MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css/Archive 1

message: I have found the tabs to be extremely confusing. It has taken me 2 days to finally figure out that the leftmost tab is more or less randomly labeled (ok, ok, I know there's logic behind it, but it took me 2 days to figure it out--sort of--). Some of the labels used are not consistent with standard conventions. And the behavior isn't always consistent with standard conventions.
* The "edit" tab should be changed to be the "edit this page" tab. Please. -- The Anome 18:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: + is for posting a comment, view source is for protected pages. I am not sure there is a problem with these. Dori | Talk
Most of this isn't changed in the stylesheet.
#"Message" is what MediaWiki pages are called instead of articles. Suggest changes at MediaWiki:Nstab-mediawiki.
#"About" is the current name for the Wikipedia namespace. Suggest changes at MediaWiki talk:Nstab-wp
#Regarding behavior of tabs - they are not really tabs. They are links to separate pages.
#The "+" is a link to "post a comment"
#"View Source" is what you see on protected pages. All pages in the MediaWiki namespace are now protected.
#Pop-up help messages for talk pages can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-talk and MediaWiki talk:Talkpage
#The "You can edit this page" can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-edit
#"Past versions of this page" can be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Tooltip-history
Angela. 17:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Ok, I wasn't saying they shouldn't not look like tabs, just saying that there isn't a way to make them behave like tabs because they're not tabs. This is beyond the scope of changing the stylesheet. Perhaps a [http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=34373&atid=411195&set=custom&_assigned_to=0&_status=1&_category=100&_group=100&order=open_date&sort=DESC&offset=0
F sourceforge request] would be better. I disagree everything should be done on this page. Changing the interface text is not the same as changing the stylesheet. It will be a lot easier to do if separate discussions are kept on the correct talk pages. Angela. 20:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabs at top of page body 

message: What we're doing currently:
* we use font size keywords (x-small) on the body to establish a minimum font size of 9px (see ). This keeps the font size constant if the user configured it much smaller than 16px (the IE/win default that >85% of all users are forced to use).
* Then we scale those 9px up to a sane base font size
* Result: about 11px font size if browser setting < 14px
* full scaling if font size is >= 16px
==== Initial setup ====
Keyword basesize, 123% Verdana/Bitstream Vera Sans/sans-serif
==== Current setup ====
Only sans-serif specified (defaults to Arial in IE), else the same. Arial is harder to read for a given nominal size, appears at least 10% smaller. Certainly needs compensation if kept, but those using Verdana would have too big fonts then.
Same in Firefox linux, default font for sans-serif is Bitstream Vera Sans:
==== Sans-serif, 127% instead of 123% ====
This is my proposal if we should keep the sans-serif/Arial setting
==== No font-size, sans-serif family ====
No font size specified at all, browser setting is used
==== Browser settings for both font size and family ====
'Medium' font size in IE (can't be adjusted apart from those larger/smaller steps)
-- Gabriel Wicke 14:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details and screenshots 

message: 'Medium' font size in IE (can't be adjusted apart from those larger/smaller steps)
-- Gabriel Wicke 14:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser settings for both font size and family 

message: The italics are very difficult to read (most prominently perceived in the Recent Changes edit summaries) KRS 17:38, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics

message: The main problem I've seen here is that visited edit links are the same colour as visited articles. Which means if you have clicked on an edit link it is no longer possible to tell whether the article exists or not. -- sannse (talk) 17:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the problem with visited edit links I'm afraid (I have it on User:Sannse/monobook.css and still see the same problem). -- sannse (talk) 20:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it looked like it did, but it must have been a temporary thing (if you hit Back, it does seem to stay red on the page you return to, but if you reload, it goes to the visited link colour). Can the CSS be that finely tuned? -- Michael Warren 20:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The active link colour is set the same as the edit link - that's why it looks OK when you hit Back (I intend to change this on mine, and think it shouldn't be done this way on the default) --  sannse (talk) 21:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Even worse, links to stubs below the user-defined threshold and to unwritten articles have the same red color. At least that one needs to be changed. andy 07:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This now seems to have been fixed. Warofdreams 18:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Color of links

