User talk:RobertC/Formatting

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Robert, I enjoyed looking at all the different sandbox's of yours. I played around a bit with some of them. It is interesting. I agree that the difference between the various sub-heading levels aren't different enough to make the subheadings worth the trouble. To me it will lead ot more confusion.

I like the definition approach in terms of looks the very best. But I hate to think that every person who posts to the site has to know that syntax. Maybe we should use the current solution on any pages where it works (e.g. when there are only a few questions or comments) and then switch to the definition approach when the stuff gets complicated.

Actually, I agree that the definition approach looks the best. I think it's mainly because the subheadings are the same size font as the rest of the text. It might also be because the comments are indented. I think the former would be easy to change using the style sheet (see comment below). The latter is just a a matter of putting colons in front of each comment. --RobertC 03:00, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the very best solution would be to use subheadings but change the style sheet for the site so that they look better. I think this is pretty easy if you know what you are doing--which I don't. --Matthew Faulconer 07:47, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I think making this change would be easy. In the main.css file, there's a command that says
h3 { font-size: 132%; }
I think we'd just have to change this (along with the h4 entry) to 100%--at least 100% would be my vote.... --RobertC 03:00, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'll try it so people can see if it isn't better. --Matthew Faulconer 04:27, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, here's a page with level 5 subheadings (which are currently set at 100% font size) to see what the proposed formatting should look like. --RobertC 05:00, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I didn't get it to work. I sent an e-mail to Gabriel to find out how to modify the css. --Matthew Faulconer 05:49, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh, I'm having problems with some pages loading now. For example, on the Enos 1:6-10 page, I can't get the side menu to show up. Also, the square bullets are black now, weren't they blue before? I sure hope I didn't inspire you to mess up the website, even if it's only temporary! I'm in no real hurry to resolve the formatting issues we've been talking about, I was just feeling inspired to think about it and try different things.... --RobertC 15:09, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC) (sheepishly)
The Enos page loaded fine for me. The bullets are black, but the left menu show up OK. --Eric 15:49, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I'm still having problems, in Internet Explorer and my Maxthon browser. Refreshing (CTRL-F5) doesn't seem to help. Although, if I close all other browser windows (incl. multiple tabs) and reload it seems to work. So I'm thinking there's a good chance it's some sort of caching problem that's beyond my little brain's grasp.... --RobertC 18:19, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
hmmm... right now in IE I'm not seeing the left or top nav (though just a few minutes ago I was). Oddly, in Firefox things are working just fine. It may be that Gabriel (who hosts the site) is working on something in response to my e-mail. Or it could be unrelated. Gabriel working on things seems like a good explanation of the odd behavior I am seeing right now. Not sure if that makes sense in explaining what wasn't working for Robert. We have had caching problems on and off since the site started so that issue may be unrelated. In any case, I'll send Gabriel an e-mail to find out if he's working on this one and let him know that it is causing user problem. Thanks for letting me know. --Matthew Faulconer 05:51, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
ok. that problem was caused by me. Sorry everyone for the inconvenience. I'm not sure why the problem didn't show up as soon as I made the changes. --Matthew Faulconer 15:51, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

changed css[edit]

Hi all,

I changed the css page to make heading 3 and heading 4 both set to 100% font size. These are the headings used when surrounding words with 3 equals signs and 4 equal signs respectively. Heading 3 is bolded. I unbolded headings 4 and 5. I made heading 4 italics to set it apart from regular text. Heading 5 is a bit boring since it looks just like normal text. If someone has a suggestion for heading 5 let me know.

I checked things out in IE 6 and firefox and both look ok.

1) If anyone uses a different browser please check that it works and report back whether the changes I made have had any bad consequences for the site (like last time!) on your browser.

2) All what do you think of the the changes to the style sheet? Any other suggested changes?

3) With these changes should we now go with User:RobertC/sandbox13 as our preferred format?

I personally think that we should stick with the existing format (* Verses 10-12: Here we see... ) and move to a more complicated format (either User:RobertC/sandbox13 or whatever people like best) when it is called for because of multi-paragraph questions or something else like that.

I keep going back and forth on whether we think that the table of contents is useful or not. If we wanted we could disable it by default through the backend on all commentary pages by adding a special code that tells mediawiki to not produce a TOC for that page. When there is a lot of information between the headings it is useful. When you have as meaning headings on the page as lines of text it gets pretty annoying. So long as we use our headings sparingly I lean toward keeping it.

--Matthew Faulconer 05:58, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)