That's odd, smart doesn't even show up when searching through the git repo, in addition to not being documented. I found it because I wanted a quick image and grabbed one from the Popular Pages rail. Really weird that it somehow exists with github saying there are no instances of "smart" in the vignette repository.
Sorry for the delay. I actually didn't know the CSS setup was that modular until you posted about this project, so I'm poking around in the DOM as I write this to try to see what's feasible. Here are my rambly thoughts.
It looks like there's an excessive left margin on the main-level entries that the card format makes unnecessary, since dates are now more visually distinct from the edits made on those dates. Might save space to remove that.
I obviously can't tell from the image alone, but assuming you haven't changed this: I think the collapsible arrowhead icons should have more padding so they're more convenient to press.
Maybe the N/m/b abbreviations should be shown as icons instead? I understand the advantages of using plaintext for that, but I still don't think it's the optimal design choice. Admittedly though, the Fandom icon set doesn't seem to have any matching designs, so you'd have to turn to outside sources or have one of us design some to match. And I'm not sure what a "minor edit" icon would even look like.
It would be nice if watched pages had a slightly highlighted card background color to make them stand out in another way. (I'd still prefer if all edited-page names were bolded, and this could make that feasible to change without losing information on whether the page is followed, but it's your call.)
I've seen a Wiki Activity CSS ruleset that also makes entries appear as cards, and it adds a thick left border that matches the color of the attached Wiki Activity icon. Maybe that design pattern could also be good for emphasizing the N/m/b abbreviations (or icons). Not the best for colorblindness accessibility, though. They'd ideally also be patterned or something.
The ". ." separators should be made transparent: The cards make the hierarchy clear enough that they're redundant, but I like the extra whitespace they provide between elements on the same line.
Due to the multi-line format, I think several of the brackets could be removed. Some of these, like the "Edits by:" and "Tag:" lines, could get a lighter font instead.
The "(diff | hist)" links and similar would be especially good as icons. Sadly, I don't think the Fandom icon set has any matches for those either…
The editors' names are on the first line for single edits, but get a new line for groups of edits, which is inconsistent. I think they should both be on a new line.
I think timestamps for grouped edits should be aligned with the timestamps for the whole group.
It could be nice if grouped edits were divided by horizontal borders and/or were slightly highlighted on hover, to help separate them. This might require more whitespace between the cards to keep the hierarchy clear. Though maybe that whitespace should be bumped up a bit anyway?
Added more padding so the button is easier to press, but now it's a little off-center from the "N" label. Might be an issue, might not, depending on how much that sort of thing bothers you.
I tried doing that, but it's hard to make it look good on both light and dark wikis. There used to be a css class that got applied only to dark themed wikis, but it's absent on UCP. I've inquired on the Release Highlights thread. Until we have a method to support dark and light wikis I'd rather avoid icons
I'm reasonably certain we can use icons from mediawiki. Maybe the notice or articleAdd icons for New pages and robot for bot edits, but for minor edits I'm not sure.
If we get the oasis-dark-theme class back I should be able to bold all the page names and give the followed pages an icon. Or maybe a greyed-out "(following)" after the page title? That'd fit your bullet point a few entries down.
I'm not sure what they're for but that's an easy enough fix.
Which brackets? besides the ones around the summary and possibly the ones around the tags I don't see many. As for reducing there color, I think that's a pretty good idea to help people focus on the summary itself.
We could use MediaWiki's articleDisambiguation icon for diff, but I'm not sure about an icon for hist. Again, I'd rather leave icons out unless
It was relatively easy with the multiple edit groups since it's all contained in one element, shoving down the the (talk | contribs) bit onto it's own line. It might be possible to target the separator right after the green/red byte change and put that onto it's own line, which should get us the affect you want.
Possible. There are two options, shove just the time stamp over (leaving a weird empty space where it used to be) or shover the entire message over (losing the indenting which makes it clear this is a nested edit). Pictures for comparison:
Just the timestamp:
I'm having trouble getting the borders to show up but it should be possible.
After applying most of the changes, here are a couple images. The darker strip is the entry I'm mousing over.
Bolded titles with (followed) after the title:
Titles with bigger font size
Titles with bigger font size and (followed)
Let me know what you think and if I missed any of your bullet points!
I just came by and have to say this looks so much better than basic RecentChanges.
I primarily use WikiActivity. I don't like the condensed look of RC, but prefer the little type-of-change icons for simplicity, the previews for images that have been added to a page and seeing which categories have been added (RC just says "Added categories").
Himmalerin wrote: It'd be awesome if you could show them the last three pictures and ask their opinions it, always looking for more feedback! (especially from people who primarily/only use WikiActivity)
"Added more padding so the button is easier to press, but now it's a little off-center from the 'N' label." — Is it possible to use negative vertical margins to realign them?
"Until we have a method to support dark and light wikis I'd rather avoid icons" — That sounds fair, what a strange omission… Do you think the fill color could inherit the text color though, or even just use the hardcoded colors of the abbreviation circles if those look good on both dark and light? Maybe that could sidestep the issue for at least those three icons?
"If we get the oasis-dark-theme class back I should be able to bold all the page names and give the followed pages an icon." — Any of the choices in the image comparison looks good. I didn't realize how much the difference in font size would help; I think I'm personally growing partial to those choices. If you go with "bigger font size and (followed)", I think the font size for "(followed)" should be reduced back to normal.
"There are two options, shove just the time stamp over (leaving a weird empty space where it used to be) or shover the entire message over (losing the indenting which makes it clear this is a nested edit)." — Using the element inspector, I've gotten something that I think mostly works. I can't get the code blocks working in the previewer though, so I'm gonna make do with a textual description:
Position ".mw-enhanced-rc-time" absolutely, removing it from the flow. Position the grouped ".mw-enhanced-rc-time > a" relatively, then move it left (around -65px? Whatever aligns it perfectly).
The one issue I can find with this is that the ".mw-enhanced-rc-time" now covers up the beginning of the remaining line, making it uninteractable. Maybe z-index rearranging can fix this?
"Borders turned out to be a no-go, but how's this?" — I like those a lot. The one thing I think could be changed is the new page design. I think the background should be light blue for consistency with the add- and new-related icons in the current Wikia icon set, unless that's changed with the Fandom design language. It would also reduce the doubling up of the color cues between new pages and byte count increases. Maybe the "!" should also be changed to a "+", if you think that wouldn't be too confusing?
You're welcome! I'm happy to help out my fellow wikians (err, fandomers?) and it is looking pretty good.
I've got it to where I'm pretty happy, and with the switch to using the colored circles you basically can't tell anyway.
If we were using JS to insert the svgs we could do fill: currentColor and that'd work, with only CSS we're doing something like this which doesn't let you use fill, my plan was to just switch out background images for dark themes. But without the .oasis-dark-theme we can't do much.
Alright, bigger font size and (followed) then?
Ha, maybe you should be the one working on this :P Didn't even think about absolute positioning! I'm not noticing an lack of interaction. All the links and hovers still work anyway.
I believe there might be a bug regarding botedits + minoredits and botedits + newpage edit markers stacking on top of each other, but I don't have a bot to test edits with, and AutoWikiBrowser appears to be broken on UCP at this moment so I can't find a way to resolve it, just be aware it exists.
If you need help, feel free to leave me a message; you may also want to visit the forums or join us on Chat. You can also check the staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around FANDOM.