Forum:Movement for the Vault to get a paint job

As much as the background and colour scheme of the Vault is fitting and all together okay, I think that it is about time we redecorated. Now, I’m not sure with what exactly, but perhaps a graphic background of some description. It’s all a bit drab, especially now that so much more of it is visible. I also think it needs seriously considering as we are now in competition with our old friends (who also have exactly the same background). 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think that this wiki could use a paintjob, especially since the crass reality of things is that we are competing with what will soon be Nukapedia. I'm not entirely sure about what we could do aesthetically, but I'm not against it at all. Hugs [[file:MadeMan2.png|20px|link=User:Scarface11235]] "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
 * Personally I think the familiarity has certain advantages, especially for those migrating over. It is reassuring to have things as is, instead of changing for the sake of change. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But, it's not for the sake of change. We need to do something to boost out ratings, and if we don't try to make it seem more user friendly than the far more high-tech looking NukaPedia, we'll be in trouble very soon. And thanks for agreeing Al Menze's handwritten Guardian of the Wastes.pngGuardianoftheWastesTag.png 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How is changing the background going to affect ratings. And by ratings, what do you mean exactly, Google ranking? User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, how we are rated in people's heads against other wikis. This is starting to look very drab, and it just feels like it is bringing the quality of the site down. Before at Wikia, it was okay because there was less of it. Now most of the page is taken up by it, and it seems clunky. Menze's handwritten Guardian of the Wastes.pngGuardianoftheWastesTag.png

To be honest I was wondering if they were going to change the background theme over there once they decide on a new logo. ...Still can't believe everyone went with the soda name... X.x Great Mara 05:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But, everyone is getting of topic, although a valid point Mara. What about here? κηδεμόνας  μιλώ  14:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If they do change the background, that kinda make the need to differentiate ourselves redundant. Also brings back to my first point of familiarity to long time users of The Vault. But in response to your comment about much more of it is showing, there really isn't that much more showing since both sites are restricted to a certain width.


 * Additionally, one of the things you have to consider about a graphical background is accessibility of the site. One large graphical file will take up more bandwidth than a smaller tiled background. This is especially important to users on dial up (yes they do still exist) and mobile users with low bandwidth or bandwidth allowances. Additionally, for users who have large screens that exceed the background size, they will be presented with a solid background color beyond the borders of the background image, which would look nasty. There is a solution for this by fixing the position, so vertical scrolling will always keep the image in the same place. But, that also present the problem of users will small screens not getting the full impact the background image is intended to give, by always cutting the bottom part of said image off. Also, it doesn't address the horizontal issues still showing solid color beyond the limit of the background image. Which with more and more screen becoming widescreen, could become more of an issue in the future.


 * These are the kinda things you have to think about when designing a web page. Accessibility should always be at the forefront of any design. So why we may have a very simple (you my call it drab) design, it is also makes the actual content, which is the primary aim of any wiki, very accessible and neat to a large audience on a varying range of platforms.


 * However, there is an option we now have open to us which wasn't present at Wikia, due to there dictatorial choices of site layout and design. That is the ability to install new skin options. Which means a user can choice how the site looks (not just the background, but also changing other layout aspects) from a selection of pre-formatted templates. Some examples from Wikipedia and other wiki projects . This is an option I would prefer to explore instead of changing out current layout.


