Wintersday Past - Snowman Summoner (2 in hard mode)
 * Murakai's Chest - Exquisite Surmia Carving
 * Prismatic Chest - Prismatic Gelatinous Material
 * Since all chests are uniform except for these guaranteed drops, there doesn't seem any point in specifying the number of items dropped in this template. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 14:44, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool! One of those facts hidden by the way that both wikis have historically displayed the data.
 * I agree w/the rename, provided we add the reputation points to the display/parms
 * I agree w/removing the parms for quest item & NM/HM drops, replacing them with, guaranteed drops (for Wintersday Past, it can mention the double drop).


 * However, do we need an info box for chests in addition to this (renamed) template? Seems to me that the dungeon infobox can be the link, if it has dungeon name + quest name + chest name. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:24, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * See my mockup with reputation points and guaranteed drop listing at User:Dr ishmael/Dungeon rewards (demo on talkpage).
 * I think an infobox would help to make it look like a 'real' article - most everything that isn't a glossary, guide, or QR has an infobox. We could make it generic to all "interactive objects" like GWW's and use it to spruce up all the various object pages, like Storm Beacon and Harpy Nest.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI only: Dungeon_chest_contents_project &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:14, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggested alternate mock-up. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:14, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
Centering the cell contents looks very unusual, with the "jagged" ends on both sides of the text. Could we please revert to left-aligned? &mdash;Dr Ishmael 12:44, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the coloring is quite distracting. I didn't want to say anything about that until I saw it on some actual articles, but yeah, I really don't like it.  We've typically been very conservative in our use of color (outside of QR pages, anyway), and I think this would be a step in the wrong direction.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 13:53, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Infobox style
I've had a stab at making this look like an infobox. It's not perfect, but I feel it fits the site design better (the chest name might have a colored background), and the vertical list scans better. It does take less space overall, but more vertical space. -- ◄mendel► 13:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer the horizontal table version. It's more in line with our mission rewards, and it makes more sense within the page context.  This template, whether a table or an infobox, is going to completely replace the "Rewards" section on all dungeon articles.  With the table version, we keep the "Rewards" header and simply replace the content of the section.  With the infobox, there's no need for the header, and that would introduce a few problems:
 * It would remove the quick-access "Rewards" link from the ToC, which is probably useful to a lot of readers (including myself).
 * The placement of the infobox on the page would be an arbitrary choice and wouldn't necessarily make sense in context.
 * Some dungeons have a very long list of possible chest items, such as Frostmaw's Burrows, making the infobox too tall to fit on a single screen for resolutions shorter than about 800 pixels (many widescreen displays, especially on laptops, have a native resolution of 1280x800).
 * The table version:
 * Retains the "Rewards" ToC entry.
 * Goes under the existing "Rewards" header, which already has a standard placement on dungeon articles.
 * Saves vertical space by placing the different sublists side-by-side.
 * Moreover, the infobox version would make the chest article look very awkward, especially for the longer lists, since there would be very little information left to place in the body of the article. You'd have a huge swath of blank space with an infobox down the right side.  (Granted, some pages already look like that, but we don't have to make more of them.)  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * What Ish said.


 * My original concept is that Dungeon chest would be entirely composed of (or near enough). The Dungeon and Dungeon quest pages would transclude the contents; also, any list we might make of dungeon chests etc could make use of same.


 * Looks: I'm sort of 55:45 about whether it looks better as a horizontal or vertical table; I'm not sure that the amount of space matters anyhow. (And I assume, should we go this route, that we'll add some color etc to the rows for chest name, rewards, and drops; otherwise, I do like the rest of the design.)


 * Info box vs table style: This stronger argument for the change is, indeed, about wiki philosophy (rather than space etc). As Ish sez, I think the table style fits the page design better. However, I confess I don't understand why the infobox style is preferred. Can someone explain (and, ideally, show a mock-up of the dungeon page using the infobox instead of the table?)


 * Two more ideas not specific to info box or table style:
 * shouldn't the template take the name, Dungeon rewards instead of ... contents, since we are now including reputation?
 * Can we set it up so the template takes a single number and calculates the first and nth time bonuses for both NM and HM? (Instead of having to input all 4).


