Page 1 of 3

Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:22 pm
by PacificWR
With the migration of VAMWorld to version 2.0 new toolsets became available to update the stale VAM Page Listing. One of the goals of the new proposed format is to draw new users in and enhance their learning experience. Click on the
1886-O VAM Page Listing link to view the proposed new format then come back to this post and vote in the poll below. One of the features in this new format is the collapsible "Contents Section". If you do not want the section to display click the "Hide" button. To display the "Contents Section" click the "Show" button. Another objective (there were many) was to create a more neat and orderly page. Note: this proposed new format has been tested in a coin gallery (B&M) and it works great. Finally, one size does not fit all so, some series will be different. Comments are welcome and the proposed format is open for ideas.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:41 pm
by Raybob15239
I like it. I think it make sense the way it is set up. The only thing I would change is that I personally prefer that the eliminated VAMs remain in sequential order with the current VAMs, but with a hyperlink to the (new) VAM number.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:38 pm
by crabscrape
Wayne,

I like the way you did the 1886 O pages. I see your point.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:58 am
by UncleGildy
Speaking as a one newbie, I think it looks great!

The only feedback I could come up with is about the mint and mintage:
  • The "Mint: New Orleans" seems like a waste of vertical space. It's obvious to even me, and the -O is already displayed two lines up in big, bold print.
  • While the mintage is of some value it's in every book/site about coins. Its value would be how it relates to rarity, but then I would want to see the more interesting (and perhaps more relevant) facts like:
  1. "Surviving population" number - how many were melted due to some legislation or because the assay failed an audit.
  2. A breakdown by major version of that year+mint. For example:
  3. How many of the '78P population are 7TF and how many are 8TF,
  4. How many of a year+mint are REV78 vs REV79, etc. (At the moment, I can't recall which non-'78 year+mints used carry-over R78 dies)
The above numbers are more evasive, relevant to scarcity, or more worthy of occupying the vertical space.

I use a desktop/laptop mouse and large display, but still prefer compact data. As I said, just one newbie's opinions.

Either way, it looks really good here. Thanks to all that work so hard on maintaining the content, keeping it fresh, inviting and usable.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:27 am
by LorenAlbert
If you were starting from scratch and not being beholden to VW1 I would play with some changes. The first two subheadings take up considerable vertical space and there may be a horizontal solution. The first subheading might be better called "General Information" or something similar. Currently, it is redundant with page title. Also, numbering does not apply. Bullets or hard coded entries might be better. I would avoid acronyms. "VNA" might be better translated to "Varieties Not Attributed" (edit: or possibly "Variety Not Assigned"; I remembered). But even this is a contradiction. Probably should be DPNA for "Die pairs not attributed". Die studies are never "done". I would consider "Die studies: none". If there are linked die studies, I would enumerate them horizontally. I would consider rewording the "Official Listings" sub-heading. Are there "unofficial listings?" I would change it to something akin to "1886-O Varieties" or duplicate the first subheading at this location.

I am still editing web pages that I put on line in 1997. Editing is never ending and I see it differently nearly every day. Compromises between stability and readability are often considered. In all, I very much like the 1886-O listing page.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:47 am
by messydesk
Take a look at the 78-CC page. Ignore, for the moment, the fact that there's a link to another page with previous listings, as I intend to move the salient information from there to the main page. I'm illustrating a more compact presentation of the dates "vital stats" using a box on the right side of the screen in space that is blank on all date pages. It uses no extra vertical space and is easily bypassed by a user only interested in looking at attribution info.

Another comment on the 86-O page that applies to all pages is that since Mediawiki supports numbered lists, it makes no sense to manually number lists in the mark-up. Simply use # at the beginning of a line and the next number will be used. Do not end the line with <br/> or the count will be reset. That said, the list of attribution guides does not need to be numbered at all.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:16 am
by UncleGildy
I really like the info box off to the right and the compactness of the 78-CC page. I assume heading styles and horizontal lines are style elements that may still be in refinement (?). The 86-O looks a little nicer in this way, but if the fonts and lines make everything blow up space-wise, then I'd opt for the compactness of the 78-CC as is.

