I have the feeling your changes are only gradually taking effect on
test.wikipedia.org. When I wrote my previous e-mail about this, I still
saw yellow on the discussion pages, and only the line separating the top
bar was thinner (not the one for the left bar). Now, with both lines
thin, I have to admit I like it even less :(
Erik Moeller wrote:
Timwi-
However, I object to your changes to the standard
skin.
Well, the whole point is optimizing the defaults, not giving users yet
another choice for what are miniscule variations
I know. But I don't see your current changes as optimisations. Sorry.
Maybe I'm just short-sighted (no pun intended).
I liked the
thick borders because they showed very clearly where the
actual article is. (I have slightly bad vision.)
That should be easier now because the navigational elements use a
different font size from the main article.
I'm not seeing this change, so I'll look back at it tomorrow, but I
don't think this will convince me. It still won't be as clear a
separation as thicker borders were.
I also think
the article heading is too small now.
I think that's just an initial impression because the original headings
were quite huge.
Well, actually the previous heading appeared bolder to me than the
current one does. However, this is due to the particular font I've set
in my browser (Verdana) and its habit of suddenly getting quite a bit
fatter from one point size to the next. I understand most people use
Times New Roman instead. However, if it doesn't upset too many people,
if you could change it just slightly from 125% to 130%? Just to achieve
this little effect for Verdana users like me?... That would be great :-)
In reality, I only changed each heading size to the
next
smaller level.
Unfortunately, the H6 heading is now smaller than the normal text. I'm
not sure it's really supposed to be. But since H6 doesn't occur too
often, I don't really care about this. The new dotted line, which I
really like by the way, shows clearly enough that it is a heading.
I don't
like the border around the footer
I'm not completely happy with it either. I had problems getting the same
box around the top table, because that table is much more complex. I'll
fiddle some more with it and if I can't make it work I'll remove the box.
Actually, I don't think I'd like two of those boxes better than one ;-)
because the
previous way was cleaner and more consistent with the look
of the rest (the top for instance). I don't like the light-blue colour
of the bottom box because it looks bad in contrast to the yellow
background of discussion pages.
There is no yellow background of discussion pages ;-).
Yeah, sorry. At the time I still had the yellow backgrounds. I see the
new colour now, and to be honest, it's too light for me to distinguish
directly from the pure white of real articles (I'm on an LCD). You'd
therefore have to make it darker, and to satisfy Daniel Mayer you'd also
have to change it back to a yellowish hue, so maybe in the end you'll
just end up with the same original colour again. :)
The fact that the
strong contrast between yellow and white makes it hard to come up with a
global color scheme for things like TOC, boxes etc. is one of the reasons
to change it.
What about the simple grey meta uses? But then again, it'd be
indistinguishable from meta.
Maybe the actual page text should always be on a white background to
avoid colour scheme problems, and only the top and left bars should have
a different background to distinguish article pages from other pages. Or
a differently-colours thick border around the page text ;-)
Greetings,
Timwi