GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Advertisement

Skill Box[]

Deciding the new skill box format[]

I would like to get this thing sorted out quite a bit before the preview event. The new skills for the core professions could possibly start appeearing then.

Proposed timeline[]

  • Now ~ March 7th - Propose new skill box formats
  • March 7th ~ March 22th - Voting
  • March 22th ~ March 24th - Use User:Stabbot|Stabbot to crusade through old skill boxes, upgrading them to new version.
  • March 24th ~ ? - Check for Ch2 skill description updates (there might be balance changes since the PvP weekend), and update to new skill boxes while at it.

Please put your proposals at the bottom.

Rules for Proposals[]

  1. You don't have to know how to code the template for it, as long as you can graphically illustrate how it will look like under different conditions.
  2. Despite the previous rule, syntax for the template MUST be specified (you can make it up if you don't know how to code a template, but you must decide what people need to type when using your template).
  3. If a proposed layout cannot be coded by a template (which would be pointed out by other people who know how to code templates), or if the syntax cannot work with the template, that particular layout cannot be used unless the issue is resolved.
  4. All proposed layouts must be able to work singluarily in a skill article as well as work with multiple skills in Quick Reference Lists.
  5. All proposals must illustrate how the layout look under Unyielding Aura (unless a skill with longer description is found) and Glyph of Elemental Power (unless a skill with longer name is found)
  6. If March 7th isn't enough time for you to finish your proposal, please mention it beforehand for your circumstance to be considered.
  7. Please only put completed proposals in the proposal section (you can still modify it later). If you are still working on something and want ppl to take a preview, you can put it in the discussion section.
  • If you have deletion, modification, or addition to the above set of rules, please post in the discussion section below.

Things to consider when proposing new formats[]

  1. How it looks for an elite skill vs non-elite skill
  2. How it look for a skill with very long description at common resolutions (try Unyielding Aura).
  3. How it look for a skill with very long name at common resolutions (try Glyph of Elemental Power).
  4. How it look for a no-profession skill (try Signet of Capture).
  5. How it handles skills that require upkeep, sacrifice, or causes Exhausion.
  6. How it looks for a skill that has no recharge and/or casting time.
  7. How it looks in a Quick Reference List. Do you want to keep the columns aligned, or do you not care if they are misaligned?
  8. Syntax design. What are the tradeoffs you conciously made between simple syntax and better layout/functionality?
  9. What is the lowest resolution it will still look nice (if it was supposed to only take one row, what resolution would cause things to wrap to the second row)? Keep in mind the skills with long names, types, attributes, or descriptions.

Proposals[]

(All the old stuff are in /Archive 4, feel free to dig them out as-is and use them as proposals)

PanSola Proposal 1 (aka "Skill box landscape v4")[]

See User:PanSola/Skill chart test. Glyph of Elemental Power and Unyeilding Aura are in Sublist 2. Syntax are specified at the bottom. -User:PanSola|PanSola 07:34, 1 March 2006 (CST)

UPDATE: I am going to add an indication of whether the skill is Core, or one of the chapter-specific skills. Will work on that over the weekend. -User:PanSola|PanSola 20:43, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Update: version 4 is done. It now comes with chapter information built in (core is considered chapter 0). It's still at User:PanSola/Skill chart test, with syntax at the bottom of the page. Features:
  1. Similarity with the in-game Skill Menu layout
  2. Still displays as intended in 800x6001024x768 resolution environment. Still fully readable in 800x600 resolution environment.
  3. Even though Skill Type is no longer in its own cell, it has been made bold to stand out.
  4. "Plain English" for the elite field.
  5. Compactness to minimize vertical space occupation, for the sake of quick reference lists.
Edit: Nevermind teh 800x600, I forgot to include long attribute into the test. Combo of long name, long attribute, and 4 stats will make the "head bar" take up two rows. While it doesn't look ugly, it's longer theoretically optimally compact (though it only affected Glyph of Elemental Power, which had a rather short description to negate the two-row head bar effect, so it was still optimally compact). For Chapter 1 skills I think they'll have optimal compactness even at 800x600 when dumped into a mixed quick reference list, but for future skills that might not happen.-User:PanSola|PanSola 20:09, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Skuld's easy syntax[]

User:Skuld/Skill_box/index - plain english, even if you don't like the style etc I think we should use the code from that one :p — Skuld 00:10, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Greven's newbie attempt[]

