148 replies to this topic

[felinoel]

lot of people just don't care about guidelines

Hence my earlier confusion.
 

And if nobody notices that there are more than two videos it will just remain that way. It's not supposed to be that way though. So I don't see why we should adapt our guidelines to people who don't bother reading them.

It was more because no one minded and that it was handy to have more info and less because people were already doing it.
On this subject matter I find the 1x1 current method of displaying videos to be very... disorganized... or rather... cluttered... of sorts. It centers two videos downwards leaving massive amounts of unappealing empty space that is VERY hard on the eyes. The least we could do is arrange the videos horizontally.
 
 

I am stressing these default articles because of the incoming expansion, we want to have default article pages for people to copy paste then fill the info in, that way things will be cleaner, smoother, and added faster.
If we efficiently add the new info then it does not need to take years for it to properly be adjusted and filled out since it already was that from the start.

[RZR0]

On this subject matter I find the 1x1 current method of displaying videos to be very... disorganized... or rather... cluttered... of sorts. It centers two videos downwards leaving massive amounts of unappealing empty space that is VERY hard on the eyes. The least we could do is arrange the videos horizontally.

I don't quite understand what you're referring to... 2 videos are supposed to be aligned horizontally, as was originally described in the style guide. was that removed as well?

[dgelessus]

I don't quite understand what you're referring to... 2 videos are supposed to be aligned horizontally, as was originally described in the style guide. was that removed as well?

That is because of the {{youtube}} template, which creates separate center tags for each video. There's no good way to automatically put two consecutive templates into a single tag. But you also implemented a second parameter for that template, which formats everything properly, so that's solved.

[RZR0]

That is because of the {{youtube}} template, which creates separate center tags for each video. There's no good way to automatically put two consecutive templates into a single tag. But you also implemented a second parameter for that template, which formats everything properly, so that's solved.

Well, when the template was implemented, it would have had to conform with the style guide. Replacing the style guide entries for videos with the template before it did should never have happened.

[felinoel]

That is because of the {{youtube}} template, which creates separate center tags for each video. There's no good way to automatically put two consecutive templates into a single tag. But you also implemented a second parameter for that template, which formats everything properly, so that's solved.

If that is the case then fixing that template will fix all of those ugly-looking articles, right?

EDIT:
http://ftbwiki.org/i...f=0&oldid=95459
Ohhh, so it isn't an issue with the template, it is an issue with how people use it... nevermind... /:

EDIT:

So I edited something to use the template right, and it still looks terrible?
Is there something wrong with the template after all?

[timrem]

It appears as though your window is too narrow to display videos side-by-side ( that, or you're seeing a cached version since you're not using http://nocache.ftbwiki.org/Tesseract ). The Tesseract page shows the videos displayed horizontally for me. (In my opinion they look better stacked vertically, but that could just be because I'm used to it.)

[dgelessus]

This, your screen is probably not large enough. Try unmaximizing your browser, moving it off your screen and then making it wider.

 

PS:

Yep, did the math, your screen is just a little bit too narrow

[felinoel]

...
but... my screen is 1360x768?

[timrem]

Taking away from that 1360 the narrow column on the left, and the wide column on the right, leaves about 875 pixels for the width of the article itself. With each video being 450 pixels wide, you need at least 900 pixels of article width (plus more for the nbsp between them) to see the videos side-by-side.

[felinoel]

Taking away from that 1360 the narrow column on the left, and the wide column on the right, leaves about 875 pixels for the width of the article itself. With each video being 450 pixels wide, you need at least 900 pixels of article width (plus more for the nbsp between them) to see the videos side-by-side.

Unusual... I've never had this issue before?

[dgelessus]

Unusual... I've never had this issue before?

There are some pages with strange custom video layouts that don't follow the style guide entirely. Some have smaller videos, others have one big one and two small ones below... point is that you may have seen one where the videos were 50 or 100 pixels less wide, so they happened to fit on your screen.

[felinoel]

There are some pages with strange custom video layouts that don't follow the style guide entirely. Some have smaller videos, others have one big one and two small ones below... point is that you may have seen one where the videos were 50 or 100 pixels less wide, so they happened to fit on your screen.

No I mean in other websites I've never had this issue before where my resolution caused such an issue.
What is the standard resolution this wiki uses?

[dgelessus]

No I mean in other websites I've never had this issue before where my resolution caused such an issue.
What is the standard resolution this wiki uses?

What do you mean? AFAIK videos are 450px wide. The site's width is dynamic in some way.

[felinoel]

What do you mean?

http://www.hobo-web....st-screen-size/

[RZR0]

What do you mean? AFAIK videos are 450px wide. The site's width is dynamic in some way.

The template with at max size allows for 2 videos to be places next to each other, but for smaller monitors it will shrink to match the screen size down to a minimum width.

[felinoel]

The template with at max size allows for 2 videos to be places next to each other, but for smaller monitors it will shrink to match the screen size down to a minimum width.

If the website shrinks... can we make the template shrink too?

[timrem]

If the website shrinks... can we make the template shrink too?

That would probably involve... some very fancy coding, if it's even possible. Instead, you may want to copy the code from here to your User CSS page. I only tested this very briefly, but it did shrink all youtube videos on the site to be 400 pixels wide. You may encounter other problems if you do use this, including but not limited to:

1. Other elements being forced to render as 400x300 (anything in an iframe will be 400x300, but not much should be in iframes anyway besides videos)
2. Seeing page layouts differently from every other user (the custom CSS does not appear to work with the nocache version, so this could be used to verify default layouts)
3. Not being able to quickly see that a video has been added at an incorrect size
4. Itching or rash at the injection site

If symptoms persist, be sure to talk to your browser about a hard refresh to bypass your cached css.

[ZL123]

...
but... my screen is 1360x768?

1. I think you mean 1366x768.
2. Mine's 1366x768 too, and for me they're not showing side by side either.

[RZR0]

If the website shrinks... can we make the template shrink too?

I assume you mean shrink the videos? Probably, but I'm only a novice when it comes to css and javascript. I will certainly look into it when my finals are over, some ideas do come to mind.

[dgelessus]

I assume you mean shrink the videos? Probably, but I'm only a novice when it comes to css and javascript. I will certainly look into it when my finals are over, some ideas do come to mind.

http://ftbwiki.org/U...ssus/common.css

It does only the width though. The height still remains the same. And you have to enclose it in a classed div, but we could integrate that into the youtube template.