 * Additionally, there is also the option of users creating costume layouts via there own personal CSS, thus creating the site as they want it. And for those who are not familiar with CSS, I am sure we could create a gadget that also changes the background image only for them (maybe from a selection of images), similar to the no fixed width gadget we currently have. These are just a few options we could also explorer instead of changing something, that in my mind, works. Remember the old saying, don't try and fix what isn't already broken. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What about 'there is no invention, only innovation'? ;) On a more serious note, it think that your two suggestions are easily preferable to any change possible, especially the latter. How difficult would they be to do though? κηδεμόνας  μιλώ  12:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the first one shouldn't be to hard at all, as I do believe Porter was planning to add more skin support down the line. So the smart person he is, he added most the CSS for this skin to the Vector.css file instead of the common.css file. This means that all that is needed is getting Curse to install a new skin for use and then us modifying it by creating its own .css file. As for the latter, that would need to be answered by Porter, since he is the Java wiz, I can just barley read Java, let alone implement it. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then we'll wait for Porter it seems. The latter is definitely preferable as people will enjoy the ability to customise it. Also, that quote apparently wasn't a quote at all, so I think I can claim that as original for now, no stealing! ;) κηδεμόνας  μιλώ  21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I know I don't have any sway here, but the current background and Vault logo are very similar in style to the earlier Fallout titles. This is a double edged sword. It provides a sense of history and continuity, but to newer visitors this may look dated by current design standards. I always thought the logo looked like a bottle cap and the background like a gas station restroom wall. This may not be the image the wiki wants to project the first time some one sees it. I come to the wiki for its function, but with competing wiki's currently hosting roughly identical content, new users may equate a more modern visual style with higher production values and possibly quality. That is all. Xclockwatcher 06:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The background is a texture file from Fallout 3 I believe. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought so, but still, wouldn't one of the vault interior textures be more emblematic? The imagery that comes to mind when thinking of Fallout is the retro futuristic streamlining that pervades the franchise as a whole, not dilapidated drywall and peeling paint. Also the words snazzy, and trousers for some reason, but not slacks. If that random thought makes any sense, let me know. Xclockwatcher 04:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the current background; it kind of takes over the screen due to the fixed-width theme that restricts the actual site content to the middle 50% of the screen on my home computers (1920x1200). Something more busy might be fun, like a collage of power armors, or some fan artwork, or a small selection of randomly rotated background images, etc. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 05:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally I'm not opposed to modernizing the look of the wiki, changing the background and/or the color scheme. However, if we do end up going for a new look, I think we should keep the current one as an alternative skin choice for the people who'd like to continue using it.

While I agree that familiarity is/was a plus right after the split (which is the reason why I've kept the original theme for this site close to our old ones), I don't think that means we'll have to keep this look for all eternity. In fact, even if we had not moved I would have suggested an update to the visuals some time this year. We've been using the current look for more than three years now and it's starting to look a little dated. I'm also not a particular fan of the background since it's very noisy and very hard to place text on with decent contrast (hence all those workarounds with semi-transparent backgrounds for the footer area etc). So, I'm open for suggestions regarding a color scheme/background etc.

GA has already mentioned a few of the considerations for choosing a background. I'll add/repeat the ones I consider important: While GA is right about the advantages of tiled/repeating images (i.e. like the current one), there are also ways around the limitations he mentioned. You can do something like with the old (Monaco-based) WoWWiki skin, i.e. have a repeating background but place two images (one left, one right) outside the content area which have a transparent background (a recent example can be found here). Or you can have an image which fades into a solid color on the edges etc. Just throwing this out there. We certainly shouldn't be aiming to "fill the screen" for people with widescreen resolutions as that would result in slowing the site down (due to the resulting size of the background image) for something most people will never even see.
 * File size. The background image should not exceed ~100kb. No matter how nice you think a background image is, it's no good if it results in people not visiting the site because it takes too long to load. The average internet user has a short attention span, and a significant percentage of visitors each day are first time editors who'll have to download all the images etc from scratch (in contrast to us regulars who have it cached).
 * It shouldn't detract from the content. It's a background image, not the reason why people visit the site. That reason is the content.

On the subject of gadgets for choosing the background, it's certainly possible as long as we keep it to a reasonable number of choices (so the gadgets page doesn't get cluttered too much). No JS required either, gadgets can be purely CSS-based.

Finally, while I'm fine with providing skin choices, I think we should stick to Vector variants and keep the amount of choices to a reasonable number. Skins require constant maintenance and frankly I'd prefer not to be bogged down by that too much. This is also why I'd stick to Vector variants; the workload for maintaining JavaScripts and templates should remain reasonable.

