Proton Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) What's up with Section I? You mean the large gap in content right after the system requirements? It's because the TOC is so long. Edited July 19, 2015 by Proton
EssArrBee Posted July 19, 2015 Author Posted July 19, 2015 You mean the large gap in content right after the system requirements? It's because the TOC is so long. No I mean there is no section 2.I Clothing & Equipment. The header is there, but the table isn't.
Proton Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Whoops, missed one of the edits (I had to change all the {{PAGENAME}} magic words into {{SUBPAGENAME}} so it'd automatically grab 2.3.0 instead of Proton/2.3.0). It's fixed now.
z929669 Posted July 22, 2015 Posted July 22, 2015 What is the reasoning for removal of DLC options? I think it is better if they are there, since it is informative at a quick glance. There is the advantage of reducing vertical space though. I also prefer the more wordy intro. People that don't want to read it don't have to, but those that do can gather more context. No reason to cater to the lazy in this regard. I also prefer the sitetable class for the requirements. Go ahead and keep mocking up your ideal though, because there may be some merit to making certain changes, especially where maintenance efficiency is concerned.
Proton Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I removed the DLC indicators because with 2.3.0 the expectation is that users have all of the DLCs. I took a more aggressive culling stance instead of gradually phasing out. When it comes to instructions, you should never set the expectation that it's fine to skip a few sentences. I feel it is better for every sentence to be important and brief, so that users skip instructions as little as possible. I didn't inherently dislike the system requirements class, but I wanted to start with a consistent appearance first and tweak from there. Edited July 23, 2015 by Proton 3
Recommended Posts