Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)/L4s

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


So early on with this, there was an issue with the visual layout of the headers in that the font size for the L4s weren't small enough to distinguish them from L3s through just casual scanning. (Additionally, I've had the same problem with L4s and L5s.) So all the L4s were bumped up to L3s, the L3s bumped up to L2s, and the L2s bumped up to L1s.

There are three problems with this:

  • L4s are effectively useless. For the reasons expressed above, they would be omitted from all pages, not just the class pages.
  • The way L1s are used goes against Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
  • Without the L4s, we're limited to only five levels of headers, and for the most part we try to mimic the layout in WotC sourcebooks. However, their headers have six different levels (Chapter 10: Magic in the PHB is a good example of all six levels):
    1. Chapter titles: "Chapter 10: Magic."
    2. "Casting Spells," "Spell Descriptions," "Arcane Spells," "Divine Spells," and "Special Abilities." Also, each class starts with this header.
    3. Under Spell Descriptions, "Name," "School (Subschool)," "[Descriptor]," "Level," etc. Each skill and each feat use this header.
    4. Under School (Subschool), "Abjuration," "Conjuration," "Divination," "Evocation," etc. This is the level for the "Class Features" header.
    5. Under Conjuration, "Calling," "Creation," "Healing," "Summoning," and "Teleportation." Each individual class feature uses this header except subsets of class features (see next header).
    6. Under Aiming a Spell > Effect, "Ray" and "Spread." All the sub-features under the rogue's "Special Abilities" class feature use this header.

My solution is to change the CSS so that the L4s can be distinguished from the L3s and L5s through casual scanning of the page, and knock all the L1s, L2s, and L3s back down again to L2s, L3s, and L4s. Change L4s to use the same font as L3s now use, change L3s to look like L2s, L2s to L1s, and have the font-size of L1s increased just enough to differentiate them from what the new L2s. I feel that now's to time to address this, otherwise we run the risk of having to change all the class pages all over again.

The change will help the site both adhere to wikipedia standards and mirror the layout of WotC sourcebooks without compromising the visual effects for which we're aiming. —Sledged (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2007 (MDT)

While I don't think that Wikipedia should be the bible of how to write a wiki, I think you make good points. I agree that we should change the CSS, but as someone said elsewhere, local formatting is ugly while styles are elegant. I think we should check them after the change to see that they're visually distinguishable as well as visually appealing.
Not knowing enough about CSS and such, I don't know if this will have any other resounding effects on other pages, but I think we should check for that too if possible. --Armond (talk/contribs) 11:50, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
I agree that eliminating a level of headers is unacceptable, and using L1's indiscriminately instead of L2's is also unacceptable. However, I don't like the idea of making L3's look like L2's, in that it would make it too difficult to distinguish major sections. –Cúthalion (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
As it stands now, do you find it difficult to distinguish L1 sections from L2 sections? —Sledged (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
It's hard for me to answer that, since L1's are so rare (as they should be). Can you point me somewhere where the headings were all promoted? –Cúthalion (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
Here's a visualization of what I had in mind. Another alternative is this. —Sledged (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
So the bottom-bordered L3s are too indistinguishable from the L2s, and I don't like the bold L3 alternative, nor the italicized L4s. So here's yet another option. —Sledged (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2007 (MDT)
L1s on this wiki are very common. They're not rare at all. Every user class has the class's name in an L1 heading. Not to mention that every page title (such as this page's title) is an L1. —Sledged (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
I should have been more specific. It's rare to see multiple L1's on a page with even more L2's and L3's. One L1 at the top of the page is hardly going to be confused with an L2 (or if it is, it won't matter). –Cúthalion (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
However, I wasn't thinking so much of visual distinction as conceptual. An L2 visually sets off three or four (or whatever) major sections of a page. If L3's have the same visual characteristics, it tells the reader this page has (potentially) dozens of major sections, at once overwhelming the senses and diluting the effect of the L2's.
Of course, I'm saying all this off the cuff and hypothetically. I haven't seen pages where this is actually practiced, nor read any commentaries of it.
Incidentally, I don't always obey the L1 dictum on WikiRPS. I'll sometimes use L1's to denote major divisions, as an alternative to breaking a page into multiple pages. For instance, when multiple rule variants are available, I'll make each one an L1. I've also been using an L1 to set off examples, and to set off the page lists at the end of a category page. I'm not certain this is the best way to do things, but I think I like the effect so far. See, for example, Character points and Category:Skill.
To answer your previous question, yes, this can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish L1's from L2's. That's my biggest reservation with this approach. –Cúthalion (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
I like Sledged's first example (this one). --Green Dragon 10:20, 28 May 2007 (MDT)

L4 italic[edit]

Alternative suggestion: Use the default formatting for all the headers, except make L4 italic. This makes L4 easy to distinguish from both L3 & L5, without causing undue confustion. See L4s/Italic.

I would actually prefer to italicize L3, instead, but that wouldn't help with L4 vs. L5. –Cúthalion (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2007 (MDT)

It might also help to reduce the size of L4 by 1px. –Cúthalion (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2007 (MDT)

Italic L4s is visually appealing and distinguishable. I'd have to see an example of 1px less to really make a decision on it, if you can do that. --Armond (talk/contribs) 09:04, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
Hmm. Based on Sledged's recent post, I can probably figure out how to do that. Stay tuned. –Cúthalion (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (MDT)
Personally, I think having L4's italic is weird looking. I go for Sledged's first example (this one). Anyway, should this be put to the vote or can we all decide on one to use? --Green Dragon 10:19, 28 May 2007 (MDT)

Evaluation Page[edit]

I've knocked down the L1s–L3s to L2s–L4s in the evaluation page to reflect this discussion. —Sledged (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2007 (MDT)

Personal tools
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors