Hi - I'm trying to address some issues with template:NavigationBar, one of which is that is looks bad in Opera. As far as I can tell, Opera interprets an explicit "height" style parameter in a div to include the height of a scrollbar that's added (if "overflow: auto" ends up requiring a scrollbar). Looking into this, IE seems to be the only browser that requires an explicit height (Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, and Opera all seem to just "do the right thing" with no height specified). Do you know of a way to have conditional code in a template based on the browser? I'd like to make the height specification only visible if the browser is IE. Any ideas? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<!--[if lt IE 5.5000]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE50Fixes.css?13";</style><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 5.5000]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE55Fixes.css?13";</style><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 6]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE60Fixes.css?13";</style><![endif]--> <!--[if IE 7]><style type="text/css">@import "/skins-1.5/monobook/IE70Fixes.css?13";</style><![endif]--> <!--[if lt IE 7]><script type="text/javascript" src="/skins-1.5/common/IEFixes.js?13"></script> <meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no" /><![endif]-->
...these are easier to type (see for example template:cite web). However, I seem to be too late already (sigh). --Ligulem 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the name of the template from "NavigationBar" to "navigation bar". I suggest not to use CamelCase for template names nor parameters. --Ligulem 09:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created template:NavigationBar, inspired by user:Pengo's template:Panorama. I've verified that it works with IE, Firefox, and Mozilla (on Windows) and Safari (on a Mac). If anyone can think of any technical reasons it should not be used please speak up. Initial discussion about this is at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Compressed templates. template:Places in Bedfordshire uses it, producing:
see Template talk:Navigation bar/examples#Places in Bedfordshire
-- Rick Block (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per user talk:Graham87#NavigationBar, this causes traversal issues with the JAWS screenreader as well. I'll work on addressing all three of these issues (printing, Opera, and JAWS). I think it's clear this template should not be used until these issues are addressed. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a slightly tweaked version of the template in my user space here:
I've tested it with Firefox 1.5 and IE 6.0 on Windows so far, and it seems to work fine. Any comments from people using other browsers (especially Safari, since I don't have access to a Mac) are very much appreciated. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I might be the one guilty of making Rick Block changing his aproach I feel obliged to comment. Rick: This scrollbar aproach is much easier to use than your old concept. Very user friendly. But I am sorry to say I find it somewhat ugly. So I still think my suggestion to split it up into several templates with an alphabet range on top of each is nicer. Although my aproach will cause one extra page load and your scrollbar actually is more easy to use, both as a user and as an editor. By the way, Ilmari's version do look better in both my old IE 5.5 and my Firefox 1.5. (And I don't mean just the colours, I mean how the scrollbar looks.) --David Göthberg 09:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues that were previously listed in the template:caution box, specifically:
I'm reasonably happy with the current version. It's not quirk free, but I think the functionality is tremendously useful. User:Ilmari Karonen's version is marginally simpler (no outer DIV). There's a pending question about "ugliness" (see above), but other than that does anyone have any other issues with the current version? Is "works with JAWS" vs. "no scrollbar for Mozilla 1.7" a reasonable tradeoff? (works in both) -- Rick Block (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm raining on your parade, but this horizontal-scroller idea is a terrible solution for the problem of over-crowded navboxes. Scrollbars should be left to the main browser window and nowhere else on the page, especially in areas where more content or navigation would exist, as it is more often than not a usability nightmare. I do appreciate your effort, but this is not the way to go — it would be like using a steering wheel to function as a mouse. ...Don't just take my word for it; read what no-nonsense expert Jakob Nielsen has to say about this development: "Scrolling and Scrollbars".
Perhaps this idea can be spared to serve as an overflow limitation for overtly-long lines of text, but it would be smarter to explore other methods of displaying text content/navigation without masking it or using overflow:hidden. I would instead suggest using columns, or even some variation of the tab dividers (as seen on the Special:Preferences page.) Please avoid applying any form of horizontal scrolling for Wikipedia the future, for sanity's sake. —Down10 TACO 05:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
overflow:hidden
{{Template:Places in Bedfordshire/small|Little Barford}}
Category:Living people doesn't need a navigation bar with over 700 items in it. The 26 letters of the alphabet, plus the 26 two-letter combinations beginning with the current letter are enough. Honestly, if your navigation has more than ten items, it's time to rethink what is really necessary. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 09:11 Z
This template is a usability horror, mostly due to the horizontal scrollbar, and the fact that you can only see a tiny fraction of the content of the navbox at once.