My apologies if I've overlooked something. I've moved the placeholder discussion over to Forum:Move - bug reports; just in case you're wondering where it went. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On the subject of widescreen users, it would be preferable to fill the screen with content rather than images of any kind. I've honestly never understood the reasoning behind fixed-width web site themes (or worse, variable width themes that still result in huge areas of nothing on the sides). --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * People can turn off the fixed with via their preferences. Regarding the reasoning behind fixed width, please see Forum:Fixed width or not - we've been over this before. I'm a widescreen user myself (1920*1080), by the way, and I much prefer the fixed width. -- Porter21 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to point something out, the example you pointed to Porter is actually a single non-transparent image, with the site background set to the same color as the image background to blend it in. What I think you mean is something more like this (excuse how crappy the site is, it was something I did years ago while I was teaching myself HTML). Also, that give an example of the other option you mentioned (background image that fades to a single color) which can be seen more clearly here. Personally, I am not in favor of blending the image into a background color, as you can see the majority of it is hidden by the main content (especially for those using the NoFixedWidth gadget). I know we could probably use the same method as you posted above where the actual image would be placed outside the main content, but there would be a large part in the middle unused and could make the image size overly large. As for the floated images, how would we implement the required divs to add the images? Unless we are able to add to the core of the skin, if that is the case, it does open up a few options I didn't consider. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The example was more meant to illustrate the resulting look rather than the technique itself. As for adding two separate images, it's possible to insert them with CSS only (with :after and :before, works in all relevant browser except IE7); however, I just had to notice that this causes horizontal scrollbars. Not sure whether we can get more divs added to the skin HTML for this, but Curse did add the #global-wrapper at our request.


 * However, background image aside, we really need to modernize the site's appearance. I'm seeing more and more comments that the current skin looks outdated (and not just on "Nukapedia"), so I don't think keeping ti works in our favour. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Never even knew of :after and :before, looks like I learnt my new thing for the day :) But if we are able to add elements to the skin like divs, I would prefer that option myself. Obviously they would then need to be stripped out for for NoFixedWidth gadget, which is easy enough if they are labelled. But I am defiantly in favour of a simple tiled background image if we are going to be replacing it. And if graphics are to be added, again some simple divs would be preferred. As for updating the site design, guess my argument for familiarity is kinda null in void. Personally I never really liked it myself, hence why I personalised my own page over on Wikia (which many people then copied -_-). I have always thought that the site was way to light in the color tones and need some contrast thrown in. Looks like it is onwards to the future and modernization. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI after reading this entire topic. Wikis on the Curse network are required to use only the Vector skin at this time. We do not have ad and analytic support for alternative skins in place. This may change in the future, but all skin design has to be based on Vector. This does not necessarily limit design options as the vector.css can be manipulated to pretty much look like anything but adding new divs requires changes to the php files, which is not generally allowed. --Wynthyst 09:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, why is Wowpedia using a custom skin then? -- Porter21 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wowpedia's skin is also based on Vector. Ausir 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that; there is, however, a difference between a Vector-based custom skin and a Vector skin modified via Vector.css. Wowpedia's skin is the former (see Special:Version on Wowpedia), while Wynthyst's reply read to me as if Curse wikis were only allowed the latter. Hence my question. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid at this point only modifying the actual Vector skin is possible, as far as I know. I can look into it, though. Ausir 00:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, WoWpedia uses vector based skins, the php files are identical, it's only the css that is different. It was also something that was negotiated on when they forked from Wikia. --Wynthyst 19:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

FCW skin test run
If there aren't any objections, I'd like to roll out my FCW skin site-wide tomorrow so I can get some feedback on usability and bugs from a wider range of users. I'm planning to have it active for one week and then create a vote whether it should be kept or whether we should return to a more traditional layout.

