Skip to content
cast

Well, as long as I’m updating the cast page…

Well, as long as I’m updating the cast page… published on 12 Comments on Well, as long as I’m updating the cast page…

So, okay, I asked a bit about the character profiles list the other day. But now I’m looking for more feedback, with some questions that won’t exactly fit in the commentary on a strip.

The cast page used to be “a grid of images with short descriptions.” Then I made a whole Leif & Thorn wiki where all the characters get long and detailed descriptions, so the cast page became “a grid of images with links to the wiki profiles.”

But I could put some a-few-lines-long descriptions back.

Or I could put in a-few-sentences-long descriptions.

I could even take advantage of the spoiler-cut feature, and make a nice clean grid with longish descriptions that only expand when you click them.

Examples of each, and a poll, behind the readmore:


Style 1: Just the links, please


Style 2: Short descriptions

juniper
Juniper Sel

Knight, second-in-command, agender (they), hates musicals. Backsword.
(wiki, appearances)
violet
Violet Dupont

Knight, strategist, avid bookworm. BFF of Rowan. Broadsword.
(wiki, appearances)
birchBirch Persil
Knight, amputee, cinnamon roll. Husband of Annie. Rapier.
(wiki, appearances)
rowanRowan Muscade
Knight, pedantic, trauma survivor. BFF of Violet. Saber.
(wiki, appearances)

Style 3: Long descriptions behind a cut

juniper

(wiki, appearances)
violet

(wiki, appearances)
birch

(wiki, appearances)
rowan

(wiki, appearances)

Here’s a poll, for easy one-click responses. Got more detailed feedback? Leave a comment, let me know what you think.

Which style of character profiles would you like best on the cast page? (Pick up to 2)
  • Add your answer

Comment Header

12 Comments

I think that style 2 as default, with a “collapse descriptions” checkbox to make it like style 3 would be most user friendly.

Huh, you think? I can imagine the benefit of “everything starts collapsed, users can expand each individual profile if they want to see more of it.” But if everything starts out expanded, what’s the advantage of being able to collapse one individual profile at a time?

(…I also don’t have any easy pre-installed code that’ll do it that way, but if it’s useful to enough people, I’m sure I could figure it out.)

what if it was the opposite – start with style 3, add an “expand all”?

That’s another one for the “technically possible to code, but I’d have to do some extra research to figure out how” column.

…also, each “expand” button is an individual Javascript event, and I’m a little wary of having a “trigger that much Javascript all at once with a single click” button. But maybe that’s an out-of-date worry and modern browsers are hardy enough to handle it, idk.

And we’ve got a request for pronouns in the poll, hmm. That could go a couple different ways.

If I’m trying to write the Most Compact Descriptions Possible, I’ll only make a point of including a character’s pronouns when it’s ambiguous. As measured by “do readers ever get them wrong in the comments?” (Which is a different question from “are they trans?” For instance, Juniper and Sigrún have both been mis-pronouned, Violet and Imri both haven’t.)

But if we go with medium-to-long descriptions, it makes more sense to have the pronouns show up in all of them.

And of course, all the wiki entries should have pronouns in them, no matter what!

Because the columns are narrow (which is makes sense and is fine!), descriptions wrap after 1-4 words, which looks cluttered and uneven (and requires more scrolling). So IMHO #1 is 500 times better than the other two because it’s super clean!

#3 is okay but not great because it looks clean till you expand, then ugh. 😉 So I don’t care for it, but I could see why you may want it.

Please don’t use option #2. 😉

I’d use #1 but maybe use mouseover hover text (mobile: touch-pop-over) if feasible, for the best of all worlds without the narrow overly-wrapping text. (I’m not sure I’m explaining what I mean, you know, like you hover or touch and a decent-sized box shows up.) (Or maybe that’s only worth doing on desktop with hover, and not worth doing for mobile.)

The layout has gotten wider and more flexible since these were originally coded, so I can make the boxes a little wider…any feelings about how wide they’d have to get before the descriptions would look nice?

I’m sure the hover text would look fine on some mobile devices, but on mine, at least, it only shows the first handful of words. (…also, I want to put relevant links in the text. Like, Birch’s profile will have a link to Annie.)

I’m not sure, just enough so the text looks more consistent/less jagged between people. Uh . . . did you update the examples above already?! I’m confused or they look a little different and slightly better now. It seems like there’s a BIT more text per line, which makes things look smoother. I’m in a different browser but (checking…) my other browser matches this one.

Anyway, I’m warming to #3 now as a cleaner initial look but quick info with a click/tap, if they’re this wide or wider. But IMHO the shorter text from #2 (ETA: in the collapsed sections from #3, I mean), because if you want that much detail (ETA: I mean if you want as much info as the text in #3), wouldn’t you click through to the wiki page to get all the info anyway?

If you tell me this page is identical to this morning when I looked at it, I will check my non-existent meds to see what’s wrong with me. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.