Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
Yes.
The letters (h3’s) are disruptive and irrelevant.
If it were up to me I would eliminate the list bullets on all category listings.
So – on the body tag of the Orientation Category page, for example we have:
class="mediawiki ns-14 ltr page-Category_Orientation"I looked up the ns-14 class and it seems to refer to the namespace of the page, which in this case is Category. Unless we want to apply the above styles to all Category pages (and I suppose we don’t since the Tag Reference is such a page) then we’re stuck (I think) applying the styles specifically to page-Category_Orientation, page-Category_Installation, etc. Not too big of a deal, since there won’t be too many top-level categories, yeah?
So now my only question is, who has the power to mess with the css?
Offline
#17 2009-10-02 22:51:27
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
jsoo wrote:
If not feasible to get different HTML output for this page
At first sight it looks quite fixed, other wikis show exactly the same markup. Anyway, I don’t think we should apply any major changes at the moment, when the .com site redesign is in effect Textbook will have to follow and we don’t know to what extent the CSS will need to be rewritten then.
But if a few additions to the CSS will make such a difference for the category pages, I’d say go for it!
nabrown78 wrote:
Unless we want to apply the above styles to all Category pages (and I suppose we don’t since the Tag Reference is such a page) then we’re stuck (I think) applying the styles specifically to
page-Category_Orientation,page-Category_Installation, etc. Not too big of a deal, since there won’t be too many top-level categories, yeah?
Or apply it to all category pages and exclude the Tag Reference, would that be possible?
So now my only question is, who has the power to mess with the css?
I think you have :)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
Hey how come pages like this are structured so differently? Is there some way we could change the Tutorials page to this type of page? It doesn’t appear to use tables at all…
Offline
#19 2009-10-02 22:54:37
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
That’s a page template, not a category. It’s done manually, looking much better but not so desirable in my opinion because it won’t be updated automatically.
Last edited by els (2009-10-02 22:56:49)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
So I found this in the wiki help docs:
Because of the customized nature of the TextBook skin, it’s not possible to effectively edit the CSS from any wiki page. The skin is (or will be soon if not already) defined by several CSS files that cascade together. Thus only TextBook admins can edit the presentation layer of TextBook, via the back-end.
There are various help docs brewing under the Presentation section of the help:Contents that aim to provide wiki users with a set of CSS rules to easily make their content consistent and beautiful. If you have suggestions for additional styling, let the admins know in the TextBook forum.
Yet for the life of me I can’t figure out where one can access the CSS to edit it.
That’s a page template, not a category. It’s done manually, looking much better but not so desirable in my opinion because it won’t be updated automatically.
That’s what I thought, but when you click “Edit” you see {{Installation index}} instead of a manually-entered list of links as I expected. I don’t really get how that’s working, especially with the external links that are in the list.
Offline
#21 2009-10-02 23:15:49
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
nabrown78 wrote:
That’s what I thought, but when you click “Edit” you see
{{Installation index}}instead of a manually-entered list of links as I expected.
At the very bottom of the page in edit mode there is a link to the template.
Offline
#22 2009-10-02 23:30:11
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
nabrown78 wrote:
Yet for the life of me I can’t figure out where one can access the CSS to edit it.
Looks like it’s just a file on the server: http://textbook.textpattern.net/wiki/skins/textbook/css/main.css. As an admin, you have server access, right? :)
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
Thinking it over, I’ve decided we’re going about this the wrong way entirely. Rather than trying to bend a category page in ways it won’t bend, we should make Tutorials a titled page and arrange the tutorials by hand.
Is there any benefit to having a tutorials category that I am missing?
Code is topiary
Offline
#24 2009-10-04 12:50:14
- uli
- Moderator
- From: Cologne
- Registered: 2006-08-15
- Posts: 4,316
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
jsoo wrote
Is there any benefit to having a tutorials category that I am missing?
I had a mail exchange with Els on exactly this matter about one week ago that I’m quoting from (my POV):
[Els: “… categories are automatically updated with pages that get assigned to them”.]