My only concern on the 78CC, from that newbie angle, would be that the "Attribution Guides" terminology seems more helpful than "Additional Guides". Maybe this term was used because some of the items are merely VAM lists sorted in different orders rather than an actual guide.

It may not be a big deal, but I think "Attribution Guides and Sorted Listings" would be more helpful or insightful for those of us just learning the sport?

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:35 am
by HawkeEye
I would suggest that we add a designated researcher for each series where they exist in an attempt to get folks to "own" them. We need some in depth research on a lot of varieties and I think this might encourage folks to step up.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:26 pm
by VernP
I like the new page design. As a mobile device only user it works for me. Could we set the contents section at the top to default to hidden? Also I prefer the stats area on the 78 cc page. Having the person or persons listed that have done or are doing die studies would be a benefit. Vern

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:01 pm
by messydesk
VernP wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:26 pm
I like the new page design. As a mobile device only user it works for me. Could we set the contents section at the top to default to hidden? Also I prefer the stats area on the 78 cc page. Having the person or persons listed that have done or are doing die studies would be a benefit. Vern
The contents section is provided by the MediaWiki framework, and its state (show or hide) is saved for each user. If you hide a contents section, all contents sections for that wiki will be hidden for you, assuming you are logged in. I think another way to totally suppress the contents section would be user-level CSS that didn't render it, but I wouldn't recommend that. For the mobile-only user, there are Mediawiki skins that can be used that better optimize the layout for mobile devices. These actually detect whether you have a mobile or desktop device and switch the layout accordingly. I haven't tried this, but probably will sometime and will report back for those who might be interested. If anyone is particularly interested in trying this, let me know.

The Mediawiki template I made for the gray box can be expanded to hold additional info, but I'd like to keep it fairly simple. We have a page now somewhere that shows people (or usernames) who are doing die studies. One thing I had suggested earlier was simply an assessment of the maturity of a die study (low/medium/high). I can also create another page that is linked from some of the items with non-obvious values that explains the full contents of the box. Mintage and proof mintage needn't be explained, but the PL rarity, which I'm coming up with several ways to calculate and present, and die study maturity probably do, and perhaps sources used (and allowed) for figures cited.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:30 pm
by PacificWR
Lots of interesting feedback on this post. Glad to see this. The infobox is a good idea but, it has its limitations. If the infoxbox tool is used maybe it would be better served if it was used to highlight the uniqueness of a VAM in the series or the series itself. Think about that for a minute. It could really enhance the learning experience. A good example would be to highlight the uniqueness of the 1886-O VAM-1A1 and 1A2 (on each of the individual VAM pages). Each series has a story to tell.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:43 pm
by andywoj00
PacificWR wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:30 pm
Lots of interesting feedback on this post. Glad to see this. The infobox is a good idea but, it has its limitations. If the infoxbox tool is used maybe it would be better served if it was used to highlight the uniqueness of a VAM in the series or the series itself. Think about that for a minute. It could really enhance the learning experience. A good example would be to highlight the uniqueness of the 1886-O VAM-1A1 and 1A2 (on each of the individual VAM pages). Each series has a story to tell.
Purely a cosmetic thing....do the individual yr/mm VAM list pages need to have the page title showing twice? Look at the 1897-P page with it only showing one title row....Andy

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:53 pm
by UncleGildy
I was thinking that too Andy, but actually I think we're only seeing a duplicate copy for editing purposes. It's only because we're logged into mediawiki at the time. Note the second one has "edit" next to it.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:10 pm
by andywoj00
UncleGildy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:53 pm
I was thinking that too Andy, but actually I think we're only seeing a duplicate copy for editing purposes. It's only because we're logged into mediawiki at the time. Note the second one has "edit" next to it.
Hey John,
I logged out and then went to the 82P page. Page title is showing twice. When logged in, the edit will show next to the 2nd one that can be deleted. Top one is the page title when the page was created; only JB can edit that.
I think the 2nd one can be eliminated. That will reduce the table of contents as well by 1 line.
Andy

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:23 pm
by UncleGildy
What the hey?! I do see it on the 82P page without "edit" as you say. But I don't on the 87P in your post. So I assumed it was just an artifact of being logged in, but that's not the case.