Therefore I will replace it with:
Maybe that has its issues too, but it's way more practical than any horizontal scrollbar solution can ever hope to be. Shinobu 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you mean {{navigation}}. By the way, I did it using divs because I saw it first as divs, and only later on using templates. The template {{navigation}} is only a fairly thin wrapper for the div method. Its main function is to add v-d-e-links. Demo:
I guess support for an image like in {{NavigationBox}} can be added, if it's decided we want images in navboxes. Shinobu 18:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previous to the creation of this template, Rick Block and I brainstormed on ways to create a workable TOC for very large categories. True, this would be much better handled by a software upgrade. But until a better solution is found, this is better than nothing. I also think that this template is often very well suited for displaying panoramic images. I don't think a blanket dismissal of its use will improve the project. Perhaps there should be guidelines for when this should be used, and when it shouldn't. --Samuel Wantman 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried an alternative for large categories, with subpages by first letter transcluding the main (category) page. Turns out this does not work. Without some sort of software change I don't think there is a reasonable alternative. I've worked up alternatives for the current non-category uses of this template. Instead of:
template:Places in Bedfordshire
the following could be used (no scrolling, but two clicks to get to a given place)
And, instead of
template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x400 m Men
something like the following could be used (no scrolling, but two clicks to get a given year or a given athlete)
These "substitutes" are less general and harder to code, but are nearly as functional. For very large categories I'm not aware of ANY alternative. The question here boils down to whether horizontal scrolling, within a navigation template, is so inherently evil that we should never ever use it. My opinion on this is that it is not THAT evil. I mean, it's not like something that only works with one specific browser. This works with ALL browsers, including screen readers like JAWS. Navigation without a mouse is apparently difficult (with at least some browsers and some OSs), but I suspect the alternatives are not very accessible given this constraint either. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The demo on pump works for me but I hate it; it's poor ergonomics.
Not only that, ha ha, I can't even load this talk page. It breaks my browser. John Reid ° 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That above issue is now fixed; all the demos and weird mutant snakes have been moved to a subpage -- one I'll never stick my hand into. I always could see the demo on Pump; I'm not claiming a technical issue against the template. I just want it dead.
Now, I hate to bite the hand that didn't feed me to the snakes but yetchh. That's my professional opinion. As somebody points out above, the template only fails Nielsen on one out of five essential usability guidelines: it's a side-scroller. But boy, what a failure!
Isn't that enough to sink a battleship? Wikipedia is here for one reason only: for our readers. This isn't SourceForge any more than it's YooToob. We aren't here to amuse ourselves. Everyone's worked hard and been very clever. Congratulations on making it work. Now go stick it on your user page. Okay?
This is not a solution to a problem but an encapsulation of a problem: Huge nav templates.
There is a burning desire that beats within some breasts to collect. It is, at root, a neurotic disorder; I sympathize because I share it. I want to have all the state quarters, all the stuffed animals, all the rare music, all the arcade tokens, all the obsolete computer gear, all the hand tools, all the eletronic components, all the stuff. And ideally, I'd like to live at San Simeon, where I'd have enough room to store it all and display it. But even Hearst could not build fast enough to house his collection.
I see the most jackassed stuff. There are templates for newspaper chains. These are constantly being obsoleted as individual papers and even whole chains are bought, merged, renamed, and sold. Most such templates are bigger than the stubby articles they emblazon. What's the point? A simple link from paper to chain is correct; a list of papers in the chain belongs on the chain's page (or list page) and nowhere else. It is not conceivable to me that a reader of the Akron Beacon Journal needs or wants a direct link on that page to the Hilton Head (S.C.) Island Packet. Yes, he should be able to get from one to the other -- and he can do so in two clicks, without the obtrusive Template:Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Burn the huge nav templates. If a nav template has more than about a dozen main entries, it's probably wrong for articlespace; more than about 24 and it's not useful to most editors, either. The only virtue of existing huge nav templates is that they look huge; we can take aim on the slow-moving beasts and drop them. I'm not fooled by a side-scrolling Yellow Pages, though.
Hmm, good rule. I'll have to work on that. John Reid ° 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
