Category talk:Fileformat

From GPWiki

I don't think I like the huge amount of spacing added to this page... what do other folks think? I felt it was easy enough to read, previously. Adding the TOC is good, as it makes sense when pages start to become complex, but the spacing breaks up the flow too much, in my mind. Also, none of the other wiki pages have spacing like this, so it feels inconsistent. Ryan Clark 11:45, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Yeah, that's way to much space. One line in between sections is just fine. - sik0efwl (too lazy to log in)

Yeah, normally I'm a big fan of whitespace, but it looks weird here. --Lachlan87 14:56, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Ok, after mangling the page by not previewing, I've reduced the whitespace :) Ryan Clark 15:51, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

The two lines of whitespace were meant to provide a buffer zone between one section's content and the next section's header, allowing the eye to quickly survey the page and lock onto a header of interest. The TOC assists in this function, but I believe it tends to simply provide an overview of the page's contents before a visitor then delves into the page himself (not necessarily clicking the linked items in the TOC).

One line of whitespace separates the headers, but diminishes this lock-on effect; two lines of whitespace clearly highlights the underpinning structure and therefore, in my opinion, pleases the eyes and eases the task of mentally building a summary of a page's contents. Compare one line versus two lines (the spacing between the external links and the wiki's "Articles in Category" header notwithstanding).

One line may suggest that the page is more densely populated, but really seeing what's on the page becomes more difficult. An example of this that most affects me is the clashing of the "Application-specific Formats" subheader against the the "Sound" header in the one-line version; this clashing is eliminated when a bit more breathing room is added between the headers in the two-line version.

I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this. If the choice between one or two lines of whitespace seems too trivial to consider in great depth, remember that it does make a difference. GPWiki's audience is affected by both the good information on the site and the way in which that information is presented, among other variables.

--Johnnie2 19:30, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Hi, Johnnie2, thanks for discussing this so eloquently :) I agree that presentation is very important, and the subject does deserve debate. So let's discuss. If a majority do indeed prefer the 2 lines of whitespace, I will relent!

Personally, 2 lines of whitespace looks like too much to me. The single space, in conjunction with the header's increased font size, is quite a clear delineator for my tastes. The example you give of the "Application-specific Formats" clashing with the "Sound" header is valid, but I see it as a temporary thing... once we have some actual content in the "Application-specific Formats" section, the clashing will disappear.

One final comment: What resolution are you using? Perhaps your resolution of choice makes the extra whitespace manageable, but I would imagine that for people at 800x600 or 1024x768 the whitespace would appear quite massive. (I run 1280x1024 myself.)

Ryan Clark 20:44, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Well, my goal here is not to start a debate---it is too easy to simply offer up multiple versions of a page, explain the reasons behind the design methodologies, and allow people to choose for themselves.

Are you sure one line of whitespace and the next header's increased font size is an adequate delineator? Let me show you what I mean. Scrolling to the middle of the two-line version, I can *very quickly* acquire the major headers in view (some scrolling involved): I see Graphics: 3D; my eye jumps very directly to the next region of whitespace; I see Sound; my eye jumps directly to the next region of whitespace; I see External Links; and a final eye jump directly to Articles in category "Fileformat". I can scroll back to the middle of the page, focus my eye on the bottommost header, and focus on each header above in nearly effortless succession. I *love* this. The two lines of whitespace give your eye and/or brain the spacing it needs to know exactly where all sections begin and end.

Mind you, I can't do this with the one-line version without more effort: it seems too densely-populated with *stuff* to really see the information there.

We are agreed about the subheader/header clashing disappearing once content is added; however, there is no guarantee as to when the wiki will receive this new content. A contributor might add an app-specific format tomorrow, or six months may pass before any make it onto the page. We need a solution that severely reduces clashing at all times, and that solution is the addition of ample breathing room between content and major headers. In light of the reasons above, I believe "ample" to mean two lines of whitespace.

In regard to screen resolution, I'm running a 1680x1050 widescreen display, affording me the ability to consume quite a bit of a page at once (thus I need all the help I can get in quickly assessing what's available). I don't believe two lines of whitespace would appear inhibitively massive to users running lower resolutions, however; it is, after all, just two lines as opposed to one. =)

--Johnnie2 21:52, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Perhaps we differ on what we perceive as valuable. I don't really find it hard to visually parse the page; the single space, larger heading font size, and horizontal rule work well for me as a section delineator. Also, having to scroll a great deal tends to irritate me. Even at 1280x1024 the two line spacing forces me to scroll quite a bit. So I personally prefer to expend mental "visual parsing" energy rather than finger "scrolly wheel" energy :)

Also, the two line spacing on a page such as this may be acceptable (since the page is little more than a list of links) but on text-rich pages such as tutorials, I think it would begin to look very odd. Wikipedia itself does not place any space between text and section headings! Although, admittedly, wikipedia is more text-rich than gpwiki.

Anyway, I doubt if we're convincing each other here :) Hopefully some others will chime in so that we can determine which method is generally preferred.

Ryan Clark 23:42, 22 Mar 2005 (EST)

Page name?

Why is this category's name "Fileformat" instead of "File format" ? --Mecanismo 11:14, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)