 * &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding of infoboxes is that they summarize a set of standard information common to all articles that are in the same primary category. Thus, we have a weapon infobox for weapons, a location infobox for locations, we will soon have a single infobox for non-equippable items, etc.  A valid argument could be made that the contents of a dungeon chest constitutes "standard info" for the chest itself, but in the context of the dungeon that contains the chest, that would be second-hand info and wouldn't really qualify for infobox status (based on my understanding).
 * Renaming to Dungeon rewards: /agree
 * NM/HM/repeat reputation points calculation: my mockup already does that. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a mockup is what the "Chest of Burrows" article would look like (took the liberty of applying a more standard infobox format to mendel's design). &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 15:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like adding an image to the box &mdash; let's do so whether we end up with table or info (default being a generic, unless we have a specific image of the chest, even if they do all look much the same).
 * I like Doc Ish's mock up's design for the infobox.


 * If style/design were the only issue, I prefer table style as fitting with the Dungeon, Dungeon quest pages. If we were going to expect other info on the Dungeon chest articles themselves, then an info box would be appropriate. However, since I expect that there won't be additional text, it seems like a lot of work to present the data in table form when transcluded to two articles and infobox on the source page. (Although, since the parms are the same and the number of dungeons is limited, perhaps not as hard as I think.) &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:17, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This mockup illustrates my idea of using a dungeon-chest-infobox in combination with the rewards table for dungeon chest articles. I encountered a couple difficulties with this: 1) the table doesn't look good at all (1024x768 rez) unless it's below the infobox, which again leaves a bunch of whitespace; 2) forcing all columns to be the same width means that most of the greens have to wrap, which looks horrible, while the mats and random columns have extra space.  I removed the explicit widths and the table looks fine, but it still doesn't play well with the infobox.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 17:07, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Replying to Dr Ishmael's first post: The mission rewards table has a vertical reward list, it has no horizontal structure like this template currently has. The word "rewards" could be made a header; it would show up in the TOC and could be jumped to. The box placement would appear arbitrary, but it could be more quickly discerned. (It needn't even float). It would be shorter than the current bullet lists, and Frostmaw's would clock in at just over 500 pixel, just enough to fit well on 800 pixels even if you subtract some toolbar space (but not on an OOB Oasis, but then we won't have one).
 * I wasn't sure our readers want the calculations done for them: doing them in the table clutters it up, and I wouldn't need to have them, but then that doesn't mean everyone else would. I'd certainly prefer a calculation over separate input.
 * The colored version looks nice; the color scheme is the one for locations, of course; we'd have to use something else, I think? Using a picture is also fine if the chests are indeed differently decorated.
 * It's not hard to unfloat and horizontalize my design by removing the &lt;br /> in favor of commas, and to incorporate the additional info. I'll try to cook something up. -- ◄mendel► 18:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * All the chests look identical, but we already have separate images for all of them anyway (click then PageDown). GWW uses a single rendered image for all of them.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 19:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any issues with the current design resolved by either example; I do see new issues introduced (excessive white space, harder to scan). I would prefer to spend our energies tweaking Template:Dungeon_chest_contents rather than inventing something new. (Unless there are issues with the current design which haven't been stated here...yet.) &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The issues (they've been brought up before): The current design (Template:Dungeon_chest_contents) has a design that doesn't fit the rest of the wiki well; it has unnessary data (NM items/HM items) and is lacking information that the evolved designs do have.
 * My new designs address these issues; they do not have "empty" columns and don't have headers cluttered by additional information. -- ◄mendel► 20:54, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

horizontal mendel design
Heh. Well, it's done; it should receive the stdt look now, though. See User talk:M.mendel/Templates/Dungeon Chest 3. I haven't done a demo for one with not as many drops yet; that ought to look even better. -- ◄mendel► 19:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, my first reaction to that was "blech." Maybe if the image were taken out, it wouldn't be so bad, but I don't know.  The comma-separated list is a really bad idea - makes it much harder to scan and analyze the list compared to each item on its own line.  As for the non-comma version... frankly, that doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current bulleted-list format.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 20:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, the picture is out; the vertical version now uses floating rows to arrange itself automatically to use horizontal space where available without breaking sections; if the screen's too narrow it'll be one column, but if it is wider, there may be more. Note that there's some space left to maybe put in the computed reputation numbers. -- ◄mendel► 20:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now with less whitespace than before. -- ◄mendel► 20:50, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the floating style (bah, should've thought of it myself, I've used it so many other places). A couple things I'd change: 1) Since this is no longer an infobox, get rid of the header color; 2) Make each parameter default to "None" instead of leaving a blank space under that header.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 21:16, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to make it stdt, but our stdt is coded so that it applies to nested tables as well; we either need a css class to apply to the nested table to make its border invisible, or limit the depth of the stdt css with the use of ">". Getting rid of the color is easy, of course. -- ◄mendel► 21:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the current style better: I like the spanning row across the top with the chest name, I like the distinct columns underneath their header (rather than alongside), I prefer the compact layout.


