User talk:FeRDNYC/TestMonster

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Inconsistent infobox widths

An early observation, with devices I have on hand right now: the widths of the monster infobox and town infobox are mismatched. I think making infobox width consistent across different infobox types will help with a consistent multi-screen experience. Now, for example, because the Town infobox is a little too narrow, the current CSS leads to better behaviour by setting the infobox width to 100%, whereas with your clever hack it doesn't fill the width of the screen on my mobile device. By contrast, the Monsters infobox, slightly wider, has apparent 100% width on both current CSS and your hack :) --Djonni (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... OK, well, the infoboxes aren't intended to necessarily fill the screen width. That's kind of the point of this, that they won't be forced full-width anymore. So, define "better" behavior by forcing the width? Just that it fills the width of the display? With this change, many infoboxes won't fill the entire width of many screens, and that's OK. (Or, it's exactly as I expected things to be, anyway.) They should, however, be shown centered on the screen with no text flowing around them, when they're near the full width.
The infoboxes are different widths, and always have been (they're the same widths in the unmodified versions), and at least in my view, that's not wrong. I could make the {{Town}} width the same as the {{Monster}}} width, and they might _happen_ to show up full-width on your display, but unless I'm wrong that's merely a coincidence. On my Galaxy S6's screen, they both already show up as basically full-width. (That's likely because, while the mobile view won't expand smaller boxes, it will constrain wider ones, so {{Monster}} is being reduced in width to fit my screen. But a higher-resolution display might show neither one occupying the full width. And if I'm understanding the issue correctly, that'll always be the case on some device or other, no matter what size we make some or all of them.
(Keep in mind, also, that you'll never see two infoboxes on the same page except in my contrived example, which only came about because I was too lazy to make two example pages.)
While the infobox sizes could be standardized just for the sake of standardizing them, I don't know that I understand the benefit to doing that. And I'm reluctant to force a certain size when the information density varies. Some boxes contain more information, some less. Some boxes are wider, some narrower. I guess I'm trying to understand why it would be bad that {{Town}} is narrower than your screen width? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I just experimentally lowered the {{Monster}} box width to 20em, to match the {{Town}} box. Can you confirm that now, neither of them fill the width of your screen? If so, that's the intended outcome, and we shouldn't be misled by the fact that the previous 25em width for {{Monster}} happened roughly match the width of your screen.
Assuming I'm right and now neither box fills your screen width, I guess then we can discuss whether there's really any point to standardizing the widths, when they won't have any real relationship to the screen size. (Keeping in mind, again, that you'll never see two on the same page, so normally it's very hard to compare the relative widths.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
(Or, if they both _do_ fill the screen width when they're the same size, then that would mean the browser is zooming the page width to match the tables... so there's really no reason to standardize them, because it will do that regardless what width the infobox is, as long as it's the only one on the page.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, reading this and the talk on the Main Page I understand better what you're achieving with this change and it makes more sense! Yes, I see that forced 100% widths is part of the problem. The spurious right-side column you mentioned is very common on town infoboxes on mobile in particular.
Would it be feasible to turn the proof-of-concept into a test template for town infoboxes that we could try in the wild, on a limited (1 or 2) number of town pages, for a real use-case test? I realise you're reluctant to create unnecessary subpages under your user page since, as we've noted, you can't delete them when finished with them. Maybe it's worth it to shanghai an unused page in the template: namespace? --Djonni (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We could, but... well, each of the infoboxes needs to be edited separately, since they don't use any common template code like on Wikipedia, so honestly I was thinking rather than jump through all those hoops, we'd just pick one of the real templates and experiment on it.

I'm not particularly concerned if all of the articles of a certain type looking a bit different from the rest of the wiki for a few days (on mobile, since done right this change is invisible in the default desktop skin), since we already know it's not going to be a horror show that renders the whole thing unusable or anything.

Will people notice? I hope so, that's the goal! Ideally, they'll notice the change and go, "Wow, that's so much better." Though, probably, most won't notice a thing. But I figured we'd run like that and then, assuming there isn't some massive backlash, migrate the rest of the infoboxes to match.

I mean, if we want to start small there's always Template:Artifact which is only used on nine articles. Or Template:Pet, which appears on fewer than thirty.

If we're feeling really timid we can always start with Template:Beastie, an infobox that's used on exactly one article on the entire wiki! (Which wouldn't make it much of a test at all, actually, so I'd encourage a slightly more ambitious trial.)

But I don't see any need to create further test pages (beyond the one I already have), when we have a whole wiki full of pages that we can get far better real-world testing from. What's the worst-case scenario? (Whatever it is, even if that comes to pass, a revert is only a click away.)

(BTW, I am genuinely curious about the width question, now that both infoboxes on my test page are the same width. Does the page now get zoomed on your phone so that they fill the screen width? Or are they now both narrower than the screen, and it was just a coincidence that 25em width happens to match your display?) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, the real world has been kicking my ass lately and I've not been around as much!
The live trial seems to be the right approach, and you're right, no reason to be too timid about it. Seems reasonable to me to start rolling it out one template at a time. Pets or artifacts seem a good start too.
I can't now, but in the morning I'll look properly at the width-adjusted infoboxes and report back! --Djonni (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Good luck IRL, no rush on anything here. It'll all be here waiting for you. 😁 -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I Announced over on the Talk page for Main, Template:Pet is now updated, and all transcluding Pet articles have the new infobox. Now we wait to see if anyone notices (a) my post, and (b) the change. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)