Talk:Suggestion/@comment-1820055-20150308090352/@comment-25490263-20150309223217

As mentioned before, what can be agreed upon is the need standardize the usage of icons & text & their sizing. Well, usage of div+css may be an interesting experiment as well.

Other It would be appreciated if designing two mock ups & responding as if they were legitimate design options was not excused. If approval or disapproval was the main desire, the first comment of mine already answered it in the last line.

Of course it's not finished - these responses elaborate on that.

As the earlier wall of text describes, yes, they are mishmashed in placement.

Again, do not wave away a shown & defended option that continues to be defended. The Placement and Sizing section makes it obvious.

Placement and Sizing As the wall of text describes, placement & sizing needs improvement. Importance to you is easily countered with importance to another person. That is the issue in standardization.

Under is relative given the links can be below, across, vertical, or in a corner. Unless the heading is meant, at which under is less relative, but given the large-with-no-text icons in Ships & Equipment & lack of a heading for the top, it continues to be problematic.

Mobile True; however, it must be pointed out that there are desktop-mode options that force the non-mobile version. The key issue is the placement & sizing being terrible for scrolling & zooming. The lower the resolution, the more the massive icons will distract from the other content. The higher the resolution, the more the disparity between viewing & selecting links associated with the huge variation of icons will be.

Scope That selectiveness reinforces how mishmashed the design is turning out. A design must be uniform, not, for example, different production companies each having a few minutes of an episode. A frontpage redesign needs to be all-or-nothing. It's the first page a visitor will see - the facade of a building.