Talk:Groups
From Plastic Tub
| Revision as of 04:54, 28 Jun 2005 Undule (Talk | contribs) comments ← Go to previous diff |
Current revision Payne (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | --[[User:Undule|Undule]] 00:54, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT) hey dave, | + | that's a nice start! I like this portal thing more and more -- but I think you should use a table format instead of divs, but that's my preference really. Tables are solid, predictable, safe, the div tag can freak the fuck out so easily on cross browsers, etc, kind of like what's happening with the pictures in the current example. I could make a table version, perhaps. But whole layout/scheme is coolness in my book. Good stuff -- a pertinent step forward. |
| + | |||
| + | -- [[User:Payne|Payne]] 14:15, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT): i started converting this to a table format. it definitely seems to be behaving better. i'm clumsy with the html tags, but i'll keep slogging away at it. lemme know if you see me doing something weird/dumb. i'm headed to florida for a long weekend & will be off line, so it may take a bit. i still have lots of ideas for the content of this page, other portals, and how to link this up to the main page. could be a lot of work, but i think it's off to a good start. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- [[User:Payne|Payne]] 18:02, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT): i've converted this to a table format, but it could use a defter hand than mine, so please, everyone -- edit away! i'm going to start monkeying with the content a bit. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- [[User:Payne|Payne]] 20:31, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT) Hey, I have an idea, but I can't decide if I like it or not. What if instead of calling these "portals" we presented these as broadsides? We could even come up with a cover story under [[Broadsides]] explaining how we latter day [[AA]]ers collaborated on a series of broadsides to publicize some of our research. Then we could work on the content and format to make it broadside-ish, like the NY Times or like [http://www.artsandlettersdaily.com/ Arts & Letters Daily]. The format wouldn't be terribly different than the current format (e.g., several columns sandwiched by a header and footer). The content could be altered a bit -- it should be big on breadth and light on depth: pretty much just a bunch of leads meant to entice people to read more on other pages on this site. I'll scrape something together and post it up here as soon as I get the chance. Let me know what you think of it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Undule|Undule]] 05:11, 8 Jul 2005 (EDT) My concern is one of simple mathematic. While your sum sounds enticing, you require naturally-inclined sofa numerals to amass the fortune, perhaps applying over the telephone for advice, scouring your internets, until, flabergasted the wheedling beast in socks, in suit-coolies -- your amounting to amounts! To this point, the Tub has thrived in an environment of loosely cast coin, each a kind of Tin-Tin, effervescently blonde, in trouble, negotiating with Arabs; if you wanna bank on our maundering, the riches are yours to claim, and further, damnations of the hell-borne! | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Adkins|Adkins]] 19:47, 9 Jul 2005 (EDT) Dave, that's pretty much the portal concept anyway, no? But why not? I'd like to see this test portal deployed as a regular page. It's in pretty good shape....what do people envision? A link on the main page, I suppose? | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- [[User:Payne|Payne]] 23:58, 10 Jul 2005 (EDT) OK--I'm done f-in' with the format now: this is finally what I was looking for. If you prefer a look that's more like the [[TestMain]], please say so. Otherwise, I'll convert [[TestPortal2]] to this look. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Adkins|Adkins]] 09:04, 11 Jul 2005 (EDT)I think [[TestPortal2]] is mostly converted based upon your work with the [[Death Cult Broadside]], but it's still a bit clunky perhaps. Could use your magic-fingers. Also, I couldn't save the discussion page...Tim experienced this earlier, no? | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Undule|Undule]] 21:00, 12 Jul 2005 (EDT) you know, I'll confess to not liking this trend at all. If we end up going with something like this, it will not be called a Broadside. It's not a broadside, it's a wiki page. Secondly, it should basically be ''the'' death cult page. The only thing unique on the dc page proper is the definition - -what is the point of going there, just to see that small bit? It's redundant and bad information display, IMO. One of the reasons the wikipedia portals work so well is that they have about a million times more content than we will ever have. I really think whatever anthology/portal/appendices we make should meld with the design of the rest of the site, not stand out as overtly particularlized in thier design or presentation of text. ''Actually printing'' broadsides, distributing them, scanning them here into some kind of archive, etc, that's a different dealie. There is something of a crossroads here, I think. I don't have time go into it, but I wonder. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Payne|Payne]] 09:22, 13 Jul 2005 (EDT)I'm short on time, but check out the previous version under History--the version described as "format test". I think this closer to what you're thinking, Tim (perhaps minus the pic). If we go this route, do you think we should do anything to differentiate (sp?) this type of page, or is it just a page with an extended See Also that is specially linked from the Main Page and also perhaps linked from the Glossary Category page? In my mind this page has a some what different purpose than other pages and it seems that the format should somehow reflect this, tho the current page probably goes too far. At any rate, I've got to run & will be gone for several days... | ||
Current revision
that's a nice start! I like this portal thing more and more -- but I think you should use a table format instead of divs, but that's my preference really. Tables are solid, predictable, safe, the div tag can freak the fuck out so easily on cross browsers, etc, kind of like what's happening with the pictures in the current example. I could make a table version, perhaps. But whole layout/scheme is coolness in my book. Good stuff -- a pertinent step forward.