See User:Evil_Greven/Skill_Box. There's a very slight variation due to the icons. Basically a reworking of Skuld's skill list, with the option of the old-style box with the exact same syntax (only a different template name). -- User:Evil_Greven|Evil_Greven 09:50, 3 March 2006

Honestly, I think PanSola's Horizontal format looks better than mine. The whole reason for messing with this was my desire to see the the Vertical format still used in skill articles. In that, I feel I've succeeded. Please review the updated page and check out the first section after formatting. While I do like the current Vertical format, some of its design is lacking (hence I shifted my design to model the Skill Box 2, which is more compact horizontally). I added a Description to it as it always seemed odd that this piece of information was not included with all the *other* crucial information like recharge/cost/activation. - User:Evil_Greven|Evil_Greven 03:16, 15 March 2006 (CST)
With the PanSola's new vertical skill box design, and superior horizontal format combined with better interface, I'd like to withdraw my proposal as everything has been addressed better than I could have. - User:Evil_Greven|Evil_Greven - 07:11, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Hybrids[]

All these hybrids use Landscape v5 for quick reference view (same as Hybrid3 and The Hybrid). They differ in how the skill article is presented (the portrait format).

The Hybrid[]

Note: No longer supported by original creator due to later versions that are deemed completely superior.

See version 5 near the bottom of User:PanSola/Skill chart test. I guess this replaces Evil Greven's proposal. Features:

  1. Keeping the vertical box for skill article, yet also have the landscape box for quick reference, while still eliminating the data redundency, and at a cost very comparable to the pure-landscape version (my original estimate thought the cost would be much higher).
  2. Works at 1024x768 resolution, but absolutely clash at 800x600 due to vertical part intersecting progression table.
  3. Retains almost every single aspect of the Pan Sola Proposal 1 benefits for the quick reference page (landscape now has slightly more issues with 800x600 due to using campaign name instead of numeric code).
Ok, issue one with the hybrid: Is it still meaningful at all to float the box right? The main article seems pretty empty now that the description has been incorporated into the info box... -User:PanSola|PanSola 08:15, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Hybrid 2[]

Note: No longer supported by original creator due to later versions that are deemed completely superior.

The portrait format reverts to the fatter skill box style currently employed. See example: User:PanSola/Mind Shock3 (compare to User:PanSola/Mind Shock2 whic uses the original hybrid).

Main design thoughts: Since Description, the most important aspect of a skill, is now part of the skill box, and the rest of the article is mostly supplementary information, the box no longer makes sense to float it.

Since it no longer floats at all, the longer and slimmer style no longer helps compactness. To the contary, the shorter and fatter old version now helps compactness. Thus the revert to older style. Also, the none-floatingness eliminates any clash with progression tables, making it compatible with 800x600 resolution for User:PanSola/Aura of Restoration3.

Box width is currently fixed at 50%, but a minimum is enforced by making sure Profession, Attribute, Skill type, and the Skill stats do not wrap into two lines.

I hereby withdraw any support for the original hybrid version. I can't stop other ppl from voting for it, but I am considering the original hybrid depreciated in favor of Hybrid 2. -User:PanSola|PanSola 19:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Hybrid 3[]

Hybrid 3 makes better use of horizontal space than Hybrid 2, by putting skill stats in one column, and skill categorization (campaign, attribute etc) in another column.

Hybrid 4[]

Hybrid 4 goes back to full page-width, but splits into 3 columns.

  1. Icon and skill desc
  2. Skill stats
  3. Skill categorization

Because of the column style, it's still considered (by me) a portrait format and not a landscape format.

Hybrid 5[]

Hybrid 5 starts from the Hybrid 3's concept, but takes the description outside the box (but still in the template), and made the box floating again. An invisible clear:right table is at the end of the skill description to ensure the skill box will not intersect with the progression table. If skill description is too short (such as User:PanSola/RushP5 when ToC is hidden), there might be lots of blank space between the description and the next section.

Hybrid 6[]

While inheriting the "keep description outside the box" principle from version 5, this version reintroduced (from an old draft of version 2) the concept of putting all skill stats on a single row, without the text label. Additional features include the full size profession icon that span two rows (stealing the idea from my own armor box proposal), as well as Greven's skill stat floating tip idea (re-engineered for modularity). The "Skil details"/"Skill categorization"/"Skill stats" rows were nuked, since I don't really see a point in their existence. -User:24.7.179.183|24.7.179.183 14:11, 19 March 2006 (CST)

Hybrid 4b[]

4b uses the new technique introduced in 6, but applied on 4 instead (perhaps Hybrid 6 should've been named 5b).

