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