-- Payne 14:15, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT): i started converting this to a table format. it definitely seems to be behaving better. i'm clumsy with the html tags, but i'll keep slogging away at it. lemme know if you see me doing something weird/dumb. i'm headed to florida for a long weekend & will be off line, so it may take a bit. i still have lots of ideas for the content of this page, other portals, and how to link this up to the main page. could be a lot of work, but i think it's off to a good start.
-- Payne 18:02, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT): i've converted this to a table format, but it could use a defter hand than mine, so please, everyone -- edit away! i'm going to start monkeying with the content a bit.
-- Payne 20:31, 7 Jul 2005 (EDT) Hey, I have an idea, but I can't decide if I like it or not. What if instead of calling these "portals" we presented these as broadsides? We could even come up with a cover story under Broadsides explaining how we latter day AAers collaborated on a series of broadsides to publicize some of our research. Then we could work on the content and format to make it broadside-ish, like the NY Times or like Arts & Letters Daily (http://www.artsandlettersdaily.com/). The format wouldn't be terribly different than the current format (e.g., several columns sandwiched by a header and footer). The content could be altered a bit -- it should be big on breadth and light on depth: pretty much just a bunch of leads meant to entice people to read more on other pages on this site. I'll scrape something together and post it up here as soon as I get the chance. Let me know what you think of it.
--Undule 05:11, 8 Jul 2005 (EDT) My concern is one of simple mathematic. While your sum sounds enticing, you require naturally-inclined sofa numerals to amass the fortune, perhaps applying over the telephone for advice, scouring your internets, until, flabergasted the wheedling beast in socks, in suit-coolies -- your amounting to amounts! To this point, the Tub has thrived in an environment of loosely cast coin, each a kind of Tin-Tin, effervescently blonde, in trouble, negotiating with Arabs; if you wanna bank on our maundering, the riches are yours to claim, and further, damnations of the hell-borne!
--Adkins 19:47, 9 Jul 2005 (EDT) Dave, that's pretty much the portal concept anyway, no? But why not? I'd like to see this test portal deployed as a regular page. It's in pretty good shape....what do people envision? A link on the main page, I suppose?
-- Payne 23:58, 10 Jul 2005 (EDT) OK--I'm done f-in' with the format now: this is finally what I was looking for. If you prefer a look that's more like the TestMain, please say so. Otherwise, I'll convert TestPortal2 to this look.
--Adkins 09:04, 11 Jul 2005 (EDT)I think TestPortal2 is mostly converted based upon your work with the Death Cult Broadside, but it's still a bit clunky perhaps. Could use your magic-fingers. Also, I couldn't save the discussion page...Tim experienced this earlier, no?
--Undule 21:00, 12 Jul 2005 (EDT) you know, I'll confess to not liking this trend at all. If we end up going with something like this, it will not be called a Broadside. It's not a broadside, it's a wiki page. Secondly, it should basically be the death cult page. The only thing unique on the dc page proper is the definition - -what is the point of going there, just to see that small bit? It's redundant and bad information display, IMO. One of the reasons the wikipedia portals work so well is that they have about a million times more content than we will ever have. I really think whatever anthology/portal/appendices we make should meld with the design of the rest of the site, not stand out as overtly particularlized in thier design or presentation of text. Actually printing broadsides, distributing them, scanning them here into some kind of archive, etc, that's a different dealie. There is something of a crossroads here, I think. I don't have time go into it, but I wonder.
--Payne 09:22, 13 Jul 2005 (EDT)I'm short on time, but check out the previous version under History--the version described as "format test". I think this closer to what you're thinking, Tim (perhaps minus the pic). If we go this route, do you think we should do anything to differentiate (sp?) this type of page, or is it just a page with an extended See Also that is specially linked from the Main Page and also perhaps linked from the Glossary Category page? In my mind this page has a some what different purpose than other pages and it seems that the format should somehow reflect this, tho the current page probably goes too far. At any rate, I've got to run & will be gone for several days...
