User talk:Magus/Sandbox/Userbox Examples

From RabbitWiki

I like the 43px and 32px versions. The others are too small. In the final version, the image is going to be con-specific (e.g. the Origins logo for Origins) and not a person, right? Jwolfe 09:37, 21 July 2007 (PDT)

Yes, someone (hopefully someone better at graphic design than I) will come up with logos. My user icon was just the first square image that was already on the wiki; the Rabbit logo, being taller than it is wide, was hard to scale as an example. --Magus 10:41, 21 July 2007 (PDT)

Contents 1 Userbox Aesthetics 2 Size preferences 3 Are We Ready To Propagate? 4 Badge Size Poll

[edit] Userbox Aesthetics

Good work on the basic setup! I have a few minor aesthetic points, however:

1. Cellpadding - Can it be smaller? It seems the font size is getting directly coupled to the box size, but preserving a LOT of cell padding. That padding is wasted space that seems to "artificially" make the smaller boxes look too small when, in fact, they could still have, like, 18px fonts.

   I'll work on this. It's not cell padding. The original template specified a font size, so I overrode it with smaller specified font sizes so they'd fit. I can play with tweaking the template to see if we can fail to specify font size and get the desired behavior. Notice that the 43px box (default) has a small font. --Magus 09:10, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

   Fixed, at least on my browser. Does this look ok for you now? --Magus 20:07, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

2. Icon Size - As a standard, 32px is pretty darned good for icons; it's what your icons on your desktop are sized at (assuming a standard Windows install). Also, 16px is a good size for a very pragmatic reason: using the favicon (web site icon) images from the convention web sites themselves! The only "problem" with 16px is the extra padding (above) that makes the text so small.
3. Verbiage - In my opinion, the badges absolutely DO NOT need "This Rabbit" in the text. I'd go so far as to ask that they just say "Origins Past" or "Origins" to indicate your (good idea) for using only two "time stamps": past and future (which makes sense: the only time "present" is truly valid is actually during the cons!).

   How about "Has attended Origins" and "Will attend Origins"? Something which makes it clear that Origins is a convention to someone who doesn't know. Because the same layout is going to be for conventions, games, and possibly other stuff ("demos at FOO" retailer?). "Attended Origins" and "Attends Origins"? --Magus 09:10, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

In summary, as is probably clear from other pages, I am firmly against making these into banner ads. They should look like service ribbons in the military (but cooler!) or BGG badges. They should sit on a line with normal text (ex: a signature) without dominating it or causing extra leading. They should be iconic, not descriptive. After all: one click jumps to the main page for that con (or game or whatever) and so even the most confused viewer has a recourse to figure out what they all mean--we needn't hammer it into them with "This Rabbit Attends FOO" over and over again. Think of how these will look on a page with, say, twenty (a fair estimate of number of cons past and future plus number of demoable games for each rabbit).... --David Artman 07:57, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for your comments, David. I'm inclined to agree with you on the general aesthetics. I did want to start with the Wikipedia Userboxes, as they were an established "standard", but I'm not too afraid of getting away from choices they made which don't look good here. Like the space for lots of verbosity, which they need, but we can probably avoid by making things more consistent. I'm almost tempted to do away with the text entirely, like BGG, except that I have no confidence that we can get licenses to use good iconic images for every con (some might not have them, and some might not let us use theirs . . . keep in mind that those are both copyright and potentially trade marks for their respective conventions. They might feel that our using their mark could imply some sort of endorsement.) --Magus 09:10, 23 July 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Size preferences

Having played around a bit more with sizing, I'm leaning rather strongly toward a 32px icon. This is, as David Artman has already said, a good standard icon size. It also, at least on my display, allows for one line of text which doesn't look too lonely (particularly if the box isn't too wide), or two lines of text which don't look too crowded, without the box having to expand to accommodate the second line. Even a third line doesn't seem to make the box too much bigger.

I'm vaguely leaning in the direction of a 138px width. This is because the 32px icon occupies as 34px square inside the border (1px padding). Making a text area three times the size of the icon felt like a nice starting place to me. 34*4+2 (for the border) is 138.

I've put up some examples of different convention names at this size. I'd really appreciate feedback on how these look at this point. --Magus 20:14, 27 July 2007 (PDT)

You rock, man... I am totally in favor of 32 x 138 or 32 x 150. I would also offer a 16px version, for use in sig files (but maybe without any text?). At any rate, unless others seriously object--and are paying enough attention to do so in the first place!--I suggest you go ahead and start duping that template for the other major cons, at least, and let folks know they are available. I am 90% confident that the majority of conventions either (a) provide artwork to be used by others or (b) wouldn't enforce any protection on such art, because it's free advertising, basically.

Likewise, if you'd want to use the same format for "Demos FOO" and "Plays FOO". In those cases, we have a good source of icons: the Looney's pics and art at Wonderland. If you need help with the icons or template duping, let me know. I am OK with making icons out of larger art (but not great) and I can, of course, copy and paste with the best of 'em. David Artman 08:43, 31 July 2007 (PDT)

Where do we stand with this, now? Moving forward, or stalled? --David Artman 10:12, 9 August 2007 (PDT)

I've been completely away from computers for the last week. Back now, and I'll try to start up in the next couple of days and kick this to completion. Thanks for checking in. --Magus 07:43, 13 August 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Are We Ready To Propagate?

