User talk:Nagualdesign/Graphics lab

Cleaning up the Graphics Lab

lead up discussion

Hi Kevin, I was wondering if you (or anyone else) might want to help me clean up the Graphics Lab? It seems to me that there are lots of problems with the current one, one of which is that it's extremely difficult to edit; There are far too many templates and subtemplates that make up the 4 main pages, such that even correcting a simple spelling error can send you on a wild goose chase to find out which page to edit. So.. I've started a mirror of the Graphics Lab in my userspace, and so far I've only conceded a single template. I've been copying text/links over with the intention of simplifying page construction. My aim so far is to create 4 main pages (Graphics Lab, Illustration workshop, Photography workshop and Map workshop) featuring as few, easy-to-edit templates as possible (so far just a simple sidebar). I think a lot of crud has built up over time that would be better removed. There are a lot of redundant elements and the non-Wikilike layout, I suspect, makes the Graphic Lab a bit of a weird place for people to wander into. Which is why, so far, I've gone for a simple layout that's similar to what you might find anywhere else on Wikipedia. We might also take the opportunity to collate the 'rules of the graphics lab' that currently exist, such that they are, into one place for easy reference. If you can help me identify all of the subpages that ought to be linked in, or transcribed, to the new pages I'd very much appreciate it. I know that you have lots of energy and enthusiasm, so I thought you'd be the ideal person to approach first. Once we've got the ball rolling it will be much easier for others to contribute, and eventually if everyone's happy perhaps we can copy the new lab over the old one. What say you? Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC) "correcting a simple spelling error can send you on a wild goose chase to find out which page to edit." —Amen :  } Here's what has been helping me to get a leg up on the goose: Graphics Lab pages with prefix (Template namespace) "I think a lot of crud has built up over time" —I tend to agree. But perhaps not in such strong terms. I think I'd prefer 'excess' & 'streamlined' to "crud" & "removed" but I get your point. Personally, I kinda' like that the lab has a "non-Wikilike layout". It's a different sort of environment from most other parts of the wiki. Let's Toto know that he's no longer in Kansas —so to speak. That said, I am willing to entertain new ideas. It is presently "a bit of a weird place for people to wander into". Quite a bit of stuff slapped together at the top of the page. Lots of room for streamlining I suppose. Collapsing some bits and/or linking detailed info from keywords and brief summaries might help. It's all a bit overwhelming as is. Tries to address graphists and requesters kinda' simultaneously. Collaboration sounds cool. Advance to a alpha/beta stage and then seek broader input is a good idea. Better chance of getting a horse built instead just a camel designed by committee. The first BBS was created by two guys from a computer club who consciously chose such an approach. One of them had made the realization that a small team could get something done and implemented whereas the larger computer club would likely just discuss the idea ad nauseum.[1] Humorous (& practical) side note: The duck technique... (3rd bullet point) Thanks for thinking of me Nagual. Your scheme fits well with things I've been trying to do on-&-off in bits-n-pieces. I've been making some similar efforts on Commons as well. Hmm... that introduces an idea of perhaps giving consideration to some cross site coordination designed in. The formats are currently similar. I've given thought to porting our "Tagged/Eight requests" display format to Commons. Something to consider; however, I remind myself to keep the concepts of 'mission creep' and 'feature bloat' in mind as well. Anyway, yes, collab sounds good. A nice change of pace. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC) p.s.— The new "VisualEditor" may need to be taken into consideration. Have you tried it yet? I've not. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the All pages with prefix link. I thought something like that must be available but I hadn't found it. Here's some proposals (random thoughts, mostly): This discussion should be moved to User talk:Nagualdesign/Graphics lab Start with a simple, text-only layout and leave the bells and whistles until later Copy/paste all of the relevant content from the 'prefix' pages to the 4 main workshop pages, then trim down/templatize (sparingly!) later Wikify everything, apply the MoS properly, simplify editability The standard ToCs (ie, the arrangement of sections and subsections) should be structured in a way that visitors, be they requesters or graphists, can find the section that relates to them, quickly and easily There really is some crud in the current system. Several links are broken or redundant, and some sections haven't been used in a long while I had another idea but I'm having trouble putting it into words, so I'm just going to do it now... Regards, Joe nagualdesign (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC) :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Appearance

I'm inclined to keep the very top bit of the existing pages. The workshop tabs shared by both en:Wkikipedia and Commons Graphic(s) labs. Template:Graphics_Lab/Workshops/Header. Would provide some continuity to the past and make adoption of a new format a much easier sell. People will accept all sorts of changes to content if the initial wrapper looks familiar. Plus I kinda' like it. And feel it would be a bit disrespectful of those who've come before to not keep some of their design features. Could rework the colors and inset icons and such though, but having the familiar tabs could well be essential to acceptance. Like a song intro with a familiar feel before the band goes off on it's own style. Ease 'em into it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but it should also seem familiar to newcomers. Perhaps more so. My only real complaint with the tabs is that the New request links aren't prominent enough. I think we were onto something with the red button. nagualdesign (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing info & sections

I've been reading the /doc for {{collapse top}} and {{collapse}} recently. Many more parameters than I'd previously realized. May prove useful in improving legibility/navigability while still keeping stuff centralized and accessible (at hand). I'm kinda' thinking along the lines of the now nearly ubiquitous web usage of brief intro's and opening lines with "see more..." links and such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing sections is probably the simplest solution. That and adding V•T•E links to improve editability. At the moment the workshops have stopped evolving in the way that article pages do. nagualdesign (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Scope

