79,227
edits
 |
Progress Continues
We've already had 21549 updates since Dolphin 5.0. Keep up with Dolphin's continuing progress through the Dolphin Blog: February, March, and April 2024 Dolphin Progress Report. |
 |
The Dolphin Emulator Wiki needs your help! Dolphin can play thousands of games, and changes are happening all the time. Help us keep up! Join in and help us make this the best resource for Dolphin. |
Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Template talk:VersionCompatibilityVersion/sandbox (view source)
Revision as of 08:54, 12 July 2016
, 12 July 2016→Any flaws? Dislikes?
| Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
: Okay, got some time to review this, firstly, could you explain better what exactly are you referring to by "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width"? I didn't figure out what it might be, so I'm presumably opposing until I understand better. Secondly, about "Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left", I'm supportive of having some way to correct overlapped revisions but I think the current design isn't looking good, needs further refinement. Moving on, I'm also supportive of "Major revision points in footer", but in the future, with more releases, it'll get messy. Maybe using some kind of logarithmic instead of linear calculation to the revision position on the bar (so the recent releases get a wider space in the chart compared to old ones, like 2.0). This also relates to "Remove static "2.0" end point": I oppose having anything older than 2.0 being the "earliest", the data available on those revisions are pretty scarce and 2.0 at this point is so old to even bother trying to gather information about it (I mean, the Version Compatibility chart didn't even exist on the wiki around 2.0 release time, AFAIK -- why bother keeping track of revisions before it while we already have trouble documenting revisions released after?). That's all I had to say, for now. If you want to discuss further on some point that I'm officially opposing, let me know. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 04:57, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | : Okay, got some time to review this, firstly, could you explain better what exactly are you referring to by "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width"? I didn't figure out what it might be, so I'm presumably opposing until I understand better. Secondly, about "Correcting overlapped revision text by shifting later revision to upper-left", I'm supportive of having some way to correct overlapped revisions but I think the current design isn't looking good, needs further refinement. Moving on, I'm also supportive of "Major revision points in footer", but in the future, with more releases, it'll get messy. Maybe using some kind of logarithmic instead of linear calculation to the revision position on the bar (so the recent releases get a wider space in the chart compared to old ones, like 2.0). This also relates to "Remove static "2.0" end point": I oppose having anything older than 2.0 being the "earliest", the data available on those revisions are pretty scarce and 2.0 at this point is so old to even bother trying to gather information about it (I mean, the Version Compatibility chart didn't even exist on the wiki around 2.0 release time, AFAIK -- why bother keeping track of revisions before it while we already have trouble documenting revisions released after?). That's all I had to say, for now. If you want to discuss further on some point that I'm officially opposing, let me know. - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 04:57, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
:: Forgot something about the new colors: I don't like the color used for "playable". My suggestion here is using the current "perfect green" as the color for playable and using some kind of blue (somewhat close to the Dolphin logo, for example) as "perfect". - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 05:02, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | :: Forgot something about the new colors: I don't like the color used for "playable". My suggestion here is using the current "perfect green" as the color for playable and using some kind of blue (somewhat close to the Dolphin logo, for example) as "perfect". - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 05:02, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | ||
::Will respond in a few bullets bellow... [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | |||
*I believe the "Rating text on top: white bar to be in its full width" is related to the current revision no longer consuming 100% of the width. In instead there is as odd gap between the last revision shown and the edge of the chart. I remain a bit unclear why it would be necessary, I'd think the header/footer rows would be be styled to allow for overlapping other content and forcing odd offsets, but I haven't had time to look closely at why the gap has been added. | |||
*Can you or Major be more clear about oppositions to revisions to account for overlapping revision text? The current revision seems to significantly improve on displaying close revisions. Do we not feel there enough CSS3 compliant browsers that support angled text? Neither you or Major have described why you are opposed to the current revisions to account for such? We had considered some additional revisions to offset close revisions further (i.e. allow even closely set diagonal text to not overlap), but wanted to avoid some of the complexities of that for now. In any case I want to have a clearer understanding of the opposition of pulling the change revision indicators into the header, and offsetting them diagonally to allow close set revisions to be legible. | |||
*I think the eventual goal regarding the baseline revision point will be to make it be set arbitrarily based on whatever revision we have the earliest report on. If we have no reports earlier than 4.0 then there is no reason to clutter the graph with earlier revisions. However, where we have reports from prior to 2.0 I'd like the chart to display them. My vote would be to display all available data and work out some reasonable display when no data is available. | |||
*I understand there has been some ongoing effort to purge historic data from the wiki, and I understand the lack of desire to maintain such. For instance, I have not opposed the purge of problem data. At the same time there is a historic aspect of things to preserve as well, which I feel the Compatibility graph plays into. | |||
I'm happy to see discussion here, but would like to ensure that we don't deride some of the improvements that have been made due to what are likely more minor design decisions. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:54, 12 July 2016 (CEST) | |||
== Few questions (opinions usually) == | == Few questions (opinions usually) == | ||