Quote:
Originally Posted by krogothwolf
So in other words, the flaw is an aesthetic design flaw? The new examples really don't bother me at all to be honest. I can see why some people might not like it, but it's not that big of an issue to me.
|
Well, the issue is also that many tables just won't compress to fit, and don't have info that's safe to remove. The page is going to break one way or another on those.
Also, consider the different amounts of content in both the new skin's examples and the ones still using the old skin. Many people put a lot of work into the content of their wikis and the new skin, well:
16 pixels of font height for normal sections
96 pixels per inch
assume 100 lines on Monaco for an easy number
assume no images for ease
1020 pixels of width for Monaco on a 1280xWhatever monitor
660 pixels of width fixed on Oasis
1020 / 660 = 1.54 (repeating) width ratio
1.5454... * 100 = 154.54... extra lines, round up to 155
155 lines * 16 pixels = 2480 extra pixels of height
2480 / 96 = 25.83333 inches of text to scroll through
1600 / 96 = 16.66667 inches of text to scroll through
25.83333 - 16.66667 = 9.16663 extra inches of text
And that's not even accounting for images.
So you see, for even small articles, that's a lot of text and loads of wasted space for many people. For a more representative 500-line article, that becomes 46 inches of extra scrolling, almost
4 feet.
So for you non-Americans, this change can increase article length by an entire meter.
Or, just to be easier, go find a bunch of articles and imagine them half again as long. Using Tifa's article as an example, it takes 10 scrolls to reach the bottom as it is. It would take 15 with the new skin, discounting the fact that the images will push the text even further in comparison. I don't have a good estimate for how much they'd actually affect it, and no time or inclination to do the math, but I think the issue is pretty clear.