Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions

Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide (view source)

Revision as of 00:14, 2 December 2015

6,048 bytes added , 2 December 2015

Discussion Clean-up; Please review/provide follow-up

Kolano

Bureaucrats, Administrators

79,225

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Improvements? ==
+== 3d Ratings==
+We've concluded that:
+* A lower count of ratings would be for the best, we seem to have settled on using 3 levels + unrated.
+* 3d compatibility info is more complicated than a simple rating can communicate. Some textual description will be necessary, and is seen as appropriate content for the "Enhancements" portion of each title page.
+* A baseline "3d Output" {{tl|Problems}} template needs to be defined to provide preliminary 3d output support details and linkages back to the [[Stereoscopic 3D Support and Compatibility/Sandbox|Stereoscopic 3D Support and Compatibility]] page. Each title's page will also likely need to provide detailed notes around specific 3d issues/workarounds and depth/separation configuration details (where such isn't integrated with pre-existing inis).
+We still need to decide upon the following:
+=== Titles ===
+We need to decide the specific titles/ descriptions used for each rating, there have been at least thee suggestions. The "Unknown" rating seems clear but we still need to conclude on the others. Some specific open topics:
+* Acceptable?: Kolano feels what's "acceptable" varies too greatly between people to use this term.
+* Eyesore: Unclear if we'd want to use a colloquialism like this in our definitions.
+* Ratings Basis: Kolano suggested we revise the description text to more closely relate things to the cause for these ratings (i.e. problems).
+==== Current Sets ====
+===== Lucario =====
+ * 3: Excellent: Nice stereoscopic 3D gameplay experience
+ * 2: Acceptable: Some visual issues
+ * 1: Not&nbsp;Recommended: Eyesore and/or renders in 2D
+===== Jhonn =====
+ * 3: Good: Everything else that doesn't fit the previous two categories get here
+ * 2: Fair: Game renders in 3D but not all times or have other minor issues that shouldn't affect gameplay
+ * 1: No 3D/Not Recommended: Graphics become messed, several issues/game breaking problems or no 3D at all
+===== Kolano =====
+ * 3: Good: No problems
+ * 2: Fair: Minor problems not impacting play
+ * 1: Poor: Major problems impacting play
+=== 2d App Handling ===
+Should 2d titles be specifically called out or rated in some specific way?
+* Kolano would prefer they be rated just like other titles, and only listed as imperfect if they display poorly under 3d output (i.e. have specific problems, rather than simply not using 3d).
+* Jhonn / Lucario feel 2d titles should receive a 1 star rating regardless of how they output in 3d mode.
+=== Display Location===
+Major suggested that we not place the 3d rating into the info box, and instead keep it within the enhancement section.
+: This may be prudent to listen to. In future we may also cover things like compatibility with anti-aliasing and anisotropic/forced filtering. It would probably be nice to include similar at a glance ratings for such, but adding 3+ ratings to the infobox seems excessive. I'd almost want to design a separate "Enhancements" sidebar, but that probably has some layout concerns (i.e. forcing gaps in page content to appear below infobox sidebar). [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)
+=== Display Type ===
+We have 2 main designs for handling 3d ratings we need to decide between: stars mimicking our standard ratings or street light style. Outstanding issues:
+* Major seems against non-textual displays. I think this has been resolved, as other admins fail to see text only solutions as providing an at a glace evaluation, but leaving a note here in case this needs more discussion.
+* The stop light approach may make the numeric ratings less clear (i.e. does a 1 = red or green), such is much clearer when a star count matches the rating.
+----
+{| class="wikitable"
+|-
+!|3D Condition
+!|Description
+|-
+| [[Image:3DStars3.png]]<br /><span style="display:inline-block;width:72px;text-align:center;font-size:8pt;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Rating 1</span>
+| Rating 1: Rating 1 desc
+|-
+| [[Image:3DStars2.png]]<br /><span style="display:inline-block;width:72px;text-align:center;font-size:8pt;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Rating 2</span>
+| Rating 2: Rating 2 desc
+|-
+| [[Image:3DStars1.png]]<br /><span style="display:inline-block;width:72px;text-align:center;font-size:8pt;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Rating 3</span>
+| Rating 3: Rating 3 desc
+|-
+| [[Image:3DStars0.png]]<br /><span style="display:inline-block;width:72px;text-align:center;font-size:8pt;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Unknown</span>
+| Unknown: Has not been tested yet
+|}
+----
+{| class="wikitable"
+|-
+!|3D Condition
+!|Description
+|-
+| <span style="display:inline-block;width:12px;height:12px;border-radius:8px;background:#0f6;border:2px solid #0b4"></span><span style="margin-left:.5em;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Rating 1</span>
+| Rating 1 desc
+|-
+| <span style="display:inline-block;width:12px;height:12px;border-radius:8px;background:#fd6;border:2px solid #b94"></span><span style="margin-left:.5em;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Rating 2</span>
+| Rating 2 desc
+|-
+| <span style="display:inline-block;width:12px;height:12px;border-radius:8px;background:#f66;border:2px solid #b44"></span><span style="margin-left:.5em;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Rating 3</span>
+| Rating 3 desc
+|-
+| <span style="display:inline-block;width:12px;height:12px;border-radius:8px;background:#ccc;border:2px solid #888"></span><span style="margin-left:.5em;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Unknown</span>
+| Has not been tested yet
+|}
+=== Instruction ===
+We'll likely need to define some guidance text to those providing ratings. I'm not quite how to best handle such, since the Infobox may not be a great place for the HTML comment style guidance provided elsewhere (and will be missed if an edit button is provided like our other ratings). It seems we default the undefined ratings to the text "0", so perhaps we can revise such to also provide an instructional comment (perhaps for our regular ratings too). [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)
+== Older Discussion ==
+<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
+=== Improvements? ===
 Well, this is still a little early in, but you can kind of see the structure forming. Jump in with suggestions on better ways to handle it if you come up with any! - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 16:46, 7 August 2014 (CEST)
@@ Line 119: / Line 204: @@
 : Gotcha. What if we move the discussion to how the 3D info should look/what should we put on the entry when moved to Enhancements section (well, if you guys agree moving it there) and hold the 3D rating implementation until it's ready (I mean, keep discussing it but don't implement anything outside of sandboxes, at least not yet)? - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (CET)
+</div>