Talk:Wiki wish list: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* I've modified the project header for habitat to include the site header directly, that way people only need to include the project header and the other one is included by default. Also removed the seemingly redundant "Packages" from the beginning of the package only content, as the site header above seems to qualify that enough. Check out [[:Category:Habitat]] to see if it's headed in an acceptable direction. | * I've modified the project header for habitat to include the site header directly, that way people only need to include the project header and the other one is included by default. Also removed the seemingly redundant "Packages" from the beginning of the package only content, as the site header above seems to qualify that enough. Check out [[:Category:Habitat]] to see if it's headed in an acceptable direction. | ||
---- | |||
# I see where you're going and I think it's a big improvement over what is presently in the wiki. | |||
# We've been talking about "site header" but it really isn't. A page like [[Evolve to freedom]] doesn't fit into any of the packages or projects. It really needs a header like: '''Main -> Vision -> Freedom'''. We might want a Sawmill category with a header like: '''Main -> Packages -> Habitat -> Sawmill'''. | |||
# I think your latest example works well for a 2-level hierarchy, but not so well for 3 or 4 levels. | |||
# I personally (and this is a matter of style, not acceptable vs. unacceptable) favor extreme minimalism as to headers. People come to a page to read the contents, not the header. I'd rather hide the information for other levels inside tooltips than make it visible all the time. | |||
# Think about what I've said here. If you're happy with your current example, go ahead and implement it. If I've convinced you of the value of minimalism, let's see if we can simplify it first. | |||
Revision as of 05:36, 20 July 2009
Created a draft of a new site header, along with subheaders for each package. I've implemented them in the energy category page so you can get a feel for them and discuss before refactoring through other packages.
- I figured how do the tooltips and made a few changes to Site Header 2 and ProjectHdr Habitat templates to illustrate.
- Style notes (IMHO)
- Never use CAPS FOR EMPHASIS (= SHOUTING)
- Never use underlines for emphasis (= link)
- No need to repeat the word "package" in every link, just put "Packages:" before the list
Agreed. The particular styles were in place to try and distinguish the packages from the whole array of projects in the original header. By breaking it down into a clean package only header and then subheaders for the projects the styling can be cleaned up and it should be easier to see what's going on.
- I've modified the project header for habitat to include the site header directly, that way people only need to include the project header and the other one is included by default. Also removed the seemingly redundant "Packages" from the beginning of the package only content, as the site header above seems to qualify that enough. Check out Category:Habitat to see if it's headed in an acceptable direction.
- I see where you're going and I think it's a big improvement over what is presently in the wiki.
- We've been talking about "site header" but it really isn't. A page like Evolve to freedom doesn't fit into any of the packages or projects. It really needs a header like: Main -> Vision -> Freedom. We might want a Sawmill category with a header like: Main -> Packages -> Habitat -> Sawmill.
- I think your latest example works well for a 2-level hierarchy, but not so well for 3 or 4 levels.
- I personally (and this is a matter of style, not acceptable vs. unacceptable) favor extreme minimalism as to headers. People come to a page to read the contents, not the header. I'd rather hide the information for other levels inside tooltips than make it visible all the time.
- Think about what I've said here. If you're happy with your current example, go ahead and implement it. If I've convinced you of the value of minimalism, let's see if we can simplify it first.