CZ:Subpages/Which style?: Difference between revisions
imported>Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér |
imported>Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
# [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 01:51, 20 August 2007 (CDT) | # [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 01:51, 20 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
# [[User:Anupam Srivastava|Anupam Srivastava]] 22:36, 21 August 2007 (CDT) | # [[User:Anupam Srivastava|Anupam Srivastava]] 22:36, 21 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
# [[User:Morten Juhl Johansen|Morten Juhl Johansen]] (none of the options good, but this one marginally better) | # [[User:Morten Juhl Johansen|Morten Juhl Johansen]] (none of the options good, but this one marginally better. Stylesheet looks like Win95) | ||
{{col-break}} | {{col-break}} | ||
Revision as of 02:03, 22 August 2007
The issue
Should we use vertical (column-based; example) or horizontal (tab-based; example) templates for subpages? The templates used, in case you're interested, are {{subpages2}} and {{subpages9}} (note, not for the faint of heart!).
Brief summary of arguments
For a vertical template: nicely balances out the links on the left side and top of the usual MediaWiki layout (skin). For cases with many subpages there is unlimited room to expand down.
Against a vertical template: creates layout problems, especially with images, which are usually placed in the top right, where the vertical template would go.
For a horizontal template: tabs are a common, instantly recognizable navigation tool.
Against a horizontal template: this creates "link overload" and "tab overload" at the top of the page. For cases with many subpages there is limited room to expand and the tabs may be too crunched, however, it can realistically accommodate 10-12 subpages.
Notes:
- The functionality of the subpages can be made exactly the same.
- The main considerations here are design/aesthetic ones.
VOTE HERE
Vote for only one. Vote to be closed Friday, August 24.
Vertical, or Column-based (Example)
|
Horizontal, or Tab-based (Example)
|