Template talk:eo-conj

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Am I the only one who finds the contrastive colors of this template take eyes away from the text? Too bright! -- 02:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that it takes the eyes away from the text. I think that the pale green works quite nicely. --Yair rand 06:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

deviance etc.[edit]

Broom icon.svg A user suggests that this talk page be cleaned up.
Please see the discussion on Requests for cleanup(+) or the talk page for more information and remove this template after the problem has been dealt with.

In two regards this template is gracelessly executed

  1. The greenish color departs from the usual, drawing attention in the style of advertising to Esperanto vs. other languages.
  2. The show-hide bar does not play well with others, greedily appropriating the full width of the screen, thereby not working well with right-hand elements such as the optional rhs ToC, sister project boxes, images, and rhs example boxes. It ought be corrected. If it is not corrected, it ought be deleted. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Point (1) = the anon's complaint, was already resolved by Opiaterein (talkcontribs) in November 17, 2009: he replaced the greenish with white. —AugPi (t) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Point (2) could be addressed by having only 12 nominal participles instead of the current 48. In other words, the table could be modified to include only the nominative singular form of each nominal participle, ignoring the plural and/or accusative forms. This would allow a shrinking of the table. —AugPi (t) 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It's green now. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. When you said "greenish," I thought that you meant "pale green" which was the color of the interior of the table before Opi changed it to grey/white. But when you say that it is still green, I see that you are talking about the dark green frame of the table. I have now changed it to a very soft green, and I think that it looks better than before. —AugPi (t) 17:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem. An color "hidden" beneath a show-hide is not as bothersome to a fly-by user as one in the bar itself. Arguably with color is "self-inflicted" by the user who opens the bar. Self-infliction sometimes seems to make the problem seem less important to the user. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
For point (2), I changed the table's width to 80%, so that might give enough room for rhs ToC's... —AugPi (t) 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm putting it back to 100% (normal for conjugation tables)... there's something that can be added or removed from the code that resolves conflict with right-side elements (I don't remember offhand what it is). Making tables smaller by default isn't the way to solve said conflict. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Right. The color thing is a general issue (BP). I would argue that homogenization of the color scheme is generally a "good thing", reducing distraction, creating predictable layout for eye-scanning. Exactly what the color scheme should be is likely to be controversial. I wouldn't vote for the current shade of green in any application. Paler is almost always better. Blue is an accepted default, but other colors might make sense to indicate distinct classes of content under show-hide bars (eg: blue: lists; green: inflection or other high-structure tables; red (pink): text}}. I don't know if these would look OK if in the same L2 section, no matter how pale. If not RGB, then perhaps, RYB or .... DCDuring TALK 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
This is why I just use grays. It circumvents arguments about what color to use... the only issue is that some people don't like what they call the 'boring' lack of color. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a problem in the dopamine receptors, probably. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)