Place Your Votes Here for Skill Box[]

(NOTE: There are two different votes on this page, as long as you're here, please also vote on the GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills#Skill_Icon_Votes|Skill Icon Vote) Format is Majority rule w/ instant run-off

Options that were striken were no longer favored by their original creators, mostly likely due to other versions that are deemed fully superior. You may still vote for them regardless.

  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Skill article view for Landscape v4|Landscape v4
  1. Pan Sola (back up votes in order of preference: Hybrd4b, Hybrid 4, Hybrid6, Hybrid 5, Hybrid3)
  2. User:Xeeron|Xeeron
  3. User:Rainith|Rainith
  4. User:Dinosaur Planet|Dinosaur Planet
  • User:Skuld/Skill_box/index|Skuld's easy syntax
  1. User:Xeeron|Xeeron
  2. User:Bishop|Bishop
  • Greven's newbie attempt
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#The Hybrd articles|The Hybrid
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Hybrid2 articles|Hybrid 2
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Hybrid3 articles|Hybrid 3
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Hybrid4 articles|Hybrid 4
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Hybrid4 articles|Hybrid 4b
  1. User:Barek|Barek (second choice: Hybrid 4, third choice: Hybrid6, fourth choice: Skuld's)
  2. User:Xeeron|Xeeron
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Hybrid5 articles|Hybrid 5
  • User:PanSola/Skill chart test#Hybrid6 articles|Hybrid 6
  1. User:Evil_Greven|Evil_Greven (second: Hybrid5)
  2. User:LordBiro|LordBiro (I like the small skill box, with description in the main article. The profession icon is big enough to tell what profession it is on first glance. I think it might actually be better to just replace the long description on the rollover with "Energy" or "Recharge time" etc. That way in the text version it would say "5 Energy", for example.)
  • Too confused to vote:
  1. User:Karlos|Karlos
  2. User:161.88.255.140|161.88.255.140
  3. FireFox Firefoxav.gif
I avoided voting on this for two reasons:
- The ballot seemed to change on an almost daily basis - are the current contenders the final ones, or is it going to change again on Tuesday?
- It's far too confusing to sort out what each vote represents. Can't links be placed directly in the ballot to the samples of each variant/hybrid/creation? Why are we routed via a page that has samples that aren't part of the vote, and then need to click to another level to view a real example of each candidate?
Given the convoluted development of this vote (I believe that when it was originally scheduled to end, PanSola was the only vote on the page, and most of the Hybrid entries have been added after the originally scheduled vote end-date), I recommend simply scratching this vote, and creating a new cleaner one with links in the ballot to the actual candidates. I realize that this means the vote won't be completed by the preview event, but that was really an arbitrary target. It's much better to have a clean vote rather than one that results in changes where many voters are simply too confused to vote, which would draw into question any results from it.
To be honest that's not unreasonable. It is difficult to make a decision when the choices change every day. This is not a criticism of you PanSola; every change you have made has been a step in the right direction, in my opinion, but it is difficult to formulate an opinion on options that do not remain the same from one day to the next :)
I am not too fussed if the vote restarts or not, however if we do not restart the vote and make things more clear I fear that we run the risk of having some people either vote for an option they don't really want, or they simply don't vote and then complain when the winning choice is implemented. That's my opinion anyway :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:27, 21 March 2006 (CST)
I tend to agree with this. I've changed my vote multiple times as things progressed, and added and removed my entry in it. I think people are too put off by this to either A) look at what changed & change the vote or B) vote in the first place. I don't see the preview event as being a Deadline for this, honestly. - User:Evil Greven|Greven 06:39, 21 March 2006 (CST)

Related Voters[]

  • User:Theeth
  • User:Tetris L
  • User:TheSpectator
  • User:LordKestrel
  • User:130.58
  • User:Novalith
  • User:Cloud
  • User:JoDiamonds
  • User:Evan The Cursed

Discussion[]

Extend Timeline?[]

Eh, by the original timeline, there is only one day left to vote. Personally I don't mind extending it, seeing as how ppl haven't really started voting yet, and my own version wasn't finalized until just now. Thoughts?

