What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

WRAP RULES

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wes said:
All of the existing wiki page templates are already mobile friendly because none of them use wraps or large width tables. This push to change them on the basis of them not working on phones is not based in fact and makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I think one of the main points of my comment is being ignored. Templates that look good and work on mobile. The look good part is also important. All the templates so far are bland. They are flat out bland and old. People are trying to actively improve the look of the templates, which in turn improves the appearance of SARP as a whole. Better looking pages, look professional.

Wikipedia Golden Standard. This is the face of Wiki's and professionalism from what I have found. Emulate it, and you can have that same professionalism on your site.

The only argument I can find that rationalizes keeping the old templates and rehauling the Wiki so that it looks awesome, functions on mobile, AND is totally uniform is the anxiety over how much work it will be.

It will be a lot of work. I already said I'm willing to do it. I want to know if anyone else is. This is Star Army, and given how much time and money you put into making the software and the UI look awesome, I feel we can agree that making the templates we use look good is the next step.

Look, I'm not trying to fight anyone. I want everyone to be happy and I am willing to do the work ((Though I hope I don't have to do it on my own...)) to make that happen. One side of people want the templates to look good. The other side want them to work completely on mobile. Cool. There is a solution that works for everyone, we just need to be willing to take the energy of this debate and put it into making everyone happy.

Am I so wrong in thinking that?
 
Wes is an IT guy. In our profession, you can't even begin to realize how many people we run across that demand things without truly knowing what they truly want or what would actually best serve their needs. Once we become subject-matter-experts of the things we work on, we consider ourselves authorities on the topic.

Also take into account that no one really has to piddle in SARP as much as Wes does. He has to work in the greasy inner workings of the site, make the updates, fix what doesn't work. And he gets a LOT of perspective on what doesn't work, seeing how, thanks to his mobile, he's constantly involved in the site. He's SARP's number 1 fan.

Wes probably feels he is stating the obvious when he expresses that WRAPs are more trouble than they are worth. Most of what he sees of them, from his mobile, is them rendering wiki article unreadable, therefore unuseable. Which is contrary to most of the foundational work he puts into making the wiki useful. Therefore, the wrap plugin ends up being a pain in the butt that he can't really fix since implementation is pretty out of his hands.

You can be well meaning, but from an It tech's perspective, still have no clue what you're on about or the scope of what you're really discussing.

I'm explaining this because Wes is kind of starting to sound like a broken record, and there's a reason why. From his point of view, there's not much more to say. He removed WRAP, some weren't happy, and against his better judgment he put it back... but from his point of view, we may be discussing polishing a turd.

So, yes, you're wrong. But it doesn't mean you cannot amount to anything constructive. Just show rather than tell. IT people aren't above being mollified if we're demonstrated something and shown that it works. It's just that generally, given our investment in our stuff, we tend to (rightly) think we know better how to take care of our babies.
 
Fred said:
So, yes, you're wrong. But it doesn't mean you cannot amount to anything constructive. Just show rather than tell. IT people aren't above being mollified if we're demonstrated something and show that it works. It's just that generally, given our investment in our stuff, we tend to (rightly) think we know better how to take care of our babies.
Click to expand...

I took the first step. A couple posts back I posted what I did to my faction page. It's a start in the right direction I feel but no one seems to notice. I mentioned it had 1 pixel of scroll or so on the chart, but the page is certainly 100% readable. Not a finished product, but a start, which is important.

I'm not going to go on this tirade of editing basically the entire wiki after developing layouts that, as I promised, look good AND work on mobile unless I have the support to do it. I'm trying to show rather that just tell Wes to make all these changes and work all these hours on SARP at my whim. I am personally offering my own time to do it instead. I'm hoping other people are willing to offer there time.

I have a plan of action for how to do it, I just don't want to fight a brick wall the entire time to do it when I am legitimately trying to make everyone as happy as possible, AND improve the image of the site.

No offense Fred, but it seems you didn't read what it was I was saying. So here are my suggestions in bullet point.

