User talk:It's dot com/The Stick makeover - Revision history

Stux: reply for Dot com

2007-03-25T05:45:22Z

reply for Dot com

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:45, 25 March 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? My aim was to make the shortest distance from the "The Stick" link to the quick menu, the better to use the menu. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? My aim was to make the shortest distance from the "The Stick" link to the quick menu, the better to use the menu. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
		+	::I dunno. Yes the first three links and all the others are first and foremost in the page, making them pretty easy to reach, but I'm still not comfortable with all that being first. I think it takes away from the article having the links first and the introduction second. To me, this is one of those cases where form ''is'' the function. Also, I tried the page at 800x600 and you can't see both sections at once. You'll either see the intro, or the links. So it would be weird having a quick box with no intro or an intro with no visible quick box. I dunno. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's dot com: clarify

2007-03-24T20:44:19Z

clarify

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:44, 24 March 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)		:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)	+	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? My aim was to make the shortest distance from the "The Stick" link to the quick menu, the better to use the menu. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's dot com: function over form

2007-03-24T16:37:49Z

function over form

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 24 March 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)		:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
		+	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stux: comment on order

2007-03-24T15:48:31Z

comment on order

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 24 March 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::I think this looks a lot better, but there's still some things that we could fix up. Like I said on [[Hrwiki talk: The Stick]], the background of The Cheat is not the least bit necessary. We should get an image of the stick and zoom in on the stick, then upload that image and put it behind the template you made for useful wiki links. Also, we should put all of the content on the page inside this new background. Sounds good to you? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)		::I think this looks a lot better, but there's still some things that we could fix up. Like I said on [[Hrwiki talk: The Stick]], the background of The Cheat is not the least bit necessary. We should get an image of the stick and zoom in on the stick, then upload that image and put it behind the template you made for useful wiki links. Also, we should put all of the content on the page inside this new background. Sounds good to you? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)		:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
		+	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stux: comment/reviving?

2006-12-27T20:07:15Z

comment/reviving?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:07, 27 December 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:Um, okay. That's probably because I started work on it nearly two months ago. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		:Um, okay. That's probably because I started work on it nearly two months ago. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	::I think this looks a lot better, but there's still some things that we could fix up. Like I said on [[Hrwiki talk: The Stick]], the background of The Cheat is not the least bit necessary. We should get an image of the stick and zoom in on the stick, then upload that image and put it behind the template you made for useful wiki links. Also, we should put all of the content on the page inside this new background. Sounds good to you? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)		::I think this looks a lot better, but there's still some things that we could fix up. Like I said on [[Hrwiki talk: The Stick]], the background of The Cheat is not the least bit necessary. We should get an image of the stick and zoom in on the stick, then upload that image and put it behind the template you made for useful wiki links. Also, we should put all of the content on the page inside this new background. Sounds good to you? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
		+	:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Will at 16:54, 19 June 2006

2006-06-19T16:54:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 19 June 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	It's dot com: This redesign doesn't address my issue earlier about a background change to fallow the [[Main Page]]'s new backgrounds {{User:Dacheatbot/sig}} 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		It's dot com: This redesign doesn't address my issue earlier about a background change to fallow the [[Main Page]]'s new backgrounds {{User:Dacheatbot/sig}} 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
	:Um, okay. That's probably because I started work on it nearly two months ago. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		:Um, okay. That's probably because I started work on it nearly two months ago. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
		+	::I think this looks a lot better, but there's still some things that we could fix up. Like I said on [[Hrwiki talk: The Stick]], the background of The Cheat is not the least bit necessary. We should get an image of the stick and zoom in on the stick, then upload that image and put it behind the template you made for useful wiki links. Also, we should put all of the content on the page inside this new background. Sounds good to you? — {{User: Seriously/sig}} 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's dot com: reply for Dacheatbot

2006-06-09T00:03:56Z

reply for Dacheatbot

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:03, 9 June 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine using normal text size. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine using normal text size. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	It's dot com: This redesign doesn't address my issue earlier about a background change to fallow the [[Main Page]]'s new backgrounds {{User:Dacheatbot/sig}} 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)		It's dot com: This redesign doesn't address my issue earlier about a background change to fallow the [[Main Page]]'s new backgrounds {{User:Dacheatbot/sig}} 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
		+	:Um, okay. That's probably because I started work on it nearly two months ago. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dacheatbot at 00:01, 9 June 2006

2006-06-09T00:01:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 9 June 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::They might have their text set to a smaller size. When I put my text one size down his head gets cut off for me too. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		:::They might have their text set to a smaller size. When I put my text one size down his head gets cut off for me too. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine using normal text size. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine using normal text size. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
		+	It's dot com: This redesign doesn't address my issue earlier about a background change to fallow the [[Main Page]]'s new backgrounds {{User:Dacheatbot/sig}} 00:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's dot com: more

2006-06-08T23:48:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 8 June 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::His head is cut off for me too, but overall it looks fine. --{{User:Garfunkel/sig}} 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		::His head is cut off for me too, but overall it looks fine. --{{User:Garfunkel/sig}} 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::They might have their text set to a smaller size. When I put my text one size down his head gets cut off for me too. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		:::They might have their text set to a smaller size. When I put my text one size down his head gets cut off for me too. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-	::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)	+	::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine using normal text size. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's dot com: comment

2006-06-08T23:48:19Z

comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 8 June 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::His head is cut off for me too, but overall it looks fine. --{{User:Garfunkel/sig}} 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		::His head is cut off for me too, but overall it looks fine. --{{User:Garfunkel/sig}} 23:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
	:::They might have their text set to a smaller size. When I put my text one size down his head gets cut off for me too. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)		:::They might have their text set to a smaller size. When I put my text one size down his head gets cut off for me too. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
		+	::::That must be it. I just checked it in Firefox and IE using MonoBook with a screen width of 1280 pixels and it looks fine. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:45, 25 March 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? My aim was to make the shortest distance from the "The Stick" link to the quick menu, the better to use the menu. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? My aim was to make the shortest distance from the "The Stick" link to the quick menu, the better to use the menu. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
		+	::I dunno. Yes the first three links and all the others are first and foremost in the page, making them pretty easy to reach, but I'm still not comfortable with all that being first. I think it takes away from the article having the links first and the introduction second. To me, this is one of those cases where form ''is'' the function. Also, I tried the page at 800x600 and you can't see both sections at once. You'll either see the intro, or the links. So it would be weird having a quick box with no intro or an intro with no visible quick box. I dunno. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:44, 24 March 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)		:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)	+	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? My aim was to make the shortest distance from the "The Stick" link to the quick menu, the better to use the menu. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 24 March 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)		:::I hadn't seen the makeover until now, and although I was a bit hesitant of the new quickbox at first, it's growing on me, it's less cluttered. Hmmm. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 20:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
	I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)		I like that with the quickmenu on top, items of significant importance get prominence, but beyond that, I like having the quick menu at the bottom, to me it looks better. Isn't it sad that I'm going for looks first? But I guess they're important too! ;) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
		+	:Okay, but in terms of usefulness to you and the average user, what do you think? — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)