Talk:List of Lonelygirl15 videos/redesign

From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Yikes, that is not working, especially the TOC. I think floating it is not a good idea. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 19:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

The TOC is temporary until Owen added the necessary CSS to get Template:HoverTOC working. Pretending the TOC isn't there, what doesn't work?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 19:36, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Other than that, I'd say it looks pretty good. The only suggestion I'd offer is a slight one: in the section that pops up, could you make the text wrap around the picture instead of the picture hanging on the left side with a bunch of white space? That ought to be an easy fix, and would make the look more in line with the main page style, perhaps. Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention before: the background blue is not a perfect match with your banner, but that also ought to be an easy fix. (Edit again to add: Oops, no it seems to be a faint gray line in the graphic; was that intentional?) -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 20:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Actually, that was the original setting, and I consciously coded it to not do that anymore - it looked like [expletive deleted]. Keep in mind that, with the TOC gone, the text has twice as much room to expand; also, in my tests, it was mostly a single line ending up below the image, which was why it looked so bad. That is not a no, more of a request to postpone the decision until the TOC is gone and/or more descriptions were added, so you can see the text flowing without restrictions.
[REMOVED - Owen added the code in the meantime]
The blue, well...are you looking through IE? 'cause on FF, at least on my screen, it's a perfect match. Although I did see in IE what you mean, there's no way around this...the color will always be off for someone. The color I chose, however, is the one told to me by Photoshop when I color-picked the large blue area in the graphic.
The "grey line" is part of the original LG15 header graphic, while the part below is just plain blue...a small part is kinda conflicting there. So no, it's not intentional, I just hoped nobody would notice :P I'll fix it as the last thing. (Remind me of it.)
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
P.S.: Waaaaah! Evil editing conflicts! Sudden edits mid-edit!
P.P.S.: Don't interpret my reply as an unwillingness to change anything...I'm just trying to explain why I did it the way I did it.
I don't see the difference in the colors... OwenIsCool 21:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I just re-uploaded the header image, and while I did get rid of the "grey line", I accidently included a that darn star in the image...since it took me several looks to actually realize it was there, I assume it doesn't particularly destroy the image, but I'd still like know what you guys think...keep or kill?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 22:41, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
The colors actually looked fine on my work computer, it was an optical illusion caused by the grey line. However, on my home computer, the page looks awful, and I don't know why. It's possible it has something to do with my dialup connection in an odd way. (You know, compressed graphics or who knows what?) -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 22:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
It looks great in Firefox, but is hurting in my IE. Does anyone have safari? I have no access to server log information, but we should have a proportional number on Macs. And a photoshop tip: the coloring should be an easy fix -- in photoshop, don't use the color pick, but manually set that background color to #134b9c and then instead of saving the way you regularly do, you need to hit "save for web". This is how we made it so the images on the main page don't mismatch. --JayHenry 23:42, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I didn't set the background color in photoshop at all...I just looked at it via color pick in order to set it as a bg color for the table (iow, I selected it once and copy-pasted the hex value). And I actually saved it with indexed colors, so I'm confident the colors got preserved correctly. (Which is kinda proven by the fact that both image and background match on FF.) Thank you anyway :)
Going back to earlier issues, how do you guys like the page as a whole and the slide out divs now that the TOC is out of the picture? And what about the star? Should I leave it in or not?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 23:51, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
If it works on the Main Page I'm unsure why you think it's impossible for it to work here. And yeah, IE sucks, but it's what most people use, so we can't go to an option that doesn't load well or color match in IE. This redesign right now is def better in Firefox, but worse in IE. --JayHenry 00:00, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
if you look at the recent discussion on the main page the images there are set to #0F4C95, which OwenIsCool said he is going to make the official blue background color. For consistency that should be the color here too. Misty 01:14, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Changed it...but now the color is off in both browsers. (And that's actually not true - the color used on the main page, at least right now, is #194B95)
@JayHenry: After telling you for an hour how much sh*t "Safe for Web" is and how it's nothing but a front end for Index Colors for those too afraid to touch that "technical looking" option in the edit before, I just proved and disproved myself at the same time: Looks like the first color in the index isn't necessarily the main color, so that part of my rant is void - however, the main color chosen by Safe for Web is...exactly the same as before. So, while Safe for Web doesn't automatically f*ck up the colors as I assumed (although I did find the slide to do that), it doesn't do anything I didn't do myself before, and it will not fix the situation.
In addition, it seems like the only "safe for web" color in that range is #003399, so not even that colorspace is availale as a fallback. about whoever saved the images on the main page grabs my header and saves it for web? Maybe that helps?
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 08:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I sampled the color, and I came up with #0e4093, but when I tested it, although it looked better, it was not a match in Firefox. IE looks good though. I guess there is an issue of browser dependency. (Oh, and Renegade? Yes, I am, and I don't even follow OpAphid, so go figure.) -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)