It looks the second listing is only on some of the pages however. It's not on the 86-O but it is on the 78-CC ...when not logged in, from my browser anyway. So I see now, it's only related to the space allocated for the table of contents, which is not always present. (I better quit now :shock:)

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:28 pm
by andywoj00
UncleGildy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:23 pm
What the hey?! I do see it on the 82P page without "edit" as you say. But I don't on the 87P in your post. So I assumed it was just an artifact of being logged in, but that's not the case.

It looks the second listing is only on some of the pages however. It's not on the 86-O but it is on the 78-CC ...when not logged in, from my browser anyway. So I see now, it's only related to the space allocated for the table of contents, which is not always present. (I better quit now :shock:)
86O has been the "test page" driving this thread. A lot of stuff changed there, to include deleting the dupe title.
I deleted the dupe title on the 97P page to illustrate. 78-CC page appears to be locked down as a test page too.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:42 pm
by Unc90o
The more stuff added on the main date/mm page, the more update needs to be done in the future, hence the more mistake will likely be made. Why can we just keep it simple like it used to be with VW 1.0? Example is 1886-O 'quick link' on top of the page. Is it really necessary? What's the big deal with scrolling the mouse down? I never had any problem scrolling down even when the page is long such as 1921-P. I think it's just clutter up the page.

For adding mintage for each date/mint - I just updated the 1879-S. Hover your mouse above the 1879-S.
http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compu ... Ms_by_Date

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:47 pm
by messydesk
andywoj00 wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:43 pm
Purely a cosmetic thing....do the individual yr/mm VAM list pages need to have the page title showing twice? Look at the 1897-P page with it only showing one title row....Andy
I agree with not needing to duplicate the page title as a level 1 section header. This is a carryover from porting from Wikispaces. I updated the 1921 Morgan page for this, and the resulting TOC is actually cleaner, as well. In the case of the 1897 page, the Attribution Guides and Official Listing could be made level 3 headings. Headings carry an "edit" link with them to allow a user to edit a single section of a page without dealing with the markup for the rest of the page. Not a big deal for smaller pages, but very nice for 1878 and 1921. It's not a big deal to skip heading levels, as the TOC will display them as if they were level 2 (see the 1921 page) if no level 2 headings are present, even if they are rendered as level 3. I would also leave the Legend as part of the Official Listing or Former Listings section, separated with a horizontal rule (a single line of markup containing ----), since it isn't something that needs to be its own section or seen in the TOC.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:57 pm
by messydesk
Unc90o wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:42 pm
The more stuff added on the main date/mm page, the more update needs to be done in the future, hence the more mistake will likely be made. Why can we just keep it simple like it used to be with VW 1.0? Example is 1886-O 'quick link' on top of the page. Is it really necessary? What's the big deal with scrolling the mouse down? I never had any problem scrolling down even when the page is long such as 1921-P. I think it's just clutter up the page.
If by "quick link" you mean the table of contents, if hide a single TOC once, it remembers that setting for all TOCs that you will encounter using a browser cookie.
For adding mintage for each date/mint - I just updated the 1879-S. Hover your mouse above the 1879-S.
http://ec2-13-58-222-16.us-east-2.compu ... Ms_by_Date
Hovering doesn't work on a mobile device.

Re: Proposed New VAM Page Listing Format. Vote in the poll below.

Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:10 pm
by PacificWR
Purely a cosmetic thing....do the individual yr/mm VAM list pages need to have the page title showing twice? Look at the 1897-P page with it only showing one title row....Andy


Andy,

Take a look again at the 1886-O VAM page model and compare it with the 1878-CC VAM page model or almost any other VAM page. One of the benefits of the 1886-O Proposed New VAM page model is the fresh new style of Formatting, plus the enhanced ability to update the page. No longer do you have to go to the top of the page and click the edit button. With the new Proposed 1886-O VAM Page model one can just go to the section that needs to be updated. This will aid in reducing errors. The other models do not offer this feature. The new style of formatting is fresh, sharp (no idents necessary) and easy to follow. It is one that tends to grab you and pull you in (this helps to attract new users). No more stale out of date formatting. That is part of the problem with the old format. This is a win for everyone.