Wiki Page is too narrow.

RandomFellow
edited January 2008 in Feature Requests

Comments

  • RandomFellow
    Posts: 3
    You can't even do something as basic as post a home-brewed class with spellcasting progression. That's enough of an irritation for me I'll probably go somewhere else. There isn't much point in having a campaign site of any kind, if you can't include all the relevant information in one place.

    http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/erth/wiki/campaign-web/aluran-arcanist

    Yes, I could throw in tons of white space so my tables are below your ads but I'm not going to do that.
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    bq. There isn’t much point in having a campaign site of any kind, if you can’t include all the relevant information in one place.

    Excuse me a moment of irritability, but what the heck? Would splitting it into two charts really have been that much of a hassle? One for the level progression, one for spell progression- it would have taken you less time to do that than it would have to have made this post.

    That said, would it be impossible to make it so the Wiki pages stretch to fit the information contained within?
  • RandomFellow
    Posts: 3
    Yes, it would when you have to do quite a few. As it is, I had to write an app to convert formats so I wouldn't need to revise the formats by hand (which would have increased the time even more). Converting page upon page of tables and text does take time.

    In addition, splitting the tables breaks it from 'standard' format.
  • photoneater
    photoneater
    Posts: 182
    bq. Yes, it would when you have to do quite a few

    You didn't state that initially. All you said was that you "can't" do something as simple as posting a home-brewed class with spellcasting progression.

    bq. In addition, splitting the tables breaks it from ‘standard’ format.

    The standard format isn't a matter of functionality, it's a cosmetic detail (one that isn't even followed uniformly in all d20 supplements. Look to any d20 game in which spellcasting isn't as prevalent, and you'll notice that spellcasting progression is always included in separate tables, much like the spells known per level charts are separated in core D&D books.). I don't know, I just don't see the point in being so negative and dismissive of the site in general over something as superfluous as this. I'm sorry for being short with you, but your tone in this post seemed like much less of a feature request and much more of a case of someone coming in here saying "This place blows, and here's why". There are going to be interface and usability issues at this stage, since it is only the site's beta. The developers and administrators have a lot on their plate, and they can't be expected to foresee every minor problem that could arise- so at least try to be understanding. Feedback is always welcome, but I just don't think the "fix this or I'll leave" sort of posts are very helpful. They just seem like subtle bullying at best.

    bq. You can’t even do something as basic as post a home-brewed class with spellcasting progression.

    Actually, you can very easily, and it's been done by several different campaigns. Granted, you may not be able to get amazingly complex with your charts (which is an understandably aggravating setback if you like a certain style of presentation), but the information is there, which is all you really need to present a class. So, maybe instead of stating it's impossible to use the site for something like this, it would be better to say it is difficult to make a lot of formatting embellishments with charts using the current settings. That said, I do think it would be a good idea to see if the wiki pages can't be made to expand to fit content. Right now, as it stands, it seems the only actual problem with your charts is that they go off the standard text area and into the advertisement field- something that could very easily compromise the usability of charts.
  • RandomFellow
    Posts: 3
    It is enough of an irritation for me to not use the site. Omitting the fact I wouldn't use this site without that feature would serve no useful purpose (beyond avoiding upsetting some thin-skinned fellow on the internet). If it is enough of an irritation for me, it is probably enough of an irritation for other people who wouldn't be bothered to say anything at all and just leave.

    Apparently being honest about things results in you taking it as an insult to this site/its userbase/etc. Much like the Perl userbase (or Ubuntu) pointing out even a minor thing is enough of an irritation for someone to go elsewhere results in an overblown reaction.

    Suffice to say, I'll go elsewhere for two reasons:
    1) Minor usability issues, while minor, are sufficiently irritating for me to want to use this site.
    2) Apparently negative feedback results in some random fellow taking it as an attack. If I wanted to state that this site blows and you are an idiot for using it, I would have been far more specific and far more detailed. I also wouldn't have put the post in the Feature Requests section of that site and only there.

    I didn't bother suggesting a solution since an obvious example of the problem should be sufficient for a simple fix (e.g. changing tower ads to banner ads, expanding the size of the wiki frame) to be formulated.
  • geekevolved
    geekevolved
    Posts: 75
    Your problem has merit for review(I'm not official, it just looks like something that needs to be looked at), but your wording and attitude leave something to be desired. Presentation is everything and on the internet even more so.
  • wyrmul
    wyrmul
    Posts: 36
    I agree with geekevolved, presenting your request for a feature in a combative tone is not the best way to approach and issue. But I agree that some way to change the width would be handy. The fixed 3 columns design, while very web2.0ish can be very limiting. Unfortunately I have no idea how one would implement a means to change that other than getting the ability to edit your page's stylesheet. Which is a little more direct control than I think the dev team is comfortable with.
  • Micah
    Micah
    Posts: 894
    We've played around with some dynamic layouts, but we've been busy with all sorts of stuff.

    Still, I have to stick up for all the great people here. Criticism is welcome, but the fact that there are so many great campaigns already here is proof that the site is not completely unusable. We're working on usability, but as they say, you can't please everyone all the time. At present, we're taking a "biggest bang for the buck" approach where we try to please as many people as possible. This usually means that people with very specific stylistic or usability requests get left out in the cold. We'll get to it when we can, but for now, we've got plenty on our plates.

    Thanks to all those who stepped in and tried to keep things civil.
  • kresnik_alchemist
    kresnik_alchemist
    Posts: 13
    In Micah's and the other programmers defense, I absolutely love this site, it allows me to keep track of things and adds a whole new element for my players. Yes, there are still things that I can't quite figure out how to make look just right, either by my lack of not knowing how to program it or the site isn't capable of allowing it to happen. Your always going to have someone who is a complete jerk and thinks that because its not perfect, I'll pack it up and leave. All I can say is keep up the good work, because I am sure there are more people on this site like me, than there are those who visit, like them.
  • RobJustice
    RobJustice
    Posts: 178
    I also found the pages to be a bit narrow.. of course I use a non-standard resolution and figured it was just me. But since other people have mentioned it, I'll throw my hat in the ring too.

    Also, kudos to Photoneater and geekevolved.
  • DMaple
    DMaple
    Posts: 63
    Yeah the usable section is only about 500 pixels or so wide. It makes reading text on-screen pretty easy, but limits graphics a bit. I wouldn't want to go much wider, but it does feel a little narrow. Of course if you do change it I'll have to go back and check all my formatting.... so I don't mind if it stays the same.
  • Charsen
    Charsen
    Posts: 85
    Looks like the width has been expanded! Don't know if it's permanent yet (rollback for this too?)... but I think it looks good so far! I'll have to play around with some of my layouts, which is also a good excuse to do another proof-read! :) Looks good, Micah & Ryan!
  • DMaple
    DMaple
    Posts: 63
    How many pixels wide is it now?
  • DMaple
    DMaple
    Posts: 63
    Answering my own question I think it seems to be about 730 pixels.
Sign In or Register to comment.

May 2022
Revenge on the Kraken's Bane

Read the feature post on the blog
Return to Obsidian Portal

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Discussions