Yes, I think we need more time. --Tetris L 01:55, 15 March 2006 (CST)
How much more? I still hope to get it decided before prevew, but I'm unwilling to name a specific length of time to extend by (and it might be that we need more time than "until the preview", I can't really judge). This proposal/vote process has already been going on for about 14 days, so it's really hard to say how many more days it need. -User:PanSola|PanSola 06:01, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I have decided to set the new deadline for voting as March 22 evening PST. -User:SolaPan|SolaPan 16:21, 20 March 2006 (CST)

Discussion on Landscape V4[]

For what it's worth (and this may be a bigger discussion elsewhere), I find the "Ch0" chapter reference ugly and unnecessary. I hope we can at least put something like, "Core", "Propecies", or "Factions" in there. Or icons, if we have symbols for those three things. (Hint Hint, ArenaNet people who will never read this: That would be a good thing to put in the game anyway.) Icons would be great since they are more compact, even if we have to try and make them ourselves. --User:JoDiamonds|JoDiamonds 00:49, 15 March 2006 (CST)
I like icons. "Prophecies" ets is way too long for my tasts, especially for quick reference lists. -User:PanSola|PanSola 05:20, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Discussion on Skuld's proposal[]

I've incorporated "elite?" into my proposal. I'm not doing it for the rest of the template though. -User:PanSola|PanSola 06:03, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Discussion on Graven's proposal[]

As a comment, this format will work on 1024x768, but for 800x600 some of the skill articles will look really messed up with a clash into the progression table (User:Evil Greven/Aura of the Lich, and probably Aura of Restoration too). To be fair, there is probably no way for any vertical proposals to avoid collision with progression table at 800x600 for Aura of Restoration. -User:PanSola|PanSola 05:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Discussion on The Hybrid[]

Is it possible to put it on the left? I actually think it'd look better there, if it doesn't obscure things. Upon seeing it on the left, I've revised my opinion. - User:Evil_Greven|Evil_Greven - 08:20, 15 March 2006 (CST)
The argument about "obscure things" assumes important info are on the left and are being obscured. In this case, teh MOST IMPORTANT part of the skill, the description, has been moved into the info box. So I'm making it float-left. You might have checked it at a time when the margin was messed up, check again to see if it is still the way you dislike. -User:PanSola|PanSola 08:43, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Yeah, it looks a lot better now. My only concern is for User:PanSola/Aura of Restoration's progression table falling off the white edge of the page, but that's a very minor thing (only happens at 800x600, but not above). I feel that having it on the left is more natural (at least, for people who read right to left, maybe not so much for those who read left to right). - User:Evil_Greven|Evil_Greven 08:46, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Eh, I DO read left to right... confused what you are talking about.
Anyways, the progression is the least of my worries, as least there's no overrapping thing now. I am more worried about things like User:PanSola/Mind Shock2 looking ugly -User:PanSola|PanSola 13:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Discussion on Hybrid 2[]
I know that the original doesn't work on 800x600, but all the examples of the landscape boxes that I've seen look stupid on the skill articles, and I don't think the example posted in User:PanSola/Aura of Restoration3 is very user friendly. I think the text "Energy", "Recharge Time" etc. should always be included on the skill page, because people coming to the site might not necessarily know what the icons mean, and they also might have impaired vision.
To give an example of how the skill box looks now to people who would view it with screen readers or with text browsers:
  Mending
  
  From GuildWiki
  Mending
  Image:Mending.png
  Skill details
  Image:Monk-icon.png  Profession:      Monk
                       Attribute:       Healing Prayers
                       Type:            Enchantment Spell
  Image:Energy.png     Energy Cost:     10
  Image:Activation.png Activation Time: 2
  Image:Upkeep.png     Upkeep:          -1 Energy Regeneration

And now for your example on User:PanSola/Aura of Restoration3:

  User:PanSola/Aura of Restoration3
  From GuildWiki
  < User:PanSola
  Purge server cache -- do this if updated content does not show
  Aura of Restoration
  Image:Aura of Restoration.jpg
  Campaign
                                                                   Prophecies
  Skill categorization
  Profession: Elementalist Elementalist
  Attribute:  Energy Storage
  Type:       Enchantment Spell
  Skill stats
    10 image:Energy.png ^1/[4] image:Activation.png 20 image:Recharge.png
  Description
  For 60 seconds, you are healed for 152...350% of the Energy cost each time you cast a spell.
Obivously, we can ignore the "< User:Pansola" link and the "Purge server cache" link. You can see that using only the icon provides a confusing line of text to screen readers. This might be forgiveable on the quick reference page, but I don't think it wouldbe on every skill page.
The more I think about this situation the more I think that the suggestions coming through for the "non-reduntant" skill boxes are too great a compromise.
By the way, it seems to have never been implemented, but it was decided a long time ago that <sup>1</sup>/<sub>4</sub> is unsuitable for use for fractions. Either the HTML escape code for a fraction should be used, or simply 1/4.
Interesting. I never really thought for the text-only browser users (I tried advocate for 800x600 users but even that didn't garner much momentum, response was essentially "we'll worry about it when ppl start complaining about it"). I also never found any discussion about not using the sup/subs for fractions, and I actually HAVE found (in this talk page before the massive archiving) discussions TO use it, which is why I have been using it, sorry.
I'll give the portrait format some more thought. -User:PanSola|PanSola 20:29, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Done, let me know what you think of the new version, or if you want to check how hybrid 2 look in any specific skill page. -User:PanSola|PanSola 20:56, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Regarding the fractions, that's ok. It's only really a problem for screen readers, since they wouldn't read out "one quarter" or "one over four"/"one slash four" but something like "superscript one over subscript four" or "superscript one slash subscript four".
The inclusion of text next to the icons for the stats is certainly an improvement. There seems to be a lot of white space though. Does the description have to be in the vertical skill box? Some descriptions are long, and some are very short. It makes more sense to me to have the description in the skill article, or perhaps in '''Article/Description''' and included in both the article and the horizontal skill box automatically.... what do you think?
I think with the new FSK icons being so small, the skill box can afford to be considerably thinner. The original skill icons were quite wide, so there's not a lot of white space in them really, but the combination of a wider skill box and smaller icon makes them look a little displeasing to me.
I feel I should point out one of the design decisions behind using the large profession icons. It was decided that the taxonomy boxes should have different colours for each thing they referred to (i.e. Skills, Armor, Weapons, NPCs, Monsters etc.) rather than professions (i.e. Monk, Mesmer, Elementalist). One of the arguments for colouring taxonomy boxes by profession is so that it would be easier to see at a glance which profession a skill belonged to. In order to appease those who believed this, it was decided that we would use large profession icons, so people coming to the page wouldn't have to look for the word "Monk" or "Elementalist", but could see at a glance thanks to a large icon. I don't know if this alters your choice of the smaller icon or not, but I thought I would let you know :)
Good work anyway PanSola, the idea of using this as a replacement is slowly becoming more reasonable to me ;) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 21:24, 15 March 2006 (CST)
The description doesn't have to be in the vertical box. Graven started it so I just continued. BTW, JoeDiamond didn't like it spanning the full width of viewable area, and I'm not sure what to do if I pull the description out. Put it on the right side of the box? Perhaps. But that might create even weirder spacing problems, because I am forcing Progressing to appear under the skill box, not allowing them to be side by side (800x600 issue). So the other alternativeis to make the skill box even fatter and shorter, but not quite the level of landscape? Suggest a few ideas and I'll consider them. I don't have any ideas myself right now. -User:PanSola|PanSola 21:46, 15 March 2006 (CST)
ps. right now the box width is set to be 50% of the avaialbe horizontal space. I can adjust the ratio or perhaps set a fix number of pixels, let me know waht you think.
With 50% width and no text besides it, IMHO we might as well make it 100%, i.e. landsape (which would be fine by me!). The whole point of the portrait format box is to put it right or left of the article text. --Tetris L 22:39, 15 March 2006 (CST)
So how come you aren't voting? -User:PanSola|PanSola 05:28, 16 March 2006 (CST)
It's too fat and wide, moo! User:Evan The Cursed|Evan The Cursed User talk:Evan The Cursed|(Talk) 14:19, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Sick of typing colons, so I'm starting again. :P

I think the description should just be in the article itself on the skill pages. I think 25% would probably be wide enough for the skill box if there was no description in it. For the landscape version on the quick reference page the text would look fine as it is. I think :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:30, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Why?[]

