Difference between revisions of "Talk:StartingPoints"
m (Shadowmaster moved page Talk:Main Page to Talk:StartingPoints over redirect: Undo that mess, it was a bad idea) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == Narrow edit box in | + | == Narrow edit box in glamdrol skin == |
I was editing some pages before, and somehow it felt extremely cumbersome. Then I went to wikipedia, and there it felt normal again. The reason I discovered is simple: Here, the edit box is only a tine little box in the middle of the page with a huge border left and right, while on wikipedia it always adjusts to use the full width. (Here it has less than 50%.) Can you change this? Maybe could make it honor the preferences checkbox "edit box has full width", as well as the "edit cols" - both are ignored by the default theme. | I was editing some pages before, and somehow it felt extremely cumbersome. Then I went to wikipedia, and there it felt normal again. The reason I discovered is simple: Here, the edit box is only a tine little box in the middle of the page with a huge border left and right, while on wikipedia it always adjusts to use the full width. (Here it has less than 50%.) Can you change this? Maybe could make it honor the preferences checkbox "edit box has full width", as well as the "edit cols" - both are ignored by the default theme. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: It uses 100% of the size here. What browser/resolution are you using? Can you take a screenshot? --[[User:Jorda|Jorda]] 20:46, 16 August 2005 (CEST) | : It uses 100% of the size here. What browser/resolution are you using? Can you take a screenshot? --[[User:Jorda|Jorda]] 20:46, 16 August 2005 (CEST) | ||
| − | :: Sure, it's below. Browser is Firefox 1.0.6. | + | :: Sure, it's below. Browser is Firefox 1.0.6. [http://www.nongnu.org/campgen/data/Screenshot.png Screenshot]. |
| − | http://www.nongnu.org/campgen/data/Screenshot.png | + | |
| + | ::: It would be good to have a larger screen to fix this... Anyway, can you tell if it is better if you use Ctrl++? Does it scale? --[[User:Jorda|Jorda]] 22:15, 20 August 2005 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::: Yes, it does scale with Ctrl++. Still, with the monobook theme, it works as it should without Ctrl++. But I think I see the problem.. the border is not defined just for the edit box, but this skin makes the whole page have those borders :/ Now, personally, I see no reason why someone would use a big window to view the wiki and then have big empty borders - but, in case this is part of the skin's design, I will now just stay with monobook. I can try to submit a small CSS change to the monobook skin so that it displays a Wesnoth icon and the links from the top-bar. --[[User:Allefant|Allefant]] 22:43, 20 August 2005 (CEST) | ||
== Missing icon in monobook theme == | == Missing icon in monobook theme == | ||
| Line 15: | Line 18: | ||
I have no idea what load it puts on the server, so it may be a bad idea - but picture upload would be nice. I could have made the above one display as a thumbnail then :) And I can also think of some other pages where screenshots might be nice. And in the GraphicLibrary, could replace dead links. | I have no idea what load it puts on the server, so it may be a bad idea - but picture upload would be nice. I could have made the above one display as a thumbnail then :) And I can also think of some other pages where screenshots might be nice. And in the GraphicLibrary, could replace dead links. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Heading/subheading Layout == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I wanted to see what it would look like going from L3 to L4 on the subheadings. Although it is a logical break (not using the next available heading level), I thought the subheadings looked too much like the section headings. Feel free to change it back, but I think it looks better now. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 15:55, 9 September 2005 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 03:07, 16 October 2013
Contents
Narrow edit box in glamdrol skin
I was editing some pages before, and somehow it felt extremely cumbersome. Then I went to wikipedia, and there it felt normal again. The reason I discovered is simple: Here, the edit box is only a tine little box in the middle of the page with a huge border left and right, while on wikipedia it always adjusts to use the full width. (Here it has less than 50%.) Can you change this? Maybe could make it honor the preferences checkbox "edit box has full width", as well as the "edit cols" - both are ignored by the default theme.
- It uses 100% of the size here. What browser/resolution are you using? Can you take a screenshot? --Jorda 20:46, 16 August 2005 (CEST)
- Sure, it's below. Browser is Firefox 1.0.6. Screenshot.
- It would be good to have a larger screen to fix this... Anyway, can you tell if it is better if you use Ctrl++? Does it scale? --Jorda 22:15, 20 August 2005 (CEST)
- Yes, it does scale with Ctrl++. Still, with the monobook theme, it works as it should without Ctrl++. But I think I see the problem.. the border is not defined just for the edit box, but this skin makes the whole page have those borders :/ Now, personally, I see no reason why someone would use a big window to view the wiki and then have big empty borders - but, in case this is part of the skin's design, I will now just stay with monobook. I can try to submit a small CSS change to the monobook skin so that it displays a Wesnoth icon and the links from the top-bar. --Allefant 22:43, 20 August 2005 (CEST)
Missing icon in monobook theme
If I switch to the monobook theme, the editbox problem above is solved. But maybe there should be a small wesnoth icon in the corner instead of a big empty space? :) (And I like the glamdrum skin more, it just has some usability problems yet for me)
Picture upload
I have no idea what load it puts on the server, so it may be a bad idea - but picture upload would be nice. I could have made the above one display as a thumbnail then :) And I can also think of some other pages where screenshots might be nice. And in the GraphicLibrary, could replace dead links.
Heading/subheading Layout
I wanted to see what it would look like going from L3 to L4 on the subheadings. Although it is a logical break (not using the next available heading level), I thought the subheadings looked too much like the section headings. Feel free to change it back, but I think it looks better now. --Scott 15:55, 9 September 2005 (CEST)