Hi, Ivan,
Ivan M wrote:
Hi T.J.,
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:11 PM, T. J. Frazier <[email protected]> wrote:
First, thanks again for your trouble. In the design of OOSkin, there may be
a basic conflict between "functional" and "pretty", but I'll put those
musings on the list, where they belong.
OOSkin is basically MonoBook with a few color/style tweaks so in terms
of functionality, they are pretty much the same - however, suggestions
are always welcomed, so please do.
In the first, WikiDoc1, the before-log-in shot shows the non-distinct
coloration of the "Discussion" tab in particular, and the rest of the
non-Page tabs in general. I hovered there to show the "action=edit" in the
bottom status bar.
That is the way it was designed; the tabs' design was made so the
current state is easily distinguishable (active, inactive - as in, you
are not currently here - and mouse-over), complemented by color in the
case of inactive. Do you think a separate tab style for inactive links
would make it more distinguishable? Otherwise everything looks fine to
me.
Yes, I do think so. I'd be happy with red text, but your aesthetic judgment is
probably
better than mine, and I'm sure you can do something pretty. Pink background,
maybe?
WikiDoc2 shows after login, zoomed out one level, no real change. Notice the
color of the "my talk" link in the heading. Redlinks aren't red?
No, only links in the content area. This is for aesthetic reasons
mainly, but IMO it would be jarring to have a red link against a blue
header to remind you that you don't have a talk page (I don't expect
many people will have a talk page).
I see your point, but maybe a /little/ red? "Wine-dark sea", and all that...
I mean for the text. A very dark red should look good against the blue.
WikiDocMono shows the same page, after I changed my preferences back to the
Monoskin. Please notice how the tabs are colored (they aren't, but the text
is), and separated from the display field (by a border line). This shows
what I mean by *obvious*.
Personally, I think the OOoskin style makes things more obvious than
monobook, however I might be a little biased and you're certainly free
to disagree; an older version of OOoskin had mediawiki style tabs, but
I was asked if they could be changed to look like the tabs on the OOo
website, so that's what I did.
Again, I see your point, and agree that OOoskin makes "here"/"not here" at
least as
obvious as Mono does. The elements, as I see it, are shape (including border),
background
color ("shading"), and text color. The two skins are using different elements
to convey
information, which is fine. I just think that the "active link"/"redlink"
information is
not being conveyed very well by OOoskin, and it should try harder.
Of course, if I scrolled down in the Monoskin window, the "Create book"
feature wouldn't be visible. I consider that a problem with the feature, not
the skin. And since the heading is not displayed (and doesn't gobble up my
screen real-estate, or my download bandwidth)
The heading is 10.6 KB in size - I would hardly call that bandwidth
gobbling. As for screen estate, yes, it does eat up notably more
screen space, but the point of OOoskin is to look like the OOo website
and users are free to choose a different skin they don't like the
default.
I'm just grousing while I still have dial-up service, where 10 KB eats up about
a second
and a half. (Shocking! :-) ) When I get broadband (less than two weeks, now!),
I won't notice.
any navigation ability (which
may be hidden too discretely under the logo) is not available.
In short, OOSkin is very pretty, but less functional than I like, and the
lack of functionality in other skins is disturbing. /tj/
Maybe something needs to be edited in the template code in order to
get the books feature in Monobook so that people aren't 'locked into'
using OOoskin just because it displays tools that others don't.
+1
Thanks again. /tj/
--
T. J. Frazier
Melbourne, FL
(TJFrazier on OO.o)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