Of course, the colors, banner or background I'm using currently aren't final - I'll leave choosing these to the community. For the banner I'm going to provide a similar script as for the background (see below) so people can try out different combinations of backgrounds/banners without having to tinker with their personal CSS. Everybody fine with that? -- Porter21 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. May want to post something about it on the front page to avoid confusing/alarming people who don't see this (especially since it's buried in the middle of the discussion). --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That will probably be best served by updating the site notice. Might want to run anonnotice as well, just to keep the migration tool notice up. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, moving the migration message to anonnotice and putting up a new sitenotice for the skin test sounds good. I'll also make a new forum thread for collecting bug reports/feedback so this one can be kept for choosing banners/backgrounds and discussing color themes. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Variations of the current theme (Porter21)
Figured I'd share some of the stuff I've been playing around with (yes, that's the kind of stuff I do when I'm bored):


 * 1) Slight redesign of the current skin. Headers of infoboxes and portal boxes would be adapted to match the ribbon-style used by the sidebar headers.
 * http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/8908/sidebardesign2.png
 * 1) Variation of the above with a slightly different sidebar design.
 * http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/417/sidebardesign1.png
 * 1) A metallic color scheme (ignore the background, couldn't find a decent metal one). I'd also use the ribbon design (like in the sidebar) for infoboxes etc.
 * http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9655/metaltheme.png

Feel free to give feedback or add own suggestions. No images required if you don't want to; just give a description of the concept. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, the third one is much easier on the eyes! It's definitely not as Fallout-esque though. The other two redesigns are slight (as you said), so the differences aren't very noticeable unless you're looking for them. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 1 and 2 are hard to choose, in the current color scheme option 2 looks better. But, option 1 looks better in the option 3 color scheme. As for option 3 color scheme, ugh - way to drab and reminds me to much of Apple and Safari, which itself it starting to look kinda dated. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC) P.S. I am not a fan of ribbon designs, when the ribbon is over used. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png  20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason option 3 looks like Apple/Safari is that I nicked their style for the ribbons ;) The main reason it looks kind of drab is the background really; I designed it for a graphical background (like the one you had on your Wikia user page).
 * Regarding option 1 vs 2, I'm fairly indifferent to be honest. #2 is easier to set up for containers with a flexible width, #1 is more balanced. The point of both was to highlight the navigation more than with the current skin. I'd rather have used the infobox header background for the ribbons to get a bit of color into the skin, but unfortunately background graphics conflict with the collapsible navigation.
 * Regarding ribbon designs in general, I don't think having 4 or 5 on an average page constitutes as "overusing" them (3 for the site nav, 1 for the games template, 1 for the infobox) - keep in mind that portal pages are a bit of a special case. However, if we want a "modern" design, our options are fairly limited - ribbons, shadows, rounded corners, gradients and maybe opacity are pretty much what constitutes modern (web 2.0) design (along with intentional simplicity). I hope we'll forego the web 2.0 lack of contrast though, never been a fan of that (hello Oasis).
 * However, I'm looking forward to other people's suggestions - just posted these to get the ball rolling. I'll help with implementing the skin, but since I've been in charge of designing pretty much everything for years I'm happy to take a back seat and let others come up with ideas this time :) -- Porter21 (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7685/vaulty.png - you wanted contrast :P -- Porter21 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Naaa, 4 or 5 ribbons isn't overusing it, I wasn't suggesting that it was either. I was just putting it out there as I have seen it in the past where websites tend to get over indulgent in there implementation when they first use them, which kinda detracts from the whole point of using ribbons. To me they are there to accentuate and highlight certain aspects of the page, highlighting more than a few key areas doesn't actually work with the human mind, as it overloads the visual processing and then general gets tuned out and ignored. I dont know if I worded that right, but it is kinda like listening to several radio stations at once. As for the contrast thing I mentioned. I wasn't talking about the sidebar or the content area. It was more the overall theme of The Vault, it is very bright and the fact that many the elements tend to match the background color, tend to make the site look like it is all just one color. Besides, ugh light brown and grey together, no thanks =P User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 14:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know what you mean. Don't emphasize too much, otherwise you might as well not emphasize at all - basic rule of web design ;) It's the reason behind not overusing bold in articles as well, for example. And I finally understand (now) what you always meant with "too bright". I didn't really notice before but now that I think about it, since the switch to Oasis there really was a lack of "contrast" (in the sense you used it). With Monaco, the skin itself contained the "dark" elements which contrasted the background (see e.g. File:Xf wka fo3 01.jpg) - and with Oasis they got lost. Partially it's also due to me trying to make sure that all content areas have a somewhat light color so we don't get visibility issues with images and icons. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I like the banner, though I think its too game spacific. Could we make the banner stay at the top of the page when we scroll though? Also I liked the older backround better, seemed to me like a old fallout-ish weathered book, and I prefer it to this metal wall backround.--Ant2242 00:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Full content width (Porter21)

