Table:Affiliates icons

From The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
Revision as of 07:03, 29 March 2010 by Buddy13 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion[edit]

Taking the discussion from here, as to remain somewhat on topic. I am personally a big fan of the muted icons idea. That could most definitely work. It would obviously require some rewriting for how the affiliates links work, but I'd say it is doable.

The other part of the discussion - the 90 degree turns part - was not really a favourite of mine. It seemed odd at best. I cannot really see what purpose it would serve. --Svip 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend that the whole list be rotated, only the images, and the list be changed to an inline list. Thus, the list would be no more than three images wide, and probably two rows. I just think it would use the space better (the whitespace to the right of the images bothers me a bit). This way, it won't expand the width at all, just fill the space better. --Buddy 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example. In fact, looking at that, we might be able to fit four across, depending on their margins...--Buddy 16:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I guess so. By the way, could you make an example where you turn them 90 degrees the other way? I think that might look better, as it would seem that the article is the centre of the page, and the bottom of the affiliates' icons respects that, even if they are on the side. --Svip 17:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can do that. The only downside is that the SSF text will then be upside-down. And general convention puts the start of a word at the top when rotated, but sure. I'll do it later today. --Buddy 17:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the SSF button, there are others we can choose. --Svip 14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
How's this? Upon approval, I'll rotate the images as necessary. --Buddy 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am personal in favour of this method. Now all I need is to implement it -- that and a sliding image, obviously. --Svip 16:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, images re-rotated, and I hope my choice of a new SSF one is okay: clicky. Now obviously, the margins can be adjusted so it won't look exactly like my example pic. If we are doing just three across, perhaps a wider margin so they fill the space? Because a smaller margin (i.e., four across) would mean that we'd have only two on the second row. And unless/until we get more affiliates, that will look unbalanced... --Buddy 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Any development on the images? --Svip 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

They're ready for you. here. Are they not working? They look fine to me... Do you prefer if I upload them to the pool? --Buddy 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, uh... yeah. What's up? --Buddy 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What happens when there's a seventh one? - Quolnok 00:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Either adjust the margins so that there's a row of four and then three, or just leave it as is and hope we get another soon. Aesthetically, it won't be that bad. --Buddy 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I totally did not notice you actually provided the images. I will get on them as soon as I finish this stupid assignment. --Svip 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary?[edit]

Err... I am feeling the need to bring it up again. Should we still do this? I am not sure I have time today to do it, but I may have this Friday and/or Saturday. So basically I am looking for a summary. Wherever Buddy is. --Svip 11:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if we just rotate them and do the hover effect, I think they'll fit into the colour scheme better. Horizontal or vertical, I don't care. There's my input. --Buddy 19:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Blimey! I've been neglecting this for too long. I assume you just use the colour of the background? Anyway, I might produce my own icons instead, so I can also do it with the MediaWiki icon and FMF-icon. --Sviptalk 13:19, 26 March 2010 (CET)

There. What ya think? --Sviptalk 18:05, 26 March 2010 (CET)
it looks a bit messy with that random one out there. maybe get rid of Futurama News to even it out? they don't seem to exist any more. otherwise its really good. --I'm Scruffy... the Janitor. 21:59, 26 March 2010 (CET)
Good point, got rid of it. --Sviptalk 22:12, 26 March 2010 (CET)
Done the same trick for the bottom for the powered by icon and FMF icon. In case they are not ready on your end, wait a while; the cache needs to come around. --Sviptalk 23:19, 26 March 2010 (CET)
Looks okay, but if we ever have (affiliatesCount%affiliatesColumns!=0) then it'll look horrible. Also I just checked the old monobook theme, all the buttons are looking dodgy. I think we're still supporting that... - Quolnok 06:57, 27 March 2010 (CET)
You're right. So let's not support it any more. As for the amount of columns, we still have the Futurama news one; we can use that as a 'safety' icon, so if we gain another icon, we can just add that one again and change the columns to 2. --Sviptalk 14:07, 27 March 2010 (CET)
Actually, I used the color from the border/lines around the menus, and slapped a filled layer on top of the icons in Photoshop and then messed with the blending options (can't remember which one I settled on), but this looks like it came to about the same thing. And if you need something to fill in space, you could have a "Become an Affiliate" one or something equally official-looking. The shading on the Russian Infosphere one is almost too subtle, but I suppose that can't be helped... --Buddy 06:58, 29 March 2010 (CEST)
Additionally, I would maybe suggest adjust the padding between them a bit so that the vertical and horizontal space between them is the same. --Buddy 07:03, 29 March 2010 (CEST)