I've been away for a while, so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere :) What is this other template going to be used for? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 21:49, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Check the talk archives for this page, mostly it was because of the quick reference tables and having to update twice for each skill when ANet changed them. --User:Rainith|Rainith 06:27, 12 March 2006 (CST)
I just read up on Archive 4. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea to use the same template for articles and the quick ref. Possibly too late in the day to resurrect this argument :) But I think that the horizontal box is difficult to read. It doesn't present the information as clearly as a vertical floating box. I can see from a redundancy perspective that this is much easier. But I'm sure there's a way to have both a horizontal and a vertical skill box read information from the same included location.
Perhaps if we had an article such as '''Balthazar's Spirit/Details''' containing the details and having the horizontal box on the quick ref page and the vertical box on the skill page both include this information? I can't currently visualise how this would be possible. But I think this would be a way of removing redundancy without significantly alter the look and feel of the skill articles, which I personally think look damn good at the moment. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 20:39, 12 March 2006 (CST)
You're preaching to the choir with me. I only voted for using the slimmer vertical box because I have run into the progression tables running into the skill boxes on my computer at work which is set at 1024x768. --User:Rainith|Rainith 20:45, 12 March 2006 (CST)
That's one idea I have brainstormed, but in order to have the same content display differently on different places, you'd have to do crazy gymnastics with includeonly and noinclude tags, which prevents you from dumping the formatting into a module, or even a template. You have to keep the crazy interleaving of tags and formattings in the skill's article page itself, and then that will just look super daunting to new wiki users. So yes, there is a way of removing redundency without significantly altering the look and feel of the skill articles, at the cost of crazy code that is cannot be hidden in a template. I think Skuld's "plain english" movement is overkill in one direction. This crazy code business is the opposite extreme which I also oppose. -User:PanSola|PanSola 04:38, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I'm going to spend some time thinking about this. It seems a shame that the only options in the vote for part A were "keep it as it is" or "do it this way". <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:51, 13 March 2006 (CST)
You might also want to talk to Evil Greven, who also wants to figure out a way to keep it looking different. And to clarify, the options for part A were really "Remove redundency" vs "Keep redundency". Removal of redundency does NOT require landscape format, and was not mandated by option A1 ("most likely entails" doesn't mean "will be"), it's just the easiest thing to do when you don't want to scare off new wiki users with a huge code of interleaved formatting not hidden in a template. Also, I thought it was clear that the "Keep redundency" choice allows the redundent info to be in the same article, so it's centralized and not too hard to edit. I hope ppl voted being aware of that. -User:PanSola|PanSola 05:08, 13 March 2006 (CST)
For the actual skill pages themselves, I think it would be a shame to actually move to the wide horizontal boxes. I quite like the taller rectangles User:Evil_Greven/Skill_Box#Troll_Unguent_.28attribute_name_length.2C_3_details.29|Evil Greven has posted, which are much the way they are now. Given that individual skills are probably one of the most used and popular pages on GuildWiki, we should makes sure they are highly legible and useful. Also of note is that humans don't like reading wide boxes of text; taller and thinner (to a degree) is almost always preferable. (It's partially why newspapers are printed in columns the way they are.) --User:JoDiamonds|JoDiamonds 00:59, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Note that with the exception of the skill description, the landscape format is actually internally columned, so there isn't really "wide boxes of text"... at least not in my proposal. As for a reason to move against vertical format, try viewing Aura of Restoration with 800x600 resolution, and imagine we DIDN'T hack the page to put acquisition above progression. I already changed the skill box (to skill box 2) to make the box and the progression barely overlap at 1024x768 if acquisition is moved back down, but decided to keep acquisition improperly above progression for the sake of ppl with 800x600 resolution. -User:PanSola|PanSola 05:09, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Well, to be fair, it is exactly the text of the skill description that bothers me the most, because we present text about as wide as it will ever get. I'd probably prefer to see a vertical Progression instead. ;) (Since I'm unlikely to have time to make this myself, I'm not actually expecting to see it.) --User:JoDiamonds|JoDiamonds 07:40, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Guess what I am doing just to spite you? d-: -User:PanSola|PanSola 07:43, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Definitly one of the hardest votes around, takes a good 15 minutes to even begin to understand what is up (unfortunatly, I fear this will be re-discussed once it gets implemented and people see the actual skill articles). I would have voted for User:Evil_Greven/Skill_Box#Troll_Unguent_.28attribute_name_length.2C_3_details.29|this, but I didnt find it among the options. Basically I would love to have something that looks like it, but makes use of Pansolas technic of putting the skill description onto the normal page (as opposed to the box), like in User:PanSola/Unyielding_AuraP5. Skulds version is best looking, but might be a bit big for long lists. Generally, is it possible to make the profession icons links and dump the "monk skill" part? --User:Xeeron|Xeeron 20:44, 16 March 2006 (CST)
Xeeron, in order to make the progression table NOT collide with Greven's format (with description taken out) on 800x600, there will be a LOT of blank spaces between the Descripiton and the Progression. That was the reason why Hybrid 5 went for horizontal expansion to reduce height. I am open for more design change suggestions, but not that particular design. - User:PanSola = User:24.7.179.183|24.7.179.183 04:35, 18 March 2006 (CST)
Advertisement