Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirHoneyBadger]

Well, with different colored text you know the joke is somewhere in there. That's the problem.

In this case, though, it's also the solution, because we want people to know that "this is a joke", as opposed to "this is a game mechanic".

The overarching goal of the Wiki is to explain the game, afterall, not to make people laugh. Sacrificing some of the humor doesn't sacrifice the Wiki.

And, actually labelling something as "joke to follow", or even putting a big box around it, is worse than simply recoloring it, in my opinion.

[Footkerchief]

Well, with different colored text you know the joke is somewhere in there. That's the problem. You can't laugh if you know the joke is coming up, You're ready for it. Just like you can't be scared as much if you know something scary is coming up soon.

While I agree that it's lame, you don't need to explore this aspect to know that colored text is horrifying.  It's right up there with "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" gifs, center-aligned text, marquees and tiled backgrounds as one of the most memorable negative examples of the Geocities era.

Colored/shaded boxes are widely used in cutting-edge websites.  Non-hyperlink colored text isn't.  That's all you need to know.

[Draco18s]

Well, with different colored text you know the joke is somewhere in there. That's the problem. You can't laugh if you know the joke is coming up, You're ready for it. Just like you can't be scared as much if you know something scary is coming up soon.

Or you could go the other route: play scary music and spook the player into thinking that an alien is lurking around the corner, and then have nothing happen.
</reference to Aliens vs. Predator that I'm watching a Lets Play of>

[Footkerchief]

Or you could go the other route: play scary music

Embedded MIDI!  I knew I was missing at least one of the Geocities cliches.

[Draco18s]

Or you could go the other route: play scary music

Embedded MIDI!  I knew I was missing at least one of the Geocities cliches.

To be fair, its still around.  Hit up a MyFace page sometime.  Then hunt around for the got tamned mute button.

[Xgamer4]

Or you could go the other route: play scary music

Embedded MIDI!  I knew I was missing at least one of the Geocities cliches.

To be fair, its still around.  Hit up a MyFace page sometime.  Then hunt around for the got tamned mute button.

There are very, very good reasons most people have ditched myspace for facebook, and I firmly believe that's one of them.

[atomfullerene]

Don't forget the <blink> tag on the list of awful, awful web design tactics!

[SirHoneyBadger]

Colored/shaded boxes are widely used in cutting-edge websites.  Non-hyperlink colored text isn't.  That's all you need to know.

Actually, it would be useful if you could give real, concrete reasons for why something is good or bad, instead of just randomly shouting out irrelevant examples of where something was used.

"This is bad because it's bad" isn't all "you need to know". It's just an excuse for not thinking outside of the (literal) box. 

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons, but please give those reasons, instead of just examples of where something was used, without explaining why they're good examples.

I'm fine with boxes being used over colored text, provided you bother to come up with the answer to the question of why boxes are better. Following along blindly after what others might do doesn't seem like a good enough answer to me, and doesn't add a whole lot to the debate.

[Locriani]

Colored/shaded boxes are widely used in cutting-edge websites.  Non-hyperlink colored text isn't.  That's all you need to know.

Actually, it would be useful if you could give real, concrete reasons for why something is good or bad, instead of just randomly shouting out irrelevant examples of where something was used.

"This is bad because it's bad" isn't all "you need to know". It's just an excuse for not thinking outside of the (literal) box. 

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons, but please give those reasons, instead of just examples of where something was used, without explaining why they're good examples.

I'm fine with boxes being used over colored text, provided you bother to come up with the answer to the question of why boxes are better. Following along blindly after what others might do doesn't seem like a good enough answer to me, and doesn't add a whole lot to the debate.

I'll answer this.  In usability studies, it has been found that text that is significantly cordoned off from the surrounding text (for example, in a box, or a sidebar) interrupts the train of thought enough that the reader realizes that the content is a paradigm shift.  Inline text, no matter the presentation, was not able to establish this same level of awareness of a paradigm shift.

Why do you think textbooks and have done it for ages?  Because it works.

[G-Flex]

Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.

Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.

If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.

As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.

[SirHoneyBadger]

Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.

Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.

If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.

As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.

See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.

Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?

[Tarran]

Because the colored text just isn't the same as a box. For example, would you have this;


text texttexttexttexttext, texttexttext text, texttext, text texttexttext. texttexttexttexttext text.
texttexttexttext, text.
texttext texttext. texttexttexttext, text texttext.

texttexttexttext.

Or this;

Code: [Select]

text texttexttexttexttext, texttexttext text, texttext, text texttexttext. texttexttexttexttext text.
texttexttexttext, text.
texttext texttext. texttexttexttext, text texttext.
texttexttexttext.

See the difference?

[Locriani]

Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.

Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.

If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.

As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.

See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.

Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?

The distinction is actually with regards to inline text.  If it's in a box, but still in line with the rest of the text, the visual distinction is ignored subconsciously.  If it's no longer inline, then the visual distinction works (this is why block quotes are so effective at grabbing your attention).

[zwei]

Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.

Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.

If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.

As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.

See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.

Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?

Box is another level of distinction, and "soft" (non-black) border makes it less cluttering.

Basically:

Soft text -> Ordinary text -> Cursive paragraph -> paragraph with margin -> Cursive parapraph with margin -> Softly-Boxed paragraph -> Hard-Boxed paragraph

(there are more, before boxed paragraph there is paragraph with left vertical line, etc ... there is whole textbook dedicated to how paragraphs of dirrefent types look. Sadly, most people who design web pages never even heard of it.)

Colored text is "Soft Text" and as such it is nearly worst choice on making distinctive paragraphs because it is even less distinctive than normal paragraph. Unless, of course, you user red text which is equivalent of using ALLCAPS.

Distinctive enough paragrah can be skipped with minimal effort on reader.

(Also, fyi, underlined text is veeeeeery evil and should reserved to hyperlinks and hyperlinks only.)

[Locriani]

Separate boxes/sections neatly separate the different types of information.

Colored text is garish, confusing (in the sense that colored text tends to be used for functional reasons on websites), and is only really useful at all if you're going to be changing the sort of information you're presenting in mid-sentence, which is an awful way to be presenting the information in the first place. It's stylistically jarring and has no reason to exist that commonly.

If a section of an article is going to switch back and forth between mentioning real-world stuff and mentioning DF-specific stuff, then the solution would be not to color the text, but to actually phrase things correctly to begin with so that the meaning is clear. In this case, colored text would still be useless, since it would only be used as a crutch in the case of poor-wording, and would introduce more issues (poor application, misuse, etc.) than it would solve.

As it is, the intent is to separate the real-world information from the DF-related information more prominently, and the best way to do that is with distinct sections/boxes.

See, these are actually well thought out answers that apply to the DF Wiki. I don't know that I agree with them, but it's not hard to accept them as useful.

Same goes for the "textbook example" above. However, in reply to Locriani: If the text is going to be cordoned off/separated anyway (which I'm in favor of, please keep in mind), then why should a large, colored box, be necessary to achieve the same effect as a distinct, colored section of text?

Box is another level of distinction, and "soft" (non-black) border makes it less cluttering.

Basically:

Soft text -> Ordinary text -> Cursive paragraph -> paragraph with margin -> Cursive parapraph with margin -> Softly-Boxed paragraph -> Hard-Boxed paragraph

(there are more, before boxed paragraph there is paragraph with left vertical line, etc ... there is whole textbook dedicated to how paragraphs of dirrefent types look. Sadly, most people who design web pages never even heard of it.)

Colored text is "Soft Text" and as such it is nearly worst choice on making distinctive paragraphs because it is even less distinctive than normal paragraph. Unless, of course, you user red text which is equivalent of using ALLCAPS.

Distinctive enough paragrah can be skipped with minimal effort on reader.

(Also, fyi, underlined text is veeeeeery evil and should reserved to hyperlinks and hyperlinks only.)

What book are you referring to? I'm basing my knowledge off Graphics of Communication 3rd ed.