Subject: MN: Re: HTML ruleset...

From: Kevan Davis <kdavis@i...>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:40:25 +0100 (BST)

miKi gave me a few comments on the HTML ruleset, via private email - I
thought I'd reply to them on-list, to see what the rest of you think
about my thoughts...

>1. Firstly, it is a vast improvement in formatting terms. The colours you
> have chosen are good, I find that the main Mornomic page is difficult
> to read on my screen - there isn't enough contrast for the normal,
> unlinked text.

Yers. I'll be overhauling my entire page at some point in the probably-
not-too-distant future - people have tsked my main pages for their
darkness, in the past. I really need to draw some graphics and think of
a new name for it.

>2. The contents linking to the sections is good. The cross-references of
> various keywords is a great idea. I was amused to spot some bugs eg:
> "Passing through x stations" has passing linked to making a pass.
> Perhaps it could be reworded to be "moving" or "travelling through".

"_Hat_ton Cross" is an entertaining one, too. Just a matter of telling
it which exceptions to make, really; although I've reformatted the
Ruleset to make it easier to interpret, rewording it just to keep the
software happy is perhaps a step too far.

>4. My only criticism is that the opportunity could be taken to split the
> HTML version into many smaller files. It make sense to have one large
> text formatted version, but FAQ's and such, when converted to HTML
> usualy split each section up placing "Previous (Section title) | 
> Up (Contents) | Next (Section title)" links at the top and bottom of
> each individual page to help navigation. I like the this format.
>
> This also allows one to easily print out an individual rule and
> pour over it with pen, useful when trying to work out the exact
> meaning of a rule...

This was something I dithered over quite a bit - although having multiple
pages permits the printing of particular sections, and saves you from
having to load the whole page in when you only want to check one thing,
the single-file approach allows the reader to search for things which
might not be in the index (even with the best index, people will still
wonder things like "Hmm - I wonder how many things Terminus Stations
affect?" and want to search for the string), and to just save the entire
ruleset onto their hard drive for perusal at off-line leisure, or for
printing in one go.

Perhaps I'll just tinker the software so that it produces both a split
and a single ruleset; I'll probably rewrite the thing in C or something
(it's in - horrors - QBasic at the moment, since I had no other languages
to hand) when I can get my claws on a decent compiler and whatnot.
Shouldn't be too nightmarish.

Kevan

--
kdavis@i... - http://www.innotts.co.uk/~elusive/kevan - UIN: 5998366
"I dreamt about you last night, and I fell out of bed twice."
-- The Smiths, "Reel Around The Fountain"

---

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:45:39 +0100

>might not be in the index

Both good arguments, which suggests the dual split and complete versions are
necessary. I would certainly favour that approach, anyway.

>I'll probably rewrite the thing in C or something

Well, it's all Greek to me -- I'm sure even Qbasic would be beyond me. I'm no
technophobe, but I think I must be relatively inept with computers compared to
most people round these parts -- 10 Print "Hello"; 20 Goto 10 is about my
limit...

dave