Difference between revisions of "File talk:Retrograde.svg"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
m (forgot to sign) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:If the background of the text is white. What I mean to say is, you can't know what background color others are using and [[Maneuver_node#Symbol_gallery|there]] it looks good. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 13:45, 2 January 2015 (CST) | :If the background of the text is white. What I mean to say is, you can't know what background color others are using and [[Maneuver_node#Symbol_gallery|there]] it looks good. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 13:45, 2 January 2015 (CST) | ||
::Many times it was used in the texts (beyond the mark template - it is easy to correct). I'll make a copy of the darker one for the marks. The "getting started" and the "maneuvers" pages need correction apart from this, already... some extra work, huh [[User:NWM|NWM]] ([[User talk:NWM|talk]]) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (CST) | ::Many times it was used in the texts (beyond the mark template - it is easy to correct). I'll make a copy of the darker one for the marks. The "getting started" and the "maneuvers" pages need correction apart from this, already... some extra work, huh [[User:NWM|NWM]] ([[User talk:NWM|talk]]) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (CST) | ||
| + | :::Well I'm [[Talk:Parts#Signs_of_units_of_measure|not a fan]] of using images in text (apart from maybe “retrograde (image of retrograde)”). And this is basically the reason for it. You made some nice pictographics and added them in {{Tl|mark}} but the browser doesn't handle it like text so various text specific stuff isn't working (like font color, italic or bold text). — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 14:01, 3 January 2015 (CST) | ||
:Sorry about that. I've added a gray-to-transparent background now to improve readability. I made it a radial gradient so that it doesn't stand out like little square boxes when used in text. It should look better now if you ctrl+F5 refresh the page. [[User:Wcoenen|Wcoenen]] ([[User talk:Wcoenen|talk]]) 07:07, 3 January 2015 (CST) | :Sorry about that. I've added a gray-to-transparent background now to improve readability. I made it a radial gradient so that it doesn't stand out like little square boxes when used in text. It should look better now if you ctrl+F5 refresh the page. [[User:Wcoenen|Wcoenen]] ([[User talk:Wcoenen|talk]]) 07:07, 3 January 2015 (CST) | ||
| + | ::I've already re-uploaded the darker version, and updated the mark template. You can follow the upload of the pictures here: [[Special:NewFiles]]. Now its more visible, but now they look "strange". As I said I'll update these pages in 1-2 weeks, so the white background wont cause problem. [[User:NWM|NWM]] ([[User talk:NWM|talk]]) 08:29, 3 January 2015 (CST) | ||
| + | :::I'd like if we have on actual image which could be used as an image (and not in text) and then another with a contrasting similar to this one here. Although I'd prefer if the background would be a background of the complete shape instead of a circle, more like a border. This way it would be possible to distinct between both images (if you look at the small images of both they look very similar: a black circular shadow and a brighter ring inside that shadow). And this file here should be the original and the other one should have a special name (as that file is specially crafted for this wiki and not how the actual marker looks). — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 14:01, 3 January 2015 (CST) | ||
| + | ::::I think I addressed the "background of complete shape" issue by creating a proper drop-shadow. To my eye it even looks good both in text and as a larger image, so I made no attempt to split these use cases. (I did have some weird cut-off problems for the prograde image, but I think it is acceptable for now.) [[User:Wcoenen|Wcoenen]] ([[User talk:Wcoenen|talk]]) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:48, 4 January 2015
Ok, it is closer to the realistic but totally "unreadable" in wiki texts! NWM (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2015 (CST)
- If the background of the text is white. What I mean to say is, you can't know what background color others are using and there it looks good. — xZise [talk] 13:45, 2 January 2015 (CST)
- Many times it was used in the texts (beyond the mark template - it is easy to correct). I'll make a copy of the darker one for the marks. The "getting started" and the "maneuvers" pages need correction apart from this, already... some extra work, huh NWM (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (CST)
- Well I'm not a fan of using images in text (apart from maybe “retrograde (image of retrograde)”). And this is basically the reason for it. You made some nice pictographics and added them in {{mark}} but the browser doesn't handle it like text so various text specific stuff isn't working (like font color, italic or bold text). — xZise [talk] 14:01, 3 January 2015 (CST)
- Many times it was used in the texts (beyond the mark template - it is easy to correct). I'll make a copy of the darker one for the marks. The "getting started" and the "maneuvers" pages need correction apart from this, already... some extra work, huh NWM (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (CST)
- Sorry about that. I've added a gray-to-transparent background now to improve readability. I made it a radial gradient so that it doesn't stand out like little square boxes when used in text. It should look better now if you ctrl+F5 refresh the page. Wcoenen (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2015 (CST)
- I've already re-uploaded the darker version, and updated the mark template. You can follow the upload of the pictures here: Special:NewFiles. Now its more visible, but now they look "strange". As I said I'll update these pages in 1-2 weeks, so the white background wont cause problem. NWM (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2015 (CST)
- I'd like if we have on actual image which could be used as an image (and not in text) and then another with a contrasting similar to this one here. Although I'd prefer if the background would be a background of the complete shape instead of a circle, more like a border. This way it would be possible to distinct between both images (if you look at the small images of both they look very similar: a black circular shadow and a brighter ring inside that shadow). And this file here should be the original and the other one should have a special name (as that file is specially crafted for this wiki and not how the actual marker looks). — xZise [talk] 14:01, 3 January 2015 (CST)
- I think I addressed the "background of complete shape" issue by creating a proper drop-shadow. To my eye it even looks good both in text and as a larger image, so I made no attempt to split these use cases. (I did have some weird cut-off problems for the prograde image, but I think it is acceptable for now.) Wcoenen (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (CST)
- I'd like if we have on actual image which could be used as an image (and not in text) and then another with a contrasting similar to this one here. Although I'd prefer if the background would be a background of the complete shape instead of a circle, more like a border. This way it would be possible to distinct between both images (if you look at the small images of both they look very similar: a black circular shadow and a brighter ring inside that shadow). And this file here should be the original and the other one should have a special name (as that file is specially crafted for this wiki and not how the actual marker looks). — xZise [talk] 14:01, 3 January 2015 (CST)
- I've already re-uploaded the darker version, and updated the mark template. You can follow the upload of the pictures here: Special:NewFiles. Now its more visible, but now they look "strange". As I said I'll update these pages in 1-2 weeks, so the white background wont cause problem. NWM (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2015 (CST)
