Warzone 2100 Forums

Zarel: That header image is ridiculously large. 200 KB? pngout reduces it to 170 KB, but still... Using the original unindexed image, you should get a good JPEG in at most 100 KB.

Header image was as small as I could get it without visible banding artifacts in PNG. I guess I forgot about other image formats like JPEG.

Zarel wrote:Header image was as small as I could get it without visible banding artifacts in PNG. I guess I forgot about other image formats like JPEG.

You should also try GIF, it has small palette of colors, but looks suprisingly good on some pictures...
And should I mention that it is ridicolously small?

KukY wrote:You should also try GIF, it has small palette of colors, but looks suprisingly good on some pictures...
And should I mention that it is ridicolously small?

GIF is just indexed no-alpha-channel PNG with slightly larger file sizes. It's useful for animated images, but nothing else.

Zarel wrote:

KukY wrote:You should also try GIF, it has small palette of colors, but looks suprisingly good on some pictures...
And should I mention that it is ridicolously small?

GIF is just indexed no-alpha-channel PNG with slightly larger file sizes. It's useful for animated images, but nothing else.

Excuse me on my brother

Now I am back, here is a comparison:

• 200 kB PNG
  
• 40 kB JPEG
  
• 15 kB JPEG
  

15 looks bad, but 40 only has slight desaturation, and background images should be desaturated.
And is smudged a little bit, but who will notice?

Zarel wrote:Header image was as small as I could get it without visible banding artifacts in PNG.

PNG works much better when you do not interlace.

I know, I know, I'll re-encode them as JPEG when I get the chance.

All parts of the site should use now the new layout.

Trac looks strange.
It needs more blue.

By looking at the "Development" section, I've noticed that the Logo link creates a grey rectangle (I've respected the 10-minute obviousness limit this time ).

Other than that - the new design looks very good. one thing that looks a bit strange, though, is that the selected tab looks like it's under the other ones and the header (projected shadow is in the currently opened page, it's not projected from the opened page). Is that intended? IMO the selected tab should look like it's over the unselected ones. Perhaps adding a grey shading to the unselected tabs would help to change this (I dunno what it'll look like, though). Was it already tried and looked bad anyway?

~Olrox

Olrox wrote:By looking at the "Development" section, I've noticed that the Logo link creates a grey rectangle (I've respected the 10-minute obviousness limit this time ).

I haven't had a chance to fix the gray yet, and I can't find where Kamaze put the CSS. Stupid CSS generation files... It's CSS; it should be static!

Olrox wrote:Other than that - the new design looks very good. one thing that looks a bit strange, though, is that the selected tab looks like it's under the other ones and the header (projected shadow is in the currently opened page, it's not projected from the opened page). Is that intended? IMO the selected tab should look like it's over the unselected ones. Perhaps adding a grey shading to the unselected tabs would help to change this (I dunno what it'll look like, though). Was it already tried and looked bad anyway?

Unselect tabs are already grayed out in every browser but IE, which doesn't support it for some reason. Go use a real browser, like Chrome.

Zarel wrote: Unselect tabs are already grayed out in every browser but IE, which doesn't support it for some reason. Go use a real browser, like Chrome.

Hmm, I thought I've used the wrong term.
I meant that there should be shadows (sort of) in the unselected tabs (that are already grayed out, I can see that). But if those "shadows" were made as a black>transparent gradient, it'd look strange, so imagine that a shadow effect using a dark grey>transparent gradient could be acceptable. Should I illustrate it? (it'd be easier this way if I didn't manage to express what I'm thinking about, in a good enough manner, yet).

I'm using Firefox currently (I don't like Chrome very much as too much info appears in the edges of the screen - instead of the middle -, and in a tab-like way. IE is out of question, I don't know what it can be used for, but to navigate in the internets - not good ).

~Olrox

Hmm, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you illustrate?

Zarel wrote:Hmm, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you illustrate?

Asking Olrox to illustrate...

Zarel wrote:

Olrox wrote:By looking at the "Development" section, I've noticed that the Logo link creates a grey rectangle (I've respected the 10-minute obviousness limit this time ).

I haven't had a chance to fix the gray yet, and I can't find where Kamaze put the CSS. Stupid CSS generation files... It's CSS; it should be static!

I believe CSS is static... http://static.wz2100.net/...

Zarel wrote:I haven't had a chance to fix the gray yet, and I can't find where Kamaze put the CSS. Stupid CSS generation files... It's CSS; it should be static!

Tracs additional css stuff is located at: http://static.wz2100.net/css/wztrac.css

For the forum i edited the style trough the APC on the very bottom of the CSS.