So I am wondering what else needs to be done before we can start making the "official" badges for (at the least) the conventions and for 'games I demo?'

I assume we need to upload some icons for the conventions and for the games; and it's probably best if one person does them all (or most of them) to provide a standard... although, perhaps we could use Looney art for games and web site favicons for the conventions? That would best leverage recognition, but would definitely make a cluster of badges seem... inconsistent or piecemeal.

Thoughts? --David Artman 12:17, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

As long as we keep the icons the same size (and small), we should be fine with regard to consistency. Making them look good at favicon size can be a challenge (and I say that as someone who has created several BoardGameGeek microbadges, including the one that was "borrowed" for use as the favicon here). To answer the question in the title, I don't see why not. Jwolfe 14:16, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

Well, if the size of icons and badge widths are still open for debate, then we aren't, in fact, ready to propagate. I thought we were pretty solid on the 32x138 sizing--though I now prefer 16x128 with the font 1pt smaller--and it was just a matter of copying that template and creating specific template pages for the con/warren/game by modifying it?

I suppose swiping favicons from the convention sites won't work that well at 32 px, unless they have that size embedded in the favicon (for instance, for links saved to the Desktop; an ICO file can, in fact, have several sizes within it, to serve various needs of the OS GUI: 16px, 32px, 64px). Otherwise, we have to grab some other graphic and scale down--a tough job sometimes, as you say.

So anyway... looks like it's Poll Time again.... --David Artman 08:43, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

I think I understand the basics of the templates. I have some ideas on the implementation issues you've been discussing on the rabbit list and trying to implement here. Please give me a chance to play with it this weekend before propagating. If I haven't gotten to it by the end of the weekend and you're impatient, then go ahead. Changing it later might be more work, but it's still possible. Jwolfe 16:09, 19 October 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for giving it a shot--I think some others are hoping to look at how to do it well. Let us know how it goes, either way, please. --David Artman 08:03, 22 October 2007 (PDT)

[edit] Badge Size Poll

Enter the height (16px, 32px) and the width (see this User Page for various options) that you prefer for badges. Simple majority prevails for height; we'll average (closest to) the widths.

FOLLOW-UP: 24px height is not being considered because it's a rather rare icon size; refer to Microsoft's Icon Creation Guidelines, where they explicitly advise designers not to embed 24px versions in icon files. (Sorry, Ryan.)

David Artman: 16px high, 128px wide

Laurie: 32px high, 150px wide

Ryan McGuire: 16px or 24 px high, 138px wide

I would vote 43 x 238, which is the wikipedia standard for userboxes, but as 43 isn't available (why not?) I'll go with 32x238— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 10:02, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

Well, it's not available for the same reason 24px isn't: efficacy. With 32 or 16, we can re-purpose existing icons and use favicons from convention web sites; at 24 or 43, every icon must be hand-made or significantly massaged to scale from a favicon or other image source. We are trying to make this both easy and attractive; if someone is willing to volunteer to do the (somewhat significant) extra work involved, then step up like Magus did and DO it. And besides... who cares what Wikipedia does and how they came to decide 43 was the "magic" number--a VERY bizarre value, WRT sizing (not base-2) and available common icons (you'll never find a 43x43px icon to use, ever). We're Rabbits--we lead, we don't follow! --David Artman 11:59, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

I completely agree with David on this. While 43x238 is the Wikipedia standard, I think that is the only thing that size has going for it. It's too big to fit a lot on the page (personal aesthetic), and awkward for icon designers (32x32 or 16x16 are more likely to already exist than 43x43, and are easier to scale to from other sizes (which are more likely to be a multiple of 16). --Magus 15:29, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

I like the 32x138 its an almost instant read. making it very easy skim to find what you are looking for. - Bob

Well, I was going to say 24 - but with that not an option, I'll vote for 32. 16 just seems too small... so my vote is 32 x 138. Thanks for asking! --Kristin 11:00, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

Rick Castello: 16px high, 150px wide - smaller icon allows better stacking for those with more than a couple badges. See example on my User Page

32px by 150px --Tophu 14:09, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

I prefer 16px icons to 32px icons. At 16px and wide enough that the text fits on a single line, it makes a simple footnote to a page which doesn't grab attention, and many badges can be tiled without taking up a lot of screen real-estate. I think 150px was a pretty good compromise width, but I feel less strongly about the width. 16x150 --Magus 15:29, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

16px by 138px - GnTar 16:51, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

32px by 150px, with a few (3-5) extra px space between the icon and the text.— λ 17:40, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

Considering how we're using them, I don't really see why we need to make them any smaller than 32x238. Of course, by averaging the widths, we're pretty much guaranteeing that they won't be 238px wide. The example 16px badges that were extended in height because they word-wrapped on width don't look bad, so there's no reason we can't use 16x16 icons (if that's what we have) with 32px badges. It will probably look better than trying to upsize them. Jwolfe 19:40, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

Jim Dunaway 32x150 works for me.