There are so many pages and subpages that are relevant to the different workshops that the need to organize them is only matched by the difficulty of the task. I think we need to take a look at what's necessary, what's achievable and what's acceptable. In all honesty it looks like I might have bitten off more than I can chew. But then I look at it from a website design point of view and it looks straighforward; There's only 4 pages. It's mostly about collating content. Personally I'd rather build from scratch then dress it up as the old Graphics Lab, so to speak, than chip away at the old one. nagualdesign (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just the header that I linked above. Not too concerned about much else. Well, some incarnation of the "Tagged Requests" display would be nice but that could be reduced down to a link or collapsed section if needed. Might benefit from being rebuilt under the hood even. The basic function is something I'd like to preserve as it's quite effective at getting work done on the backlog of images tagged for editing. Appearance, code, etc. completely up for grabs it's the concept of having an interface to promote such edits that has value.

And of course the basic function of taking spontaneous requests from fellow editors needs to be included. Hmm, maybe we should start with the mission statement and some guidelines as they will influence the shape and function of the design.

As to the header, I think it's got a bit of familiar trademark appeal at this point. When one sees that header they instantly have some idea of where they are at. Eh, I just looked at it again. Really not much to it. 'Spose a banner ad with a few links underneath would serve as well. I don't know, it's likely not such a big deal. Having some distinctive common theme among the pages to provide some distinction from article pages would be good though. Something unique and special for a unique and special place. Hmm, perhaps back to that mission statement thought. I think it should be readily apparent that lab pages serve a different purpose than main space articles, wiki reference pages, and etc. It seems sensible as the purpose is (at heart) to promote visual information rather than text and so will likely benefit from diverging from the guidelines for text focused pages.

Might be good to make use of subpages with targeted functions rather than trying to make one page do it all. A main portal for each workshop with categorized links and summaries. In other words, the 'Tagged requests' display would have a brief introduction and graphic on the main Photography workshop page but one would 'click' through to actually view it. Rather than asking everyone to scroll past it to get to other stuff. Some sort of layout that allows users to eColland into their area of interest and need rather than putting everything in their face at once. Of course this introduces page load issues for those with weak computers and/or connections. Collapse/expand might actually be better route to the same end.

I'm intentionally openly brainstorming so as to 'show my work' and leave room for comment. Are you actually open to brainstorming at this point or are you just looking for help[ implementing a solidified plan (or something in between or aside)? Basically, it's occurring that I'd benefit from hashing out some meta issues about roles and goals. Want to make sure we're 'on the same page' before trying to create the same pages. 'No plan survives contact with the enemy' but it's still nice to have one to start out with. We do have a direction and some details at this point.

Remove redundant and outdated info from lab and workshop pages. simplify the interface(s). Hopefully both above and below the 'hood'.

Improve clarity and categorize info and functions.

And I'd like to take appearance into consideration as well. I think this is an area that we're differing on at this point. I've kind of gotten the impression that you're leaning towards generic Wikipedia styling, indistinguishable from any other main-space or 'Wikipedia:' page while I'd like to see some clear form of Graphic lab distinct theme-ing. I'm flexible on how this could be done and how extensively to do it but would like it to be explicitly clear that Toto has left Kansas (but perhaps not gone all the way to OZ.) :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I'm completely open to ideas. I don't have any solid plans, hence starting this section to ask, what is the scope of this project? As for the current graphical style, this is what I think of it; Being the 'Graphics Lab' and having designers working there the project couldn't help but pick up a few adornments. I'm a big fan of that, and even think that WP as a whole would benefit from being more graphical. Unfortunately I think creeping normalcy has caused other editors over the years to swap artistic license for carte blanche. Everyone's added their own little bit, bit by bit, to the point where the kindest thing to say about the appearance (I hesitate to use the word 'design') of the Graphics Lab now is that it's eclectic. From a web design point of view, when a page gets 'busy' the user's gaze tends to wander aimlessly, they have difficulty finding what they're looking for and frustration kicks in. Even someone who's familiar with the page, like myself, gets frustrated. Graphical cues such as icons, banners and buttons are supposed to attract the attention of users in an intuitive way, not distract them. Graphics that serve little or no function should be kept to a minimum. nagualdesign (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OH, 'Amen'. Yeah, the 1st half of the page is a kludged together 'cluster fuck' at the moment. Contains a fair bit of worthwhile and valuable information but not presented well at all at this point. Likely due largely to entropy over time. Right on. Cool. Cap'n we have ignition. All systems go. Release the kraken! :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I like this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Page-top-image-banner-sample-1.png is quite nice. Feathering the edge of panoramas is a great idea. Gives it a 'as viewed from behind eyes' feel and works well with the page layout.

(via your discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pen-y-ghent#Panoramic_image)

Not so much with the 2nd version with gradient at the bottom though. I think it detracted from my ability to parse the context of the hill. Lost the sense of scale and setting. I do like how it transitioned into the text from a block of visual information. A nice layout device. I just don't think it works very well for that particular image. Would likely work particularly well for a header image/banner containing styled text against a background though. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)