Forum:RSW / OSW Skin Project

From Meta Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > RSW / OSW Skin Project
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 November 2019 by IsobelJ.

The wiki admins have done a wonderful job making the light and dark modes for the RuneScape and Old School RuneScape wikis. For the past few months, I’ve been contributing where I can to the CSS of the OSW and have noticed some room for improvements to how the look-and-feel is applied to both the OSW and RSW. After several weeks of research and thought, I’ve put together a rather extensive document outlining what can be improved and how to do it.

I realize that the project as written is only one way of doing things, so I encourage open discussion with any feedback or concerns about the proposed changes.

RSW / OSW Skin Project

LegendOfBrian (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


Comment - Hey, I've left some early comments and concerns on the Google doc. I'll give it more thought when I have time. Template:Signatures/JaydenKieran 23:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Many of these ideas aren't particularly new, but my concern is that they create friction on an otherwise fairly quick process. In reality, we rarely edit site CSS to any significant level, and it's rarely non-admins that request changes. In the case that non-admins are requesting changes, it usually resolves itself by said user becoming an admin.

There's some possible improvements in the less gadget/extension for sure, particularly around allowing users to compile in userspace and improving the configuration options to make that easier. The lack of support was a design decision from some years ago (I forget what my reasoning was), but if there's a good reason to add it, then I'm open to it.

With regards to using mediawiki-vagrant, I think you're overestimating the ability of some admins. It can be finicky to get working properly and there's currently no way to replicate our setup for development without significant investment. A test environment would be nice for sure, but I wonder if there are more accessible ways to go about it.

In summary, some of the problems you've outlined are valid but I think many of the solutions may be overcomplicated or oversimplify the current complexity. cqm talk 06:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. From the feedback so far, it looks like the general opinion is that using Git and a build server is more complicated than it really needs to be. I'll likely end up starting a second draft that prioritizes simplicity and convenience after I collect more feedback. LegendOfBrian (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I've added a short compilation to the beginning of the document of some of the feedback received on this proposition. I think it may be wise to wait to see how the Less tool evolves since there are apparently plans to make it easier to test with in the future. It seems many of the proposed changes are not worth the time investment since the performance of the existing system is probably good enough. I originally planned to revise the proposal and resubmit it, but I'm not sure what changes would be realist to propose and I'm currently overcommited to other projects to reassess it. I believe that the discussion has run its course and it is likely ready to be archived. LegendOfBrian (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Closed - following discussion, the proposer is not interested in pursuing the ideas further right now. IsobelJ (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)