Forum:Updating the GEMW arrows 2
- Previous discussion at Forum:Updating the GEMW arrows.
Psi proposed that we change the GEMW arrows, with the submissions seen below. This thread will be to determine which exact version will be used. (If you support the current version you may support that too.)
Because of many similarities between the proposals, it might be assumed that you will be okay with a design similar to the one you explicitly supported. For example, if you support version 1, it might be assumed that you will be okay with 2 and 5. Versions 3 and 4 are similarly linked. If this is not the case, and you wish to support only one version, please explicitly state that in your comment.
New 3 - pasting from the previous thread: "I'd still have issues with New 1 and New 2. The lack of a distinctive outline is a step back in terms of usability, and a dark shape on a background that fades to dark may make it difficult to distinguish for colorblind people. The indicators don't have to be any more complicated than an arrow or triangle; see real-life stock indices." -- 20:34, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Reflecting on Saftzie's comment, is it possible to add arrows to ether end of the - in 4? cqm 18:27, 1 Sep 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
New 4 - I forgetti to make the threatti because I am spaghetti21:39, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
- Why did the arrows get changed? It was supposed to be a final proposal. I will only support "unchanged" new 4 when there are no arrows at the ends. Also yellow was fine. If what I see now is final, I support 3. 5-x Talk 09:56, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
- It was a requested comparison as discussed above, and as it was a change being discussed it was only fair for everyone else to have it displayed in the comparison table. It was however not prefered, and as such is now removed. Nowhere in the draft of this vote were the words "Final" used either, and there is still quite a bit of discussion ongoing in this forum as to what the final product should be/look like. Give it time for a majority preference; there should be no rush to get this out the door and locked. — Heaven Sent (talk) 12:49, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
Current or 5 - Absolutely not 1 or 2, because they have horrible (i.e., virtually non-existent) contrast. The unchanged (-) icon of 3 and 4 has a similar problem, but they're better than 1 and 2. --Saftzie (talk) 17:40, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
- 3 or 4 - With the change to "unchanged," I'll switch to either 3 or 4. I have no problem with "tails." --Saftzie (talk) 01:27, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
- 3 - And definitely not 4. Why are we changing the options around now? -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 21:13, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
New 3 - Absolutely not 4, tails are unnecessary and those just doesn't tickle my fancy01:02, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
Closed - There is consensus to change the GEMW arrows, and the community basically unanimously prefers the theme shown in versions 3 and 4. Between these, version 3 will be used as the new GEMW arrows.
As no one seemed to like the change to 4's unchanged bar, I considered everyone's comments based on the original version of version 4. While we are not a democracy, the direct votes here will be helpful. It seems that the community is split 6-7 or 7-7 for version 3-version 4 on this (when people considered 3 and 4 equally good, I treated it as a vote for both sides), depending on whether or not Rich Farmbrough's comments are interpreted as support for version 3. However, regardless, when reading the comments, I noted that several users supporting 3 expressed strong dislike for the tails in version 4, while no one supporting version 4 expressed any negativity towards the lack of tails in version 3. Thus, when considering how strongly users differentiated their preferences between 3 and 4, I believe that finding a consensus in favor of 3 would be acceptable to more users. If people actually really want the tails and just didn't mention it all this time, and can't live with the tailless arrows, then I'll reopen this thread. --LiquidTalk 03:28, September 13, 2016 (UTC)