From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Initial comments
I received the following from User:Allyunion on my talk page:
I just wanted to stay that it looks horribly uneven with the list of campuses on two lines, with the bottom line much much smaller than the top. The 6 campuses on the top, and the 4 campuses on the bottom made it at least a bit nicer. It just looks so... uneven to me with the 8 campuses on top and the 2 campuses on the bottom.
Perhaps it would be better to include a table within a table and put five campus on top and five campuses on the bottom? Right now, I think it looks messy. Not having it one line or not having it look even just doesn't really work.
I agree that it looks uneven and someone with the html skills should fix it, but we also have to take into account how it would look on smaller (eg 800 x 600 px) screens. --Jiang 21:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I have HTML skills, just lazy ^^;; - Allyunion 07:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki + HTML Table
Rather than editing the template itself and having disagreements over the look, I'll put my suggested change here:
Does this look fine? Allyunion 06:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki Only
[edit] HTML only
I put the three formats, the second one I just discovered recently how to do. The third one I just put it up for the heck of it. - Allyunion 06:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The options compared
(via edit conflict, written before you posted the differnt codes) I converted to a 800 x 600 screen and the options looked like this:
Image:UC temp test3.PNG
The old (current) version. Looks nice on the small screens, but has the problems you stated above for larger screens.
Image:UC temp test2.JPG
Your first new version. I initially reverted it because on my 1024x768 screen, it created two uneven blue bands on the sides of the UC seal, as opposed to the thin border pictured here and also visible for the old (current) version on my screen.
Image:UC temp test.JPG
Your proposal above. For small screens, the vertical expansion makes it rather ugly. For larger screens, the spacing is larger on top and uneven.
--Jiang 06:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 800 by 600 resolution
By the way, we can't always please everyone at every screensize. Granted, 800 X 600 is a worthy resolution to consider, but anything smaller, such as 640 X 480 isn't really worth considering. The majority of users I believe use 1024 X 768, unless they are old -- then they use 800 X 600. Under the 800 X 600 resolution, the current template fits on three lines, with Santa Cruz on the last line -- orphaned alone. I really think that the consideration for a 640 X 480 should not be a high priority in this case. There is about 35 pixels from the Template border of the article entry to the table border of the navigational menu on the left side. On the right side, there is about 132 pixels left under a 800 X 600 resolution. Besides, the only reason anyone uses a smaller resolution is because they can't read the text -- which means having the text small doesn't help at all. - Allyunion 06:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Looking it at 800 X 600
I'm using FireFox, under FireFox it's three lines...
[edit] Trying without a margin...
- Allyunion 06:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Much more spacing on the first row than the second. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Trying without center, and a set pixel size
- Allyunion 06:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- border around seal is fine, but links broken into two lines are harder too follow. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Let's try 4 campus, then 3, then 3...
- Allyunion 06:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- big chunk of white space underneath "Los Angeles". Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz are too close to tell the links apart. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki's tables aren't working for me... going to HTML
- Allyunion 07:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- uneven spacing, as above. im also getting two bands of blue next to the seal. --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Let's try 3, 3, then 4...
- Allyunion 07:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- spacing the line break issues, as above --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Okay... going for 3, 4, 3
- Allyunion 07:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Oops, let's make University of California two lines...
[edit] 4 UCs, 3 UCs, 3 UCs
- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 3 UCs, 4 UCs, 3 UCs
- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] 3 UCs, 3 UCs, 4 UCs
- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Revision comments
I think the 4, 3, 3 with a set width looks good. I used 485 px, which SHOULD work under a 640 X 480 resolution with no margin. Do you perfer it with a margin or without? It looks like it has enough spaces to use a margin, slightly.
- Allyunion 07:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Shrinking the table a bit, readding a bit of margin
Notes: Table is now set at 450px. This WELL should work under a 640 X 480, but my laptop doesn't support that resolution so I can't test that. I've added the style margin comment, but removed the style width comment in favor for a standard table width parameter since I'm using HTML code. Additionally, I should think the code should pass XHTML standards.
- Allyunion 07:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Restoring the code with the edits
Notes: Restoring the code to original format, with margin, centers, etc. By the way, div align tags are now favored over center tags.
- Allyunion 07:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The problem with all these variations is that the spacing is inconsistent, making the table look messy. A | mark works to separate adjacent links. I think by the looks of it, breaking into tables like this isn't going to work. How about making the "University of California" a horizontal bar on top, above the links? --Jiang 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Two more versions
[edit] University of California over the top
[edit] Over the bottom
[edit] Non-table version
[edit] Without tables
How's this?
It looks the same on 1024x768 and 800x600 screens (that is, two lines of almost equal length). --Jiang 06:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Although this might sound strange, I think "University of California" looks much better across the bottom as oppossed on top. -- Allyunion 23:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes...strange. I still prefer having it on top. Should "University of California" be left aligned or centered? --Jiang 02:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Leave it centered. If anyone complains, they'll discuss it here... hopefully. I think it looks much better than what is being used now. Maybe in a year, we'll revise it again. ^^;; -- Allyunion 11:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- I'd like you to clean up the code, for example:
-
- or, with <br> instead of the extra table row:
-
- Both proposals are without fixed pixel heights/widths, so that you can enlarge/diminish the text size without breaking the design. Regards, Fred Bradstadt 16:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Across the bottom
This is how I found the template a couple of days ago, and changed it; it looked like this: uctemplate.png. This design has problems:
- It seemed to be designed to have two rows, with a break separating them, but it's a fixed-width table. This is bound to break, and it did, with the first row wrapping a bit, then the br, then the second row.
- Even if it hadn't wrapped like that, the rows are not centered.
- The extra vertical bar at the end of the top row doesn't look good.
Hope you like the new version. --Yath 15:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] No objection...
If there is no objection, seeing as you haven't responded in awhile, I will now put up the new template. --Allyunion 06:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] No complaints?
Eh... I dunno, it's just I dislike the idea of the auto fit width to the image and text... --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