Yes, that’s an enormous advantage , and even several indexes would stay in synch, but the necessary procedere needs to be communicated to new pages’ authors, else the wiki operators have to regularly wade through all of these for categorizing them, let alone re-categorizing hundreds of them.
Manual indexes have the advantage to be attended in one single spot, but also need regular attention. Another advantage lies in the circumstance that page authors would enter their opus themselves. But it needed one index page, or authors would forget to enter their work twice/thrice, so people wouldn’t always find what they’re looking for. And a one page index tends to become overly long.To and fro, back and forth: Categories, yes, probably the better choice. Except for designing them (see the Els/jsoo/uli cooperation for subcategories)
A quick search [in Textbook] didn’t reveal a template that authors could work from. It should have a blank category in the “footer—keep-at-bottom” part.
In bad weather I never leave home without wet_plugout, smd_where_used and adi_form_links
Offline
#25 2009-10-04 12:53:38
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
jsoo wrote:
Is there any benefit to having a tutorials category that I am missing?
Yes, categorization for instance ;) and automatic update of the tutorials index. The page Nora referred to is an example of a manually maintained index. It may look slightly better, but it’s yet another page to watch and maintain. The old ‘Alphabetical Tag Index’ was another example of such a page. You probably didn’t read every topic in this forum (wouldn’t expect you to ;) ), but Destry has done a lot of work in restructuring Textbook, with as main goals making it as easy as possible to (1) find information, and (2) contribute and maintain. In either respect, categories are an important tool.
I think we should keep in mind a couple of things:
- The structure Destry has implemented makes a lot of sense; it also intends to make an optimal use of a wiki’s properties and features. There is absolutely no reason to diverge from the direction he laid out.
- Layout is subordinate to structure (it’s a wiki!)
So in my opinion we should never want to try and bend the structure to fit the layout. We can try and do something with the CSS, but if we can’t, too bad.
Personally, though I can see your point about the visual aspects of the three column layout, it doesn’t bother me very much either.
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
Els wrote:
Layout is subordinate to structure (it’s a wiki!)
Yes, but in the case of the Tutorials page, the layout is killing usability.
Category page layout is working well for the Tag Reference (main category and sub-categories). Titles are short (tag names), so that they work well in the three-column layout, and organizing tag pages alphabetically makes perfect sense.
I don’t see any other TextBook category page that fits well with that layout. Are there any?
Code is topiary
Offline
#27 2009-10-04 13:43:29
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
jsoo wrote:
Yes, but in the case of the Tutorials page, the layout is killing usability.
I don’t see it that way. It may not be very useful, though reading through the alphabetical list can give users a clue where to look as well, it’s certainly not working against usability.
We can make it clear on that category page that the Subcategories index is the most important one. If we put it in a <div class="notes"> it will stand out sufficiently.
Or maybe – considering the alphabetical pages index is there and we can’t remove it – would it be an idea to try and apply Uli’s find there as well? For instance put ‘Combat Comment Spam’ under ‘S’ for ‘Spam’. Or ‘C’ for ‘Comments’… Oh oh, there we go… maybe not such a good idea after all.
Offline
#28 2009-10-04 14:03:34
- els
- Moderator
- From: The Netherlands
- Registered: 2004-06-06
- Posts: 7,458
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
I wrote:
…the Subcategories index is the most important one.
I am convinced we can create perfectly clear index pages by making optimal use of subcategories. It doesn’t stop at one level, you know. Subcategories can have subcategories of their own. Pages can be in more than one subcategory. Etcetera. It just requires a little bit of research when submitting a new page: how can it be categorized?
If we manage to organize pages properly this way, the fact that there also happens to be an alphabetical list of pages on every category page won’t be an obstacle at all.
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
Els wrote:
It may not be very useful, though reading through the alphabetical list can give users a clue where to look as well, it’s certainly not working against usability.
I don’t understand the distinction: not very useful, yet usable?
At any rate, I realize that structural changes are off the table at the moment.
Code is topiary
Offline
Re: [wiki] Tutorials page: layout & scope
Comparing to the Tag Reference again, I note the “mininav”, which I take to be a MW “form”. Is creating new forms for admins only? I think it would be useful to have a Tutorials mininav.
Code is topiary
Offline