Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox

Details of Purpose?

Can you provide more specific details of what you wanted to accomplish here? Kolano (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2015 (CET)

Trying to create something like this: http://i.imgur.com/pzrJ6n9.png

I can't seem to display the text outside the box. By the way, the stacking bars aren't intended. It isn't paint job but rather a piece of screenshot of something I made in CSS test area. Lucario (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2015 (CET)

div class="versioncompatibilityversion"

Seems to combine the multiple color bars into a single bar but hides the revision texts when it's going outside the box. Lucario (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (CET)

Finished!

It could be better but due to my limited coding abilities, it's good as it is now! How is the new version compatibility bar? Maybe try to accustom to it first in several game page previews to find out? (just add "/sandbox" in each template then preview) Lucario (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2016 (CET)

I'm not counter to revising this, but there are still some minor issues with the current revision:

• Longer revisions, almost anything with 4char revision indicators, are being cut off (i.e. 4.0-2800).
• Close revisions overlap problematically. With the older style, overlapping revisions would overlap but the newer revision would still be legible. Here overlaps make both revisions illegible. Might be addressable in a few ways:
  • Adding background color to the revision label, perhaps with transparent gradient borders to help things not look odd against non-white backrounds.
    • Handled it this way for now. Such obscures the earlier revision, but at least one is legible this way.Kolano (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2016 (CET)
  • Revising things to handle odd/even revisions slightly differently (up/down, or top of the bar/bottom of the bar).
  • Going with fully vertical text

Beyond those, I'd like to take some time to try to work in some other revised functionality before we'd deploy updates:

• Add indicators of major revisions in addition to the end points beneath the bar (i.e. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0)
• Revise the default covered range to exclude 2.0 revisions (i.e. cover from v3.0-v5.0)
• Working out a concept of hard vs soft stops. So we could more accurately indicate where a known compatibility change occurs vs compatibility happens to be such at some revision (but the change may have occurred in an earlier one). Basically I'd like to allow replacing the solid 1px right border with a transparent gradient, so the one compatibility would fade into it's prior one.
• Allow the covered range to be revised, so it would be possible to display 5.0-1.0 or other range of revisions.

Kolano (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2016 (CET)

I'm against text going vertical. It doesn't free up the space between revisions very much compared to diagonal texts. It will in turn harder to read and require more space above to avoid text cut-off. Besides, it's extraordinary to see the revision getting nearly complete overlapped anyway. Well, my original intention was to resolve the overlap problem between two revisions closing each others, but not for those that's nearly complete overlapped. But I'm in for the white/transparent background just in case. I was thinking this illegible text is better than the older revision getting its revision number cut-off or impossible to click.

Maybe we can create mouse over popup so that the revision link will appear when the mouse is hovering the bar or the black arrow. Or mouse over to make the white background so the overlapped text will appear legible? The rotated texts will be no longer needed for this.

Your new ideas sound good too. You can edit this template and see how it goes. I'm satisfied with this new template though more features are welcomed. Lucario (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2016 (CET)

I'm not entirely sure how much of a good idea this is... we get a lot of "I tried it and it was good!" things which did not change the rating or have anything notable in them, which do not belong on the version compatibility graph. By the definition of "where compatibility change occured", if we strictly followed our own rules this is almost never an issue. The only times I can think of where it would genuinely be useful is cases like, a bug occurs and it is fixed rapidly. But the wiki often misses those anyway. :P But anyway, we shouldn't change anything until clear improvements are established, and I'm not really seeing them right now. - MaJoR (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2016 (CET)