Talk:Alpha Slot Abilities

Formatting

Yow. I'm thinking we need to take a look into alternate formatting options for those tables. --Eabrace 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What about something like this. I imagine someone with more wiki-fu could cleanup the formatting but I think this illustrates the basic idea. CmdrAdeon 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit comment, it was just a quickie. As in, for example. Just to get information in there for display. ~ AGGE talk/cons 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting Layout 1

Boost Name	ED Bypass	Level Shift	Endurance Reduction	Range	Resistance	Fear Duration	Sleep Duration	Intagibility Duration
Cardiac Boost	One-Sixth	No	33%
Cardiac Radial Boost	One-Third	No	33%		20%
Cardiac Radial Paragon	Two-Thirds	Yes	33%	20%	20%	33%	33%	33%

~ CmdrAdeon 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting Layout 2

Hover over icons for more details.

	Boost	Core Boost	Radial Boost	Total Core Revamp	Partial Core Revamp	Partial Radial Revamp	Total Radial Revamp	Core Paragon	Radial Paragon
Rarity
Primary	33%	33%	33%	45%	33%	33%	33%	45%	33%
Secondary		20%	20%	20%	20% 20%	10% 20%	10% 20%	20% 20%	20% 20%
Tertiary						33%	33%		33% 33% 33%
ED Bypass	¹⁄₆	¹⁄₃	¹⁄₃	¹⁄₂	¹⁄₂	¹⁄₂	¹⁄₂	²⁄₃	²⁄₃
Level Shift

~ AGGE talk/cons 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of this layout. It manages to incorporate all of the info in Layout 1 and provide it in an "at-a-glance" format. Just one question: are those icons extracted/copied from the web site or taken from screenshots (as in, do we need to grab cleaner versions when we we can?) --Eabrace

00:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I saved the Alpha Slot Boost images from the website, and then for rarity I photoshopped them into different colors. We need better images for the bases once they're available. I saved them from the website, which is built for a black background, so they look kind of trashy against a white background. The fraction pies and cross/check marks I made myself out of public domain clip-art. (Just noticed I forgot to give the fraction pies a transparent background...) ~ AGGE talk/cons 00:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it, it covers the basics and we can easily expand it to include the crafting requirements when those become known. My only quibble would by the ED bypass symbols. I can understand them since I know what the values already are but for someone not familiar with the system I think they'd be confusing. I would suggest just putting text there rather than pictures, I think it'll be less confusing. CmdrAdeon 00:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Added text to the images similar to the Pri/Sec/Ter trailing amounts. ~ AGGE talk/cons 00:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I like a lot of things about the layout. It's clear and concise and I like some of the style choices you made (such as the checkboxes, which could potentially get good use elsewhere on the wiki as well). However, I do have two bits of feedback to consider:

The color coding for rarity needs to go. The game already color codes these icons for a different purpose. Adding a competing color coding on the same icons in the same context is just plain confusing. The game differentiates rarity with the style of the icon instead of its color. Use the set-appropriate icons, or perhaps use a grayscale version. Perhaps super-impose the text on top of them with a graphics program (ie. "Rare" overlaid on top of the icon) if you do not feel they differentiate well enough at that scale.
The fraction circles are ambiguous to interpret visually. You intend white to be treated as the foreground (filled in part). However, if the numeric fractions weren't alongside, I would have interpreted black as the foreground here since the page background is white. It sounds like you plan to remake these? If you do, consider a different color scheme. Perhaps use a primary color to represent the foreground, and a low-saturation color to represent the background? I'm not sure if that'd look good or not, just an idea.

Anyway, good job coming up with a clean tabular style for them. -- Sekoia 03:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed up the rarity code to use the implemented rarity icons. Not sure if they're visually different enough, but there is hover text on them, and they're displayed up top with text labels, so they should be good enough unless someone else can come up with a better idea. I was going with rarity color coding because it's easier "at a glance" telling between two colors instead of looking at the filigree on a 24px icon.

I am fiddling in Photoshop with the fraction pies still. I haven't come up with something I like yet.

~ AGGE talk/cons 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice work on the tables. :D It's a pity the numbers shift the icons out of vertical alignment though. Sera404 05:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There's probably a way to "weight" that field to the right a little to center the icons and have the text be out of vertical alignment, but I have no idea how to do it. ~ AGGE talk/cons 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Weighting it's not as easy as one might expect. I tried doing transparent text, but that doesn't work in MSIE. Instead, I did a weird trick with tables, but it'll only work if your browser width is pretty wide. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to hurt on narrower browser widths, so I applied it. -- Sekoia 01:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Fraction Pies

Cut-and-pasted out of the above exchange. -Agge

The fraction circles are ambiguous to interpret visually. You intend white to be treated as the foreground (filled in part). However, if the numeric fractions weren't alongside, I would have interpreted black as the foreground here since the page background is white. It sounds like you plan to remake these? If you do, consider a different color scheme. Perhaps use a primary color to represent the foreground, and a low-saturation color to represent the background? I'm not sure if that'd look good or not, just an idea.

-- Sekoia 03:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fiddling in Photoshop with the fraction pies still. I haven't come up with something I like yet.

~ AGGE talk/cons 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I twiddled around with the pies a little. Brought in transparency, light-yellow for the "foreground", dark-yellow for the "background". I tried one with a low saturation (making it whiter-but-not-white) but it looks very weird. Could possibly switch the two colors (dark-yellow for foreground, light-yellow for background). I'm also not "married" to having yellow by "THE" color. It was just the first color that clicked a little when I was fiddling. ~ AGGE talk/cons 07:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

24px

GREEN means GO, RED means STOP

24px

it's on a white background so the black stands out

24px

saturated vs unsaturated

24px

ParagonWiki's style colors :)

More twiddling. ~ AGGE talk/cons 07:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

These all still seem ambiguous to me; none of them have a clear foreground versus background. (And red vs green fails for colorblind people.) Here's a thought: why not just omit the rest of the circle? So use something like the second style (black foreground, though perhaps a more wiki-friendly color) but omit the circle outline around the empty part. That way we're only seeing the relevant part of the pie and there's nothing to be ambiguous about. None of the ED bypass values are 0 or 1 so that shouldn't be an issue. -- Sekoia 15:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

24px

ParagonWiki light blue wedge

24px

ParagonWiki dark blue wedge

Probably the dark blue wedge would be better, though I really do like what I've been calling "ParagonWiki Blue" (haha). It just doesn't show up as well.

PS; The green/red one doesn't fail colorblind tests, as you claim - I made sure of that when I was testing colors. The green is a different saturation level and brightness vs the dark red, which according to Vischeck's colorblind checker shows up just fine - goldenrod for green and dark goldenrod for red. ~ AGGE talk/cons 00:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I like these much better! Dark blue probably'll work better though I agree in finding the light blue generally more appealing. As for the PS, you missed my point on why the green/red one fails. Vischeck only tells you that a colorblind person can differentiate the two colors. That doesn't mean a colorblind person can identify them. "GREEN means GO, RED means STOP", but which one is green? I'm colorblind, and it fails my colorblindness test. :P -- Sekoia 01:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)