 * Latest version: screenshot 1, screenshot 2

Reminded me of something I made before my holiday: http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7572/fullwidthconcept.png. It was an attempt to modify the skin in order to make the content area as wide as possible. Keep in mind it's basically an alpha version - I never really tested its compatibility with browsers other than Firefox and it's still a little rough around the edges.

Ideally, a "Fallout wiki" text should go to the right of the logo, and the top area should use a gradient or background graphic. I'd also have liked to move the toolbox and the language links out of the header (that's a little tricky though without modifying the skin HTML), possibly to where the search box is, and the search box should go upwards into the header instead. But still, I suppose you get the idea. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Gotta say, I'm growing more and more fond of the full-content-width (FCW) concept (regardless of what color scheme we choose) - see http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/7673/fullwidthconcept2.png for my current version. The header is now only ~120px high and the rest of the page within the fixed width is all available for content (a whopping 970px). It's probably also somewhat familiar to both Oasis and Vector users since it's basically a crossover between the two (without Oasis' oversimplification of things).


 * And yes, I know the navigation buttons look crappy. I'm also still fiddling with converting the personal links to a CSS hover menu, and I still need to find a good location for the toolbox and language links.


 * However, just gauging the waters. What do you guys think of using a FCW concept in general? -- Porter21 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My current version of FCW: screenshot 1, screenshot 2. The toolbox icon is a bit too pronounced (should probably be smaller) and the chevron/arrow for the personal links is a bit too large as well, but it's getting closer to what I had in mind.
 * Works in all major browser including IE8. In IE7, the ribbon corners are missing and there are no box-shadows in IE in general, but nothing that makes the site look broken.
 * The various hover menus are purely CSS-based, i.e. they work even if the user has JS disabled. I still need to iron out a minor issue with the hover menus in IE7 (the placement of the expanded menus isn't consistent with other browsers), but that's certainly fixable.
 * Regarding file size of images used, I'm coming out below the 100kb mark for the background and banner combined. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I really like the look, but I have to say that on a widescreen monitor it would be a lot nicer to have all the ribbon stuff (including the user box at the top right) be a floating menu on the left side (like it is now, except floating so that it is always on-screen). A next-best alternative would be the ribbons as shown, but with the main site content in a separate frame so that the ribbon is always visible. I realize that these suggestions may not be technically possible, given Curse restrictions. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 15:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm aware that some people disagree with the fixed width but nonetheless it remains the site standard. As such, I think getting the most out of the fixed width should take priority over considerations for the fluid width. I.e. gaining an additional 150px of content width for all readers and most editors seems more important to me than an additional ~80px content height for the users of the fluid-width gadget. That aside, I don't think a vertical panel is necessarily better suited for a fixed navigation than a horizontal one; one is as good as the other.
 * Finally, making the navigation be in two different places depending on user resolution does not appeal to me from both a usability and "brand/site recognition" point of view. Such a central element should stay in the same place, otherwise we will get complaints. It'd also require JavaScript and substantially increase the workload for maintenance as we'd basically have to maintain two completely different navigation setups. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Defiantly, liking the layout of the newest version. Needs a few tweaks here and there and I don't know If I am to fond of how dark the ribbon is. It is defiantly progressing in the right direction. But my main question is going to be, how does the design work for those having JavaScript disabled. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's purely CSS-based (even the hover menus), so whether JS is enabled or not makes no difference really. The only thing I'm using JS for currently is disabling the Vector extension's collapsible nav (which we can simply have disabled in the wiki config if this skin is chosen) because it interferes with the hover menus. I'm considering to have the hover menus in the final version be JS-powered in order to maximize browser compatibility, but the CSS hover menus will continue to exist as a fallback even then. I haven't made up my mind on that yet though; still need to dig deeper into whether browser support for :hover on non-link elements goes back far enough. The only thing I might need to employ a little JS for is the fixed-width gadget because some of the absolute positioning (the toolbox particularly) doesn't play nicely with a fluid width.
 * Regarding the ribbon, I've intentionally kept it fairly neutral because I feel it gives us more freedom for the design of content elements. I've always felt a little limited by our old Monaco skin, for example, because it was hard to find colors which matched the ones used by the skin without making the site look like a child had been playing with a paintbox.
 * I'm still trying to figure out what to do with/where to put the interwiki links ("In other languages"); suggestions would be welcome. -- Porter21 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After seeing it in action, I am definitely behind the full width content 100%. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Metal/blue (GhostAvatar)