 * The only thing I like better in the 3 examples: the left hand box for the general dungeon info. (However, that falls under the name of the chest, which is misleading &mdash; you get the quest reward whether you open the chest or not, except for the 2-3 cases where you need the quest item contained in the chest rather than dropping from a boss.)


 * Why is it we are redesigning? Are we trying to resolve an informational issue? a presentation issue? a style issue? Since I don't understand, I'm in favor of sticking to the status quo (which, I realize, lasted all of 24 hours and for only two pages). &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:04, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mendel's 4th design uses a definition list, which does place the lists under a header (with indentation). I have a couple ideas I want to try to improve on that, but I like that version the best so far.
 * Why redesign? See mendel's last response in the previous section, it's all 3:
 * Information: this version still lists the number of NM/HM drops, when we know that it's always 1/2. Also, this version doesn't list the reputation reward.  You've updated the version in your userspace to address these, but not this template.
 * Presentation: The forced column widths are a potential issue, causing some columns to wrap when they could instead "borrow" space from another column that doesn't need it. Always showing all columns, even when there is nothing to list there, is unnecessary, as that space could be apportioned to the other columns.
 * Style: No other in-line table uses color to the extent that this template currently does. It is distracting and unnecessary.
 * Also, yet another mockup evolved from mendel v4: dungeon page and chest page. Using floating div's instead of table cells, which allows us to use the STDT class on the table.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 04:05, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

UnTable
I've taken Dr Ishmael's latest version and decided to run with it.

User talk:M.mendel/Templates/Dungeon Chest 4 doesn't have a table any more (the box is in fact still a HTML table, but who cares), instead it uses text and a thin box to contain the floating columns. I'm really happy with this design and believe that, but for some text tweaks, it might be final. -- ◄mendel► 08:03, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, it might be final? I'm glad you're happy with the design, but I strongly prefer something closer to what we have now. Again, I am more likely to be interested in the alternates if I understood what was objectionable (or broken? or missing?) in the original. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 09:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * You've not replied to it when we listed the issues. The current design isn't bad, but the newer designs are better. The new designs wouldn't have happened without any of us three, so it's a real cooperative effort. It's been fun doing the redesigns, thus it's energy well spent. The energy can't just be redirected into something boring instead. ;-P I hope you're not experiencing ownership issues re: your design ("it's mine, it works, I wanna keeeeep it, you are just out to take the credit from me") - you do own part of the other designs as well.
 * My happiness stems mostly from a feeling that the new layout is rich in information; that it is clearly laid out; that it makes good use of the available space; that it integrates well with the rest of the page/site; and that it achieves this with a minimum of visible "presentation" elements. In one word, "uncluttered". -- ◄mendel► 09:56, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've 3 times listed why I prefer the original design. If the above WoT has your objections, I can't find them. I actually find the recent suggestions cluttered because they scrunch the columns in order to make room for side-by-side headers (instead of the headers on top).


 * I wasn't sarcastic when I said I'm glad you're happy about the new design (b/c I am). My point is: I'm not and I feel that my concerns aren't being addressed.


 * I am concerned that you are worried about my ownership issues &mdash; I would hope that past experience would show that I'm interested in the good of the wiki. Of course, when I set something up, it's going to address the things I think are important &mdash; I'm attached to those, not to a particular implementation.


