Talk:Quick access links

Quick access added to navigation box
Okay, let me know if anyone objects. I've created this page based on posts at Talk:Main_Page/editcopy, then added it as a link on the side toolbar. I think that another quick access box for builds would be useful as well, but I'm uncertain how best to organize it all into a single table. Any suggestions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:52, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The tables aren't centered in their colored backgrounds and the colored backgrounds are different widths in my Firefox and IE6. I assume this isn't intentional?  --Fyren 02:14, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * There were fewer columns for the second table so I set it at a narrower width; but feel free to adjust it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:49, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Check Sandbox/QAL. If the section headers are to be inside of the colored backgrounds, they need to be left aligned.  Alternatively, we could remove them and create fake headers with edit links that look the same but really aren't MediaWiki headers and then we can align them however we want.  Don't know if anyone cares.  I'm also going to add a second example to QAL in a moment.  --Fyren 03:46, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Fyren, do you know any way to have vertical text in an HTML table? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:06, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * test --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:16, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Woohooo, it works! But only in IE, I think. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:17, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Right, writing-mode is IE-only "CSS." It's not in the CSS1/2 spec.  We could wait for CSS3!  Or use transparent images (or be really silly and use a bunch of line breaks) to get vertical text.  --Fyren 04:34, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I have to say I'm not really happy with the current design. What I had in mind when I created the original version is a compact table that fits on the Main Page and features links to the most popular pages. A link in the side bar is better than nothing, but it doesn't really speed up the access. If I have to click the sidebar link and then click the Monk Armor link to access Monk Armor I might as well click the Armor link on the Main Page and then click Monk Armor.
 * In order to allow for the quick links to be added to the Main Page we should really manage to keep each of the two tables at 50% page width, to fit them side by side.
 * With the campaigns table taking 100% page width the whole concept is b0rk3d, IMO. With 100% page width we wouldn't have needed to switch to "portrait" format in the first place. Sticking to the original "landscape" design I would have been able to fit 8 campaigns side by side with 100% page width, easily, so scalability wouldn't have been in issue until 2010 at least.
 * As for the professions table, I'd rather keep that at 50% width too. To do that I'd leave away the "Secondary Options" and "Profession Guides". They aren't very popular, so a quick access link isn't really warranted. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:02, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * While the tables still need work and polish of the looks, I am happy with the current solution. Placing them on the main page would (even in the smallest possible configuration) place a huge block there, totally messing up the main page design. The main page should be accommodating to first time visitor who have no idea how the wiki is organised. Our current design of lists organised by topic, together with a short explanation does that. The quick access list does not. It is designed for people who have some knowledge of the wiki and want one page that quickly gets them to the exact location they want, without having to pass through summary articles. --Xeeron 05:08, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The problem for scalability on portrait format isn't a question of when do you hit 100%, but when do you exceed 50%. Once you're over 50% width, then you might as well go to lanscape mode, otherwise you have wasted screen real-estate (once over 50% width, nothing as currently designed could be wedged next to it).  I think the landscape format could still be added onto the main page  if the existing boxes were redesigned - possibly game basics could be merged with profession/guilds/etc (much of the Guilds/Professions section is redundant to the quick access, and would shrink that section, so not as big a box as you would think at first), and the professions box could be made a to looks like User:Fyren's alternate that is narrower.  But as Xeeron pointed out, quick access is really more for someone who is more experienced and knows what they want - tables, due to a lack of comments to describe links, are not as user-friendly to newer players.

Modified table formatting

 * see: Sandbox/QAL for examples of modified layouts.

I put up different ways of formulating the tables. I'm not suggesting we use these two instead. I was just fiddling. The second campaign table is lightly shorter horizontally. I stuck more "words" into the second profession table so it wasn't just straight rows of "W" or whatever. --Fyren 04:52, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * If we're still going to merge the professions quick access into the main page, then I like the stacked/narrower version of your second example in Sandbox/QAL. But if kept in its own article, then I think the upper examples on that page are the better choice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:04, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Main Page draft
Here are two variants of a modified draft of the main page using the vertical professions table drafted by Fyren and the current landscape campaigns table from this article.
 * User:Barek/Main Page
 * User:Barek/Main Page2

As I mentioned above, I really feel that the campaigns table should remain landscape, but we may be able to shrink the professions table by purging some of the links. I don't consider that solution as ideal as it removes some of the value in having a quick access table; but it would make the list somewhat more compact.

I've grown to prefer these links on their own page. As Xeeron pointed out, the table links are less user-friendly to newer players than the current main page with a link + description. The quick access links are really geared more towards players who are more familiar with the basics and just want to get to what they want quickly. Also, I think the tables start to make the main page excessively long (but that's a personal opinion). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:16, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Also, there's an older draft. It has a more unified feel to it, but it loses several quick links and you lose scalability of the campaigns quick link (as early as spring 2007 the scalability would be lost as the campaign width will exceed 50%):
 * older draft of User:Barek/Main Page

I wanted to show it as one concept that had been put together. But, my preference would be to keep the quick links off the main page and keep them as their own article. It's the cleanest (best organised, consistent, and scalable) look to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I prefer as it is now, seprate pages. But if the majority prefer the mix page, I would say choose Main Page 1 instead of 2, the second one is completely uncomfortable for me, its just doesnt feel right --Cwingnam2000 19:03, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I would not like to have these on the main page. This info is not needed by a new user and the main page should really be kept as clean as possible so that new users find easily what they want. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Bad, evil. Too geeky. I do believe however that for a short while, the Quick access links link should be "advertized" on the main page so seasoned users know it's there. I bet you 90% of our users will not notice the added link on the side. --Karlos 19:21, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ditto to Karlos' comment. --Rainith 21:11, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Mesmer page
Why add another intermediary between this and the Memer weapons? I have no problems with the "Index of Mesmer Weapons" being a link from the Mesmer profession articles - but it makes no sense on a quick access links page to force another level. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:35, 3 September 2006 (CDT)