Talk:Ansco Viking 6.3

HaarFager: You indicated the primary image overlaps the infobox on your display. What screen/browser width were you looking at it with? There seemed to be plenty of room on mine but after doing a screen cap and measuring it looks like a min of 1024 px wide was needed. I looked at the infobox and realized it was not sized correctly for the flickr image size it used. After resetting the size, it looks like it should knock 100px at least off the required page width, so I'm going back to the larger size for the primary image. I'd like to get some feedback from multiple people on whether it's working for them before changing it.

Also noticed you removed the V category. According to my reading of the guidelines, we should add an alphabetic category tag for Manufacturer name ('A' in this case) and the camera Model ('V' in this case). The main index page of the site provides a link to the alphabetized model cat listing, and this camera won't show up under V without that tag, unless I'm missing something?
Steevithak 15:26, 9 February 2011 (PST)

I never thought about browser/screen issues. That seems to be a problem on a lot of places I go. We seem to be in flux these days, with a lot people switching over to the new "widescreen" monitors and others sticking with the standard "4:3" monitor. Until something is standardized, we'll probably have screen issues. I don't know how to correct something so that everybody can see it correctly. Maybe it can't be done.

As to my removing the "V" category, I had a long talk about that last night with Vox. I contended that it cluttered up the index, to make it short what I was saying to him, I went to the "M" section and there were "M's," "P's," "S's" and "L's" all listed under the "M" section. This is just too confusing and not how it should be working. By removing all the excess categories such as the "V" from your Ansco/Agfa camera, it showed up where it was supposed to show up - under the "A." If you'll notice, I did add one other category to broaden how it is picked up by the index. That did the same job as your having placed the "V," and prevented it from showing up as a "V" in the "A" index. I think the guideline that says to do this needs to be corrected so that this doesn't keep happening. If we list every camera by it's manufacturer and model, every index letter will have every camera, thus removing it's helpfulness and ease of use.

I didn't mean any offense by changing the size of the one image of yours on the Ansco Viking 6.3 page, so I hope it didn't come off as me trying to be a know-it-all or something. HaarFager 16:21, 9 February 2011 (PST)

This is what the Ansco page looked like over here on my monitor and you can see why I felt the need to shrink it down. It clearly overlaps the infobox on the right:

Wow, that looks totally broken! It's an inline image, so it should be moved down below the info box on low resolution screens. I'm guessing it's an IE rendering bug. If you have a more standards-compliant browser like Firefox or Chrome try checking it in one of those. I'd be curious if they also show the overlap thing. If I squeeze the width of my browser way down, the image just drops lower down on the page to avoid conflicting with the info box. From that screen grab, I'm guessing your display is 640x480 or something like that? I don't think it's an aspect ration problem (e.g. 4:3 vs 16:9) so much as a screen res issue. Most displays are > 1024 wide these days so that's what web pages are designed for. Anyway, here's a screen capture from my laptop showing the same page as viewed on Firefox:

I'm not sure I follow what you mean on the "V" category. When I click on V in the Camera model index I don't see the Ansco Viking listed, but it should be there. Remember the Ansco is Manufacturer/Seller, not the model. The model is Viking with a V. Otherwise we should change the name of the index to the camera Manufacturer index if we're not going to categorize by model (though an index of manufactures doesn't seems particularly useful to me).
Steevithak 20:49, 9 February 2011 (PST)

Yeah, your's look right. So, I don't know what to do. It doesn't really matter if it only looks right for the editors' computers, it has to be right for every computer or it doesn't work. I don't think a Manufacturer index would be particularly useful, either. That's why we should have the index go by the full name of the camera, i.e., Kodak Brownie. Several different companies made a camera called a "Brownie," so if you had an entry in the index under just "Brownie," it couldn't lead to all the different versions. That's why it needs to be predicated with the manufacturer and the model combined. Maybe there is no solution. HaarFager 20:58, 9 February 2011 (PST)