 * It's obviously fine with me if folks want to spend time on design for design sake (yes, it's fun), but if you want consensus (or at least an absence of an objection), it would help to know why there's a preference. So, humor me: what is wrong/missing from/hard-to-see in the original design that (a) makes y'all want something different and (b) makes you prefer the latest design? Thanks. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 10:29, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the fourth iteration design, screenshot attached.
 * Your points were (correct me if I'm mistaken):
 * "I like the spanning row across the top with the chest name"
 * Why? The chest name is not incorporated in the latest design, it could be part of the line where it says "chest drops".
 * "I like the distinct columns underneath their header (rather than alongside)"
 * The headers are no longer alongside.
 * "I prefer the compact layout."
 * The UnTable is not wasting space either. In direct comparison, the blue template uses less screen estate because it has uneven columns, and because the UnTable has more information; it's 180px vs. 220px in height for the Havok chest.
 * The Untable works better for screens/windows that are not so wide.
 * I'm partial to the school of thought that holds that, as in good writing, good design is not so much about adding things, but about leaving things out that are not essential. The current design has a lot of "information" that's not actually important: the colors don't mean much, the column widths are different, there are lots of strong lines that the UnTable does away with because they're not needed.
 * I am considering the possibility of subjective issues because it seems to me we're starting to go in circles, and missing part of each other's meaning. This does not in any way reflect on your loyalty to the wiki, which is beyond question.
 * So, add the chest name back in? Link to the drop rate research? -- ◄mendel► 11:09, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understood from previous posts that you think the original template has too much design that isn't useful/needed. I appreciate your taking time to let me know why you thought a redesign was necessary and the direction you want to take it. I agree with the premise that unnecessary design elements are unnecessary; I don't, however, agree about where the line has been drawn.


 * I believe some color is needed: (1) it makes it easier to compare the contents of two chests (by helping the eye concentrate on the variable areas of the table vs the fixed areas); (2) it helps distinguish these info tables from others on the wiki; (3) it reduces glare. Using the terminology above, the old design contained meta information that is now missing.


 * I do like the neat way you've combined what would be multiple columns in the original. I also like the bulleted presentation of rep points; looks clean.


 * Doesn't reputation come from completing the quest (or killing the boss)? If so, it doesn't belong under the chest name as it's a distinct reward.


 * Personal preferences: I think having each column be the same size across all chests is reasonable; I think it's a personal preference whether different columns in a table should be equally wide. Having the chest name across the top is also a matter of taste. The strength of the rules in the table also seems to me a preference. I also like seeing the fixed items and the number of drops ''inside the table rather than separate. Finally, I prefer the short formulation of drop counts (1 drop in NM) vs the verbose one (1 random chest drop in normal mode, ...)


 * There are also a couple of other reasons why I think the table needs some shading: the table feels cluttered to me and I sorta agree that logically it should not. I also keep missing the fact that the table headers are now on top. I think a bit of color would help the eye set aside the fixed parts of the table.


 * I think there are still some fundamental questions about design. I'm glad to be having that discussion. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 12:47, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've been sorta following this. My first question is: why are we including the reputation points in this template/design? This is about a chest, and you don't get rep from a chest. (I might be able to see it being a generic "rewards" section). Second, I do think the 3-column format would handle longer lists of greens better. Third, the original blue does seem a bit.... much. I dunno how to explain it, but it seems heavier than it should be. --JonTheMon 14:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * The blue/agua/yellow clash horribly. My recommendation: a lighter shade of blue, change the agua to light gray, and the font color to black. Jink  15:26, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on the "UnTable", i.e. the screenshotted design that's live here? -- ◄mendel► 15:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * My eyes roll right off it. I'd prefer the table. Jink  14:39, September 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) We're including the rep points because it's really a "dungeon rewards" template. I've put the chest name in the section header because I have different chests on my demo page, but on the actual dungeon page, the section name would be "Rewards".
 * The format is only 3 columns at your screen width; it can be anything from 1 to 5 columns, depending.
 * helping the eye concentrate on the variable areas of the table -- the gray box does that. To distinguish wiki tables from each other has heretofore not been one of our goals; in fact we have the "stdt" so they'll be alike. The section header should make the "Rewards" easy to find on each page. If we aimed to "reduce glare", we'd better redesign our skin; as it stands, I'm adjusting my monitor so that it doesn't glare.
 * The flexible layout makes it harder to compare between chests; for easy comparison, a list of chests (dungeon rewards) could be made with DPL, which would combine all rewards on a single page, possibly with fixed columns.
 * I don't know about the wording (short or verbose). I do know that the headers are bold, not formatted like a link, at the top of each section, and stick out 2 em to the left. To me, that's distinguishing them enough.
 * I'm fairly sure that this answer is not going to satisfy much, as we seem to be arguing about taste and don't have the means to do usability testing on these designs. -- ◄mendel► 15:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * In the absence of usability testing, I say we stick with the traditional, minimalist style that this wiki has typically followed, i.e. no unnecessary color or formatting whatsoever. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 17:03, September 3, 2010 (UTC)