message: No icons by default
#Dori | Talk 23:19, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC) (only if color changes between ext and int lks obviously)
#Maximus Rex 23:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the default to no styling for interwiki now apart from the 1.2 colour (that's the same for external). That should eliminate most of those icons on meta. -- Gabriel Wicke 12:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External link icon

message: Its good that the underlining has gone out of the monobook format. However, the blue has gone back again to being light blue. It was/ is very tough to read the light blue becuase of the lack of contrast, the darker blue was much more readable. Also the continuity between words in a page will be better if the colours are closer in value ( meaning dark/light). Now the continuity is not there. For all these reasons can we have a dareker colour please? 
Is it under discussion? Can we have a page in which all the changes are recorded for the four major schemes when a change is made by the developer/ user who makes the change so that we can give our comments? The reactions are very scattered and no one seems to counterreact for any reaction. KRS 11:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link colour changes 

message: (Non-article = talk:, as well as user:, wikipedia:, special:, MediaWiki:, template:, category:, and their talk pages)
====yes, different background color for non-article pages====
#mav 00:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Should non-article pages have a different background color than articles?

message: #mav 00:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''yes, different background color for non-article pages''

message: #Yellow color is ugly. If you have any color, please make it something more tasteful. Latitudinarian 02:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''no, same background color for non-article pages''

message: ====Color everything that is not an article yellowish, again====
#till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment only: if light gray is chosen, the color for the autogenerated edit summaries on RC will have to be changed (it's a light gray currently, and thus won't be readable anymore.) Lupo 10:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: In 1.2 I never saw a difference in color between the namespaces. It may be my monitor settings. Maximus Rex 02:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I eventually did, but didn't realize it had a meaning until somebody explained it to me. -- Gabriel Wicke 12:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Me too. Never really noticed it, and even after I knew it was there it was too subtle for me to take advantage of. I guess that means I don't really care. What I would like (though it not a big thing) is for the Edit page preview to be somehow very clearly marked as a preview 'throughout the page'. Too many times I've forgotten to save when I follow a link in the preview page somewhere. -Rholton 05:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes    "Edit page preview to be somehow very clearly marked as a preview 'throughout the page'" that's a good ideaPedant 01:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: If they did have a different color:

message: #till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Color everything that is not an article yellowish, again

message: #Lupo 09:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Color everything that is not an article light blue

message: :Comment only: if light gray is chosen, the color for the autogenerated edit summaries on RC will have to be changed (it's a light gray currently, and thus won't be readable anymore.) Lupo 10:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Color everything that is not an article light gray

message: # Jamesday 14:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Different pale background colors for each type of non-article page

message: :In 1.2 I never saw a difference in color between the namespaces. It may be my monitor settings. Maximus Rex 02:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I eventually did, but didn't realize it had a meaning until somebody explained it to me. -- Gabriel Wicke 12:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Me too. Never really noticed it, and even after I knew it was there it was too subtle for me to take advantage of. I guess that means I don't really care. What I would like (though it not a big thing) is for the Edit page preview to be somehow very clearly marked as a preview 'throughout the page'. Too many times I've forgotten to save when I follow a link in the preview page somewhere. -Rholton 05:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes    "Edit page preview to be somehow very clearly marked as a preview 'throughout the page'" that's a good ideaPedant 01:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: Should be the same color as other non-article pages
Should be the same color as article pages
#TreyHarris 02:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Category page color

message: I don't know why but the little person icon bugs me. It ought to go.  When I see something like it on a web page, I brace myself to see some links titled "Solutions", "Partners", etc. --Yath 10:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Insert this code into your user CSS page: User:Yath/monobook.css
/* supress the person icon by your username */
li#pt-userpage { background: none }
blankfaze | •• 23:26, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of user.gif 

