Template talk:Xambox

Working

First only {{{text mobile}}} was visible, but as the complete page wad loaded, the template is working fine!
acagastya 17:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm changing around the class names, so it should be somewhat broken again at this moment. I'll realign the css files next. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acagastya: It should work now. As a basic test, WN:Sandbox (atm) is set up with four xamboxes: one with neither text nor text-mobile, one with only text, one with only text-mobile, and one with both. For convenient comparison between the desktop and mobile views; the first one has default content {{{text}}} in the desktop view, {{{text-mobile}}} in the mobile view; the next two have the same content in both views; and the last one has content "desktop" in one view, "mobile" in the other. I expect I'll be adding a lot of other tedious tests. --Pi zero (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: By the way, the images are not visible for xambox in the mobile view.
acagastya 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acagastya: As I've set it up (and if I got it right), the default behavior in the mobile view is to not show the image; that's because the image takes up a lot of real estate that may be at a premium on a mobile device. However, you can specify an image in the mobile view using parameter image-mobile, and if you set that parameter to blank (rather than omitting it entirely), you'll get the "default" image based on type (notice, content, etc.). --Pi zero (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Not including images is indeed a good idea. Including the images, unnecessary data would be consumed. The colours in the xambox is a visual clue to understand if things are okay or not. As in, a red orange colour would indicate there are some major issues, blue or green means it is okay...
acagastya 03:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need the images?

The images like stop, and info are okay, but colours can convey the same meaning: okay, or safe with green, the colour yellow for notice, and red for danger, or stop or caution. We are currently using those colours along with the images. But do we really need the images? Consider this one:

Text: Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet. Foo Bar 2000. Ten Nine, and so on. Three. Two. One.

It will consume lesser data to load (useful for those using cellular data) and serve the same function. I forgot one more point I thought about it, but it is light weight.
acagastya 11:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Hm. It would greatly alter the look-and-feel of these boxes. They have the same look and feel across, I believe, many projects.

• Is the image suppressed in the mobile view? (And, if so, is that by a means that still requires loading it?)
• I wouldn't have thought it would make all that much difference in load time; does it?

--Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I don't see why can't we do things differently from other projects? I assume, by projects you mean Wikimedia Projects. Wikinews can have their own templates. If you mean other language Wikinews, there are so many templates (for example, ping/notif templates on enwn/frwn, Infobox on enwn, eswn and frwn). Since my internet speed is really slow these days, it really makes a difference since I use the desktop site on my phone. The question is, it the new look okay? Will it alter the meaning it needs to convey? Why do we really need those images?
acagastya 21:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya:

• We can do things differently from other projects; I was just noting there is some merit in uniformity.
• Is this the mobile view that's so slow? Is it possible to not load the image in mobile view, while still loading it in desktop view?

--Pi zero (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

PNG --> SVG

{{editprotected}} I suggest to replace by . Thomas Linard (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

These are 40px rather than 30px. Done. --Pi zero (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ! Thomas Linard (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)