Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fieldname"
(use of color...bad!) |
Rookie One (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
consider someone who is colorblind. check the article via http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ to see how bad this is. | consider someone who is colorblind. check the article via http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ to see how bad this is. | ||
but it looks bad even for those who aren't color blind :P | but it looks bad even for those who aren't color blind :P | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yeah, reyalP, I also thought it's weird to initialize the table like that, but wasn't sure. ;) --Rookie One 06:26, 17 November 2005 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 14:26, 17 November 2005
someone feel free to make this table pretty.
Roger that. --Rookie One 03:31, 13 November 2005 (PST)
// Comment by Deus 13:22, 13 November 2005 (CET) I liked the former one more. I thought about some colorisation like red for readonly and green for r/w. maybe some mouseover stuff, or just the one tr light the next darker, to have a better viewability ? // End of Deus Comment
Alright, I'll restore the previous borders and add some colour. --Rookie One 04:33, 13 November 2005 (PST)
That was just my suggestion. Maybe this differs from banis view of beautification :) --Deus 04:46, 13 November 2005 (PST)
use of color...bad!
use of color to convey specific data (ro/rw) is bad. red/green is the worst possible choice too :)
consider someone who is colorblind. check the article via http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ to see how bad this is.
but it looks bad even for those who aren't color blind :P
Yeah, reyalP, I also thought it's weird to initialize the table like that, but wasn't sure. ;) --Rookie One 06:26, 17 November 2005 (PST)