message: Yes
# The white background hurts my eyes. Kingturtle 10:23, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put the background color in the main namespace back to the non-white color it was before 

message: I was looking for a place to ask about this - finally I've found one! I have seen a new style page, when I logged in to Wikipedia from work or from the local library - but it is inconsistent. Sometimes you get it, sometimes you don't.... What's going on? I assume this is to do with a new stylesheet that you're trialing - is there any info posted anywhere?
For the record, I'm logged in at home using Safari 1.2 on Mac OSX 10.3.2. At work inevitably they use Internet Explorer on Windows ('98, I think). 
If it is a Mac OSX compatibility issue, perhaps Mac users ought to have the opportunity to comment about the so-called "new look" - at some point!
Agendum 17:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a Mac compatibility issue. The issue is probably that you have a skin set in your preferences that isn't Monobook, and you're seeing Monobook when you're logged out. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:19, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not getting the new look! 

message: I notice the liberal use of the word "obvious" in this debate on styles. I feel compelled to suggest that the word "obvious" almost never applies in a discussion among a diverse population. When someone calls something "obvious", it nearly always says more about their own background and biases than about any universal truth. -- Jeff Q 05:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obvious" 

message: A meta-comment: note that the graphical beauty of a document matters only when a new user opens it for the first time, and then only before he or she starts reading the text or using the buttons.  After that fleeting moment, only three things matter: readability, readability, and readability.
That is why any book that is meant to be read (and not just looked at) is printed with serif fonts, black on white, with little or no decoration.  Even a simple rule at the top of each page will begin to bother the reader, subliminarly, after a few dozen pages.  That is why good books have "clean" page layouts, and no frames around illustrations and figure captions.
Graphical decoration is ok when it conveys useful information such as section boundaries, list items, links, etc..  However, the most efficient clues for that task are spacing and indentation, then font size and weight. (One serious problem with the current Wikipedia layouts -- both "monobook" and "standard" -- is that the spacing below sub-section headers is just as big as that below section headers.)  Marking off sections with rules or color bars may already be in the negative payoff zone, more distracting than helpful.
Sans serif fonts look better than serif ones, which is why they are used in advertisements, brochures, flyers -- and their WWW equivalents.  The neat looks of a sans-serif text are good at catching the attention of passers-by, which is THE main goal of avertising. However, compared to serif fonts of the same height, they are noticeably harder to read.  That is not a problem in advertising, where the text has to be short and eye-catching -- but is a major problem for texts longer than a couple of paragraphs.
As I see it, the negative reactions to the monobook skin (above) are due not to locally fixable bugs, but rather to a single global problem: the skin was not designed for readability, but only to look  nice.  For example, the increased font size and line spacings give it a neat and "airy" look, but they also mean that less text fits in the page, which is bad. (BTW, the standard skin too wastes screen estate with all that whitespace between paragraphs.) Ditto for the   subtly colored links without underlines:  they make the page look cool, but make it hard for the reader to notice the link.
Whikipedia pages need not grab the reader's attention, but must be easy to read; thus they should be optimized for readability. The standard skin was already close to optimum in that regard; the only improvements I can think of are: (1) reduce the inter-paragraph space (2) reduce the space after subsection headers, (3) reduce the Wikipedia logo image to half its current size or smaller (except on the main page).  Changes in other items, like like font and link colors, are more likely be for the worse than for the better.
All the best,Jorge Stolfi 00:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with this comment (except for "Whikipedia":-). Marc Mongenet 05:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! that was just a typo, sorry. (Unless it was a Freudian slip... 8-) Jorge Stolfi 05:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks vs. Readability

message: I'll admit that I don't care much for the new default look, so I excercised my freedom of choice & stayed with the old standard look. However, doing so has led to some issues:
* I just noticed tonight that one feature in the Standard skin appears to be broken: when I look at the history of a page, changed words are no longer in red type. Where do I report it, & is anyone looking at bugs in non-Monobook skins? (If need be, I will figure out what is broken, try to fix it, & if successful, send the fix to the proper mailbox.)
::You may need to do a forced reload (hold down shift and click reload or refresh, or possibly some other action depending on your browser).  Just discovered this today. Jdavidb 21:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Monobook.css Comments 