 * Latest version: screenshot 1, screenshot 2

You know, after you mentioned grsite.com I took a look and actually liked there background, so I managed to implement both the background and the semi-transparent darking image by attaching them separably to the HTML and Body elements. Still not a big fan of grey, but once you throw in some color in, instead of multi tone greys, it brings the site to life. See here and here. Although I think it could do with some more color to highlight some areas and balance out the greys, it gives a picture which I am starting to like. User Avatar talk.png 00:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, while it's not a bad skin at all, it doesn't look like Fallout to me to be honest. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It was more of a proof of concept exploring colors and contrast more than anything else. The way I am seeing it is having the main background, one main highlight color for ribbons, infobox and table headers etc. which needs to be vibrant, then 2 secondary highlight colors for the infobox and table contents which need to match the background to some degree. It was to test to see if you could make gun metal grey color work, if you made the main highlight color something vibrant. Since I think it works, I was thinking of progessing by using graphics for all these elements. For the background I was considering the background image you used in your last FWC concept, but it needs to be brightened to work with the dark gradient background overlay (otherwise it is to dark). For the secondary highlight colors, I was considering using the grey parts of laser pistol and minigun textures. This would give the lighter and darker colors needed, which should match the background to a degree (with some tweaking) while giving a worn Fallout look. Then for the main highlight color, using something like the texture file for Pew Pew, or something with similarly bright colors, yet with a worn finish. Obviously they may need some noise reduction to work with the overlaying text. Just wondering what you guys though? User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea of a less monochromatic color scheme in general I can get on board with, but I think overall the site should be recognizable as being Fallout-related from the skin alone, so the colors chose should probably be somewhat fallout-y (for lack of a better term) I also agree that the background color of table cells/navboxes/infoboxes should be somewhat close to the article background color - some light shade of grey (as you've used in your example) would probably be good, since it's fairly neutral and combines well with most other colors. Another thing to keep in mind (from my past experience when working on the navboxes) is to choose the background colors in a fashion which doesn't require us to adapt the text/link colors too much so we achieve an overall consistent look.
 * For example, in an earlier version of the navboxes we essentially had 4 completely different colors (the current infobox header background (dark green), one metal/stone-ish grey, a somewhat dark beige and a lighter plain grey. While these colors did combine in a somewhat reasonable fashion, it resulted in having to introduce 2 additional sets of link/visited link/hover link colors since the standard links were not well-readable on the first three colors, and link colors which worked for the dark green/metal backgrounds did not work for the dark beige one. If you then got a navbox with a mixture of visited and non-visited links, the thing looked like a complete mess. Just an example to illustrate my previous point; not necessarily saying your design currently suffers from it :)
 * Regarding the usage of graphics - we have to be careful with that and make sure it does not have an adverse effect on site speed (which, as you probably know, is pretty important for a site's success). It's not even the file size of the graphics involved, it's mostly about the number - you have to take into account that each graphic, no matter how small, has an overhead of approximately 40kb associated with it (which stems from the HTTP request to get it from the server to the client). Minimizing the number of images is one of the important keys to a good site speed (see e.g. ). Of course, you can get around that to some degree by using data-URIs but that only really works for small graphics.
 * Long story short, I think we shouldn't overdo it with the images (and before you ask, other than the background/header graphics all images used by my FCW proposal are data-URIs and no larger than 5kb in total). So all in all I think using a background image for the main highlight would be alright, but I wouldn't use more images than that (by the way, the current background graphic for the various headers (infobox/portal/etc) is a data-URI of only ~0.7kb size). -- Porter21 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Background suggestions
If you have any suggestions (either images or simply a concept) for background images, post them here :) -- Porter21 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does it have to be something that tiles nicely, or are there other approaches that work well for backgrounds? --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * See my last entry in the previous section; I've mentioned some alternate techniques there. -- Porter21 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded a few tillable background images, if people want to try them out. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks familiar. grsites.com? :) -- Porter21 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, some FO3 textures from Megatron/Vaults User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, so that's where I've seen them. I was looking for background images in the texture directories yesterday as well :) -- Porter21 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Honestly, there are loads of options in the texture files, I just picked out a few of them I thought fit. Might go back and find some more at a later date. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, 2, 3, 8, and 9 look the and blend together the best. Shadowrunner(stuff) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Pics 7 through 10 fit with the current color scheme, as they have hints of the same shade of green. I have zero attachment to the current color scheme, though. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 00:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd vote for texture 9. 78.8.156.92 10:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not a fan of any of these. They look too overdone to me for being used in a website. It's easy to overload the page with that stuff. What I personally never would want as well is something too dark. Dark websites are totally out. :> --Mr.Lexx 11:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a live preview script for the backgrounds so it's easier to try them out. Simply click on one of the images in the gallery above to change the background accordingly. