Thread:Hackey5/@comment-4189499-20150409024114/@comment-4189499-20150411063855

Hackey5 wrote: Everyone seems to like Chrome for all the same reasons, yet, wouldn't it be that much more convenient to have the URL always visible and the search term preserved between searches? That kind of individuality after all the popular browsers ditched the dual bars is certainly something I respect the Firefox browser for. The URL is always visible in full, and you can see a lot more of it in Chrome than in Firefox because the bar is longer, since you don't have to squish another bar in there, and as for preserving search terms, that's done anyway when using Google so no problemo. There is literally no point having separate bars, and having just one was one of the elements I loved when first moving to Chrome after using IE (back when Chrome was still the new kid on the block). It saves space without compromising on usability. That's not to mention the fact that Firefox also squeezes an extra 5 icons beside its two bars compared to Chrome, wasting even more space. You also don't get as good an experience dragging tabs around into new windows etc, and you can't customise how it looks, and I still haven't worked out where they hide the version number, which is important when sending in bug reports.

The content body background opacity was specifically chosen so it sits midway between a transparent frame (noting the border outline) and frosted glass. Its contrast I think is fine, but among the aspects I'd preferably change, it'd probably just be the background image itself, into a larger size and softer gradient as you're saying. You get used to it pretty fast. I might make a poll on the background elements, actually. You may get used to it pretty fast, but if it's not immediately easy on the eyes, you will be losing readers before they have a chance to get used to it. First impressions are really the only impression that matters on your website. You need to wow users when they first arrive so they stay and eventually become contributors, but the moment you've lost them, they ain't coming back. Ease of readability is paramount, because if people can't comfortably read your information straight out, they won't bother trying and will go elsewhere, and most importantly will be put off from using your wiki again because they'll have the idea that it's hard to read stuck in their minds.

To get an idea of what I mean, have a look at w:c:hitchhikers:Vogon poetry which I looked up earlier today. While their background looks lovely, try reading the text which is directly over the image of the people on the asteroid. Notice how distracting it is how the background constantly changes, especially compared to sections of the same page which aren't as busy. Now, would you want to keep browsing pages of that wiki, or would you want to go somewhere that is less distracting? While this wiki isn't as busy in the background, the very low contrast of text to background is equally as annoying, and a colour contrast checker has proved that it simply isn't good enough, especially for people with poorer eyesight. If you want people to make the effort to contribute to your wiki, you have to reduce the effort they need to exert to enjoy your wiki. As a long time user of your wiki, maybe the background does look fine to you, however to a new person such as myself, it is one of the first aspects that stands out to me, and even if I had an interest in the topic, I wouldn't stay. You need to either change the background image to be of a consistently lighter colour, or change it to be a consistently darker colour and make the text lighter, or you need to increase the opacity of the content area so the gradient doesn't interfere with the text on the page.

Well, I made a vast template update and corrected a great heap of code. Thanks for your advice, although I've still got a long way to go! However, I would advise against using external documentation for a number of reasons. Plainly, it creates additional pages to have to deal with, it divides the description/syntax from the template itself and therefore can't simultaneously be edited, and it makes category management far more tedious (a specific case being if ever a need arises to rename categories, where it prevents a useful JS tool from working properly). As you have indicated, it serves to understand how templates work in order to achieve optimal usage. If transcluding documentation from a sub page is so detrimental, then why do all the big wikis, such as Wikipedia, Memory Alpha, Tardis Data Core, Disney Wiki, Elder Scrolls Wiki, and Candy Crush Saga Wiki to name a few, all transclude their documentation from the subpage? I want you to look at the Candy Crush Saga Wiki link in particular to demonstrate why separate documentation is better. Look at just how much source code there is in that infobox. That's a lot of source code. Now look at how much there is in the documentation. Not as much, but still quite a reasonable length. Imagine how much harder it would be to edit either with so much extra code tagged on to the end. I can tell you; it's much harder, and you're much more likely to mess something up accidentally. Separating them makes life so much easier, and it doesn't impact the functioning of anything. Yes, you heard me right. To categorise both the template and the documentation, just put the category in the documentation and it will be on both pages. It then takes an equal amount of effort to change categories, a task which is best accomplished via a bot. If you understand how transcluding the documentation works, you would understand that there shouldn't be any negative effects on any of your JS from separating it, and it can even be easier to edit the documentation as you update the template by having the two open side by side in separate windows, rather than having to constantly scroll up and down the page. While it doesn't make much difference for the pages you have already moved the documentation on, don't bother about moving the documentation on the rest of the pages, and on any new templates try and create the documentation separately to create a consistent look for your documentation across the wiki. You can even alter Template:Documentation to change how the documentation is displayed! It's just bonus after bonus after bonus!

One other thing, would you know of any JS tools which might be helpful? While I know loads about CSS, wikitext, templates, and the like, I'm still a relative beginner with JS and am just teaching myself at the moment, which is going rather slowly as I also have to learn Java, Python, SQL, and command line at the same time due to outside influences. However, if I come across anythiong good, I'll make sure to let you know!