  • Make new page templates that work on mobile and look good.
  • Make everyone follow these templates.
  • Edit the wiki to make it uniform across the board.
  • I am willing to do this myself if I have to, just to end this fight over looks good and mobile friendly. We can have our cake and eat it too.
As a note, if Wes removes the wrap function, we are going to have to edit the entire wiki anyway. A LOT of pages use the wrap function.
 
The existing templates, even the older ones, already look good and work on mobile. The motto of Dokuwiki is "It's better when it's simple" and this applies to pages too.

Code: 
====== Page Title======
This is what any basic page should look like.

{{wiki:image.png|Photo of cute wiki page}}

===== History =====
Lorem ipsum

===== Details =====
Lorem ipsum

===== OOC Notes =====
Lorem ipsum
 
I would like to argue there is such thing as far to simple.

Why can't we look like this on the layout? It's "Simple" enough and works on mobile. It has a nice chart that tells you all the immediate information you need to know, TOC in a nice place, very wide UI for all the content. It looks good. It's simple. It would look AWESOME on the SARP theme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

Like I don't get why we need an entire wiki when we are going to have page templates that look like they were designed by the ultimate minimalist on a forum post only roleplay website. Like, I'll put the work in @Wes just say you'll let me put the work in.
 
Edto Xar'Sivaree said:
No offense Fred, but it seems you didn't read what it was I was saying.
Click to expand...
I read. I just probably didn't write what you wanted to read.

I'm personally not very wiki-savvy, so what you're doing from my perspective is great. But from the perspective of an IT guy that would happen to be in charge, there's reason to think you're wrong, and that's what I was trying to relate to you. I didn't expect you to like it.

Consider how Wes is being conservative and comes from a "if it's not broken, why fix it?" stance. He obviously likes the older stuff. So, this is a case of winning over someone whom was already happy with what is already there - it's not going to be easy to win him over.

Historically, on SARP, effort isn't necessarily equal to payoff. Effort, goodwill and passion for something can run smack into a wall and not go anywhere after all. Just know what you're getting into so that you don't regret your time investment.
 
What, specifically, are your suggestions? More use of tables/charts? Collapsed sections?
 
Tell me I can go and try to find a nice layout and you will give some leeway on the simplicity. I gave one suggestion and it looks good on mobile, I checked it on all my diices. It isn't perfect as it has a pixel or two scroll left and right but it's far from unreadable. I don't want to walk into this thinking anything I am going to present is going to get shot down simply because it isn't what is there. I will modify my own pages so no one has to worry about them, and I will find something that looks good on mobile and works.

Can you give me that at least?
 
Your efforts in the other thread completely disregard what I outlined in my OP as being rules that make sense for the wrap plugin.

It should be lower than the ToC and less than 200 px. Those are the two that stand out to me. What do you think about those rules, @Edto Xar'Sivaree?
 
I'm honestly not even sure what the issue is. My mobile device gives me no trouble when viewing the wiki.

What if this effects people viewing with their computers?
 
I'll make a thread once Wes is online for me to verify that he would like me to do it, but I couldn't agree more that we need a vote.
 
I mean if the majority of the site has an issue, let it be known. If they do I can adjust to the change, if not then it isn't broke and doesn't need to be fixed
 
This thread is about revising the style guide to include rules for using WRAP (which it certainly should if we have the plugin active). It's not supposed to be a continuation of the last thread.

I think there should certainly be a maximum size that infoboxes can be — as in how many cells appear in a row — and something about how the article must appear flawless to mobile screens in portrait mode.
 
Honestly, you should be able to correct the issue by adjusting the browser settings in your phone. Mine done it.

@Zack is our resident tech support sooooo
 
Honestly, you should be able to correct the issue by adjusting the browser settings in your phone. Mine done it.
Click to expand...
The site has to look good without users having to take any extra steps to make it work that way.

I agree with Raz.
 
Like I said, before, I'm not very wiki savvy, so, all those terms flying around about wraps are going over my head.

If anything, I'm more visual, so, @Ametheliana , I'd like to know:

ai.pinimg.com_736x_23_65_f0_2365f038d0d52c8654e772f5757437cf.jpg
Does this wrap adhere to the rules?


(I've been wanting to do this joke all day, don't hate me x_x)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top