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice! I don't like 1,2,4,5,6 at all (too dark and/or large but noticeable tiling). 3 is fun but too dark, and feels very FO3/FNV and less FO1/FO2. 7 is too busy/dark and the straight lines look bad due to misalignment with foreground site elements. 8 looks great with the current color scheme, but doesn't particularly evoke a Fallout feel. 9 repeats too noticeably. 10 is easily my favorite, being neutral but also very Fallout-esque with the rounded, weathered details. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 15:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha! Proof at last that you are a wizard! Haha. Seriously though, I am a major fan of number 3, and I am extremely glad that you guys are even discussing this. Seriously though, good idea to draw them from the game Ghost, and nice choice too. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  19:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the live preview support adding more content by simply adding in entries to the gallery, I only ask as you wrapped it in a div. If so I may add more over time as I go through the texture files. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 01:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it does :) Live preview functionality is added to all images in the gallery at the top of this section (or rather, any gallery on this page which is wrapped in a div with that class). -- Porter21 (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think 10 is the best choice. 9 and 8 are also good contenders, but 8 has too much detail and 9 repeats a bit too much for my tastes. Shadowrunner(stuff) 01:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd go with 8, 9 or 10, in this order. Ausir 03:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Seen as my choice is vastly less popular, I'd have to say out of other's favourites I much prefer 8, and detest 10. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For those choosing 8, is that because of how it goes with the site's color scheme? I think it should be clarified whether the color scheme is going to change as well, as that will likely have some bearing on people's perceptions of the backgrounds. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 16:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For me Hunter, it's because it is less repeatative than others such as 10 and looks more natural, if you see what I mean, much like our current background - it's harder to see the tiling. 10 looks ridiculous on longer pages. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to GA showing me the personalisable css mechanic Porter sorted out, I have been testing all the backgrounds on an 'around site' basis, and I must admit that I am not a fan of any of them for long. The old background is far more preferable in the immediate, and besides that, I believe that we should be looking at gettin F:NV textures, not those from megaton. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  18:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The ability to customize CSS/JS for oneself isn't something I've added; it's a standard MediaWiki feature (works on Wikia, Wikipedia etc as well) :) -- Porter21 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But you did write the code I'm using. Take some credit once in a while Porter :D κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Porter, GW is talking about the FWC CSS I imported to his personal CSS and showing how to change the background element. There was a couple of people I imported it to, to get live feedback from in chat. 164.38.32.28 18:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded some more options for people to try out. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 17 without question should win. It's perfect in everyway. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I missed adding one. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 17 is indeed good. Need less green in the site color scheme to make it work though. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 00:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 16 and 17 are the highlights of the new backgrounds. Shadowrunner(stuff) 00:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would probably suggest that people hold off on choices, at least until the new skin goes on live trial tomorrow. The actual layout does add a whole new dimension to it. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I like #19 (just needs to be a bit lighter), #13, #16, #17 and #18 (with the current color scheme) in that order. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like #10 is currently being tested as the site default. Personally I like it a lot, but the white text at the very bottom of the pages is a bit hard to read against the lighter parts of the background image. It might be a good idea to change that text color to a tint that contrasts better. The Core/Database/Community/Wiki list headers show up fine, for example, due to their orange hue. --(talk 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * They show up fine because they are bigger and bold, not necessarily because of the color. Backgrounds like these are hard to place text on generally since a mixture of light and dark tones does not exactly lend itself to establishing contrast. I tried out quite a variety of colors but couldn't find one which provided better contrast and which also fit with the overall color scheme. If you can come up with a color which meets these criteria, I'll be happy to change it. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't criticizing anything; I just thought it was worth pointing out as a potential issue in case nobody else had noticed. It might be worth considering, say, a translucent or opaque single-color background box behind them to obscure the background image - if that is even an option (kind of like how the main content area of pages on the site currently have a solid white background covering the background image). --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Long time reader, first time contributor here. I like the new horizontal navigation much better, it saves alot of space and feels alot more modern. However, not a fan of the new background at all to be honest, it does not complement or continue the color scheme used in the site banner or content elements, and more importantly it is extremely "loud", and pulls your attention away from the content, when it should be doing the opposite. I am a big fan of clean, understated designs which allows the user to better focus on the page's content text and images. Here's an example (which could be tweaked to be more "fallout-y") of something I think might work well with the site's current layout:[[Media:Falloutwiki design.png]] --Bill 29 January 2012

