Template talk:Mainpage Box Content

Tile Design
This discussion will be based on the current content of this article, as of March 1st, 13:39 UTC, and the design still in development on the Sandbox page, as of February 28th, 10:01 UTC.

Firstly, the use of Tile templates was suggested in advance due to their user-friendly nature. They were suggested because users do not need to be proficient with image-editing software in order to contribute a graphic for a mainpage tile. They simply need to upload, or use an existing graphic and specify its path in the template, along with an optional size parameter. This means that, in the future, if a user wants to update the tile's graphic, link, or even background, they do not need to have the original design file in order to do so. Additionally, it makes it easy for users, both skilled and unskilled in image-editing, to quickly and easily make new, visually-consistent icons.

Second, the currently displaying design uses a style for the background that is unusual and clashes with the style of the front page and Survarium in general. The shade of green used is unique in that it is not used anywhere on the wiki and noticeably clashes with the rest of the content on the main page. Additionally, the use of monitors as a graphic is also not used anywhere else on the wiki, nor on the official site to my knowledge. The design being used currently in the sandbox uses a simple round gradient, faintly overlaid with the iconic radiation symbol used in official media. This gives it the advantage in that it does not clash with existing content but still draws attention to the tiles which act as the main portals to content on the site.

Third, some of the graphics are misleading, ambiguous or otherwise unclear in their content compared to the samples currently provided in the Sandbox. For example, the icon currently used for Skills is a generic render of a character that bears little to no relation to the Skills feature. By comparison, the design used in the Sandbox uses an actual skill icon, which is immediately and directly associable with the Skills feature. Likewise, the Upgrades icon uses the Repair Kit icon which is used exclusively for repairing damaged weapons and not for the Upgrades system. By comparison, the design used in the Sandbox page uses the icons typically associated with upgrades, that being those for "Damage", "Movement Speed", and so forth; as well as a soft hue in the colours of upgraded weapons found in the most recent 0.27a snapshot. In addition, the Artifacts icon uses an old render of the Larkspur container which obscures the actual artifact. By comparison, the design on the Sandbox page both uses the actual HUD element and the artifact inside is clearly visible and recognisable from the 3D model found during gameplay.

To continue, the Missions icon is a user-created image using assets which are neither official Survarium ones, nor resembling as such and consequently is not immediately associable with the Missions feature nor Survarium in general. By comparison, the design on the Sandbox uses an actual in-game graphic for one of the missions and again is immediately and directly associable. Also, the icon used for Damage is an old concept image used in the first versions of the official Survarium site and has long since been removed from said site. By comparison, the design on the Sandbox uses the actual HUD element currently in game, coloured to simulate a typical player damage scenario. Finally, the Customization icon uses one of the Founder Packs decals, a decal which is uncommon and not immediately recognisable as such by most players. By comparison, the design on the Sandbox uses a common drop decal which is more recognisable by the community at large. While I personally feel that the Biohazard emblem is not the absolute best choice, I do feel that it is more recognisable than those provided through Founder Packs.

Fourth, the choice of image editing is either closely cropped or has been otherwise edited in such a way that it differs from official assets. For example, the Weapons icon uses a closely cropped image of the AKM, a weapon which is not especially relatable with Survarium specifically and has been somewhat obscured due to the close cropping. By comparison, the design on the Sandbox uses the AK-74N graphic, which is commonly found in official Survarium media, and has been rotated to better fit within the bounds of the icon without the use of cropping. Additionally, the Anomalies artifact has had a simple, green glow effect applied which both doesn't match the appearance found in game and is immediately recognisable as an easy Photoshop effect, known for its overuse and unprofessional reputation. By comparison, the Sandbox design uses a screenshot of the vine anomaly in School which is striking and has no additional effects applied. Finally, the icon for Store has had a noticeable contrast hue applied, which differs from the original render found on the Official Survarium Shop.

To conclude, I feel that the current design has notable downsides, that are in some cases handled better in the previous design. While I do agree that the current design is more visually consistent than the previous one, in that the icons all have matching a background and use single, simple images for the content, I feel that the design in progress on the Sandbox page also has these benefits and is more appropriate in the areas outlined above. Particularly the first point, which is a significant advantage over the current system and would be the main reason to use it over the existing design in my personal opinion. — Nexolate (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Poll Results
Based on the current state of the polls, both on the wiki and on the official Survarium forums, it would appear that it is time for the content box design to be updated. Over the past few days, it seems the results have plateaued, with each poll only getting a new vote every other day or so.

At the time of writing, the Wiki Poll has the following results:

Likewise, the Official Forum Thread has the following results:

In both cases, the proposed "new design" has at least half the votes and in the case of the wiki poll has twice the votes of the next nearest result. Based on these figures and the fact that neither poll is updating very frequently any more, I would nominate the content box be updated with the new design. — Nexolate (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)