message: Polling on this page started on 3 June so I strongly suggest that items with 75% or more support on 3 July will be implemented that day. We can, however, continue to vote and may even change some settings based on new votes. --mav 05:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 July as implementation date 

message: Somehow related: how can I set my favourite colors for non-article backgrounds overriding the mediawiki:monobook.css in my User css? The copy, paste and change the color value method doesn't work. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 23:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom monobook vs. wiki-width monobook 

message: I suggest ca-edit a{font-weight:bold !important;} is added to make the "edit this page" link bold. This is being used on the German Wikipedia and makes it more obvious to newcomers that they can edit a page. Angela. 11:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no objections for five days, I've added this now. Angela. 14:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to disable it in their own stylesheet, they can add #ca-edit a{font-weight:normal !important;}. Angela. 19:58, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
It's a good change I think, the edit link had somewhat disappeared with the new skin -- sannse (talk) 20:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Encouraging newcomers

message: What would be the proper procedure for proposing a change to font colours (as this has already been voted on)?
Acegikmo1 17:40, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaning font colours 

message: ===Synopsis===
MSN TV may garble pages.
===Description===
MSN TV Viewer 2.8 (Build 20) fails spectacularly due to its willingness to @import and subsequently destroy stylesheets. Additionally, an @import that again performs an @import will so confuse the engine that nothing (worth viewing) renders, such as when the user stylesheet @imports the MediaWiki stylesheet.
===Workaround===
Fortunately, MSN TV 2.8 will use only the last @import within each <style> </style>. Thus, a workaround is to gather the @imports into a single <style> </style> with the addition of an MSN TV-safe @import. (In my tests I imported an empty file.)
Ex.
    <style type="text/css" media="screen,projection">/*<![CDATA[*/
      @import "main.css";
      @import "user.css";
      @import "null.css";
    /*]]>*/</style>
MSN TV will ignore the first two stylesheets and process the third. It may be useful to
install MSN TV-specific properties here. (BTW, the software seems to ignore media types.)
===Notes===
Not having the actual device, I was unable to verify if this problem affects the consumer (hardware) version of the MSN TV software. However, I believe the viewer (is said to) accurately represent the actual device software. Can somebody confirm if the actual hardware exhibits the described behavior?
--John Robinson 09:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSN TV Really Broken - Proposed Fix 

message: Not having the actual device, I was unable to verify if this problem affects the consumer (hardware) version of the MSN TV software. However, I believe the viewer (is said to) accurately represent the actual device software. Can somebody confirm if the actual hardware exhibits the described behavior?
--John Robinson 09:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: moved from the village pump
I don't like the new green external links. Please change it back.
:I didn't see that, but I think it's a splendid idea, about time.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External link color

message: Crossposted from MediaWiki_talk:Fromwikipedia#Linking to Main Page —— Please Reply there
Would anyone have any objections to linking "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ?
Why? Well...
# Currently there isn't a link to the Main Page in the source HTML, which means if any non-visual-CSS (screen reader/text-only/mobile users) want to go to the Main Page, they have to go all the way through the content in order to find it.
# It may well improve search engine rankings, having "Wikipedia" and "free encyclopedia" pointing at the Main Page.
I propose styling the link so MonoBook users simply see it as plain, ordinary text. I can't really see any downsides to this... can anyone else? Tom- 22:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... nobody objected so I've tried it, seems to work ok. Feel free to moan if you dislike it! Tom- 19:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that clicking on the logo isn't intuitive or universally available to all users, but I don't like this link. I think it distracts from the article to have the very first thing be a red, underlined, bold Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I propose reverting and and having a much broader discussion about this. (Crossposted to Talk:Main Page and MediaWiki_talk:Fromwikipedia) Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Main Page