Banner suggestions

 * The preview for these is problematic:
 * Some of the banners (like #3) seem to be too narrow, so they repeat (badly) a little at the edges. This may be because I've enabled the NoFixedWidth gadget/option.
 * When attempting to preview a banner, I sometimes get the banner, sometimes get no banner, and sometimes get the last banner in the list.
 * I can't view banner #15 at all. Clicking it just toggles between no banner and the last banner in the list. UPDATE: Actually I think I just needed to wait longer for the banner to load.
 * As far as opinion, none are really jumping out at me. I like some of the last few, but none feel vault-y and some feel game-specific. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 20:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as opinion, none are really jumping out at me. I like some of the last few, but none feel vault-y and some feel game-specific. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 20:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some are and some arnt tillable. Most that tile wont have been done to well either, just to get the shear mass out as a test bed. Once one is picked, options can be explored for the no fixed width option, including spending more time meshing the image to tile better, an extended banner for the larger width, or even restricting the banner and menu size to default (but still keeping no fixed width for the content). For me I am liking #19 User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes, some will take a while to load, I got most of the way throughmaking them before realising I hadn't optimised them. The final image will be streamed lined to download a lot faster. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, would it be possible to have more than one banner and make it randomly load one of the choices? Ausir 12:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You could via JavaScript, but there would be no fall back method I know of for those disabling JavaScript. Are you thinking for the default site setting, or just for personal use? User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You could easily implement this on the server-side (I'm assuming you have access to the server-side code here) by just having a pool of available banners, and one being selected at random each time the site is loaded. However I wouldn't think that would be a good idea, from a page speed perspective, as the user couldn't just cache the banner and not worry about loading it again, plus it would cause you to lose some brand recognition if the site looks different all the time. Bill 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The banner is a tiny 40KB file. Would it be possible to make a png image that has, say, 4 banners stacked vertically, then use some trick to make just the desired section visible? This would allow users to cache a ~180KB image once while still allowing the site to show multiple banners.
 * The reason I like the multiple banner idea is that I think it would be awesome to display an appropriate game-specific banner for game-specific articles. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 22:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)