hamtastic's picture
By: hamtastic, Erik Friborg
Aug 28 2009 10:45am
4.375
Login or register to post comments
2426 views


As you've probably noticed by now, I'm trying something a little different with this week's article layout, please let me know if you love it or hate it in the comments.  Essentially, the article was getting unwieldy in a straight shot, also, I couldn't really hide spoiler information the way I wanted to. Now, it will have it's own 'tab' and you can look at it or not depending on what you're interested in seeing.  Use the selections above to change the text in this area.

Also of interest is a change to the Price Charts, namely to the movers and shakers.  In response to some very well thought out comments and requests from last week, the movers and shakers list now only lists cards that moved around if they wound up above .5 tickets.  That seemed to be a decent threshold to handle most of the riff-raff and static. Again, let me know what you think in the comments!

48 Comments

"The M10 price tank is having by 53N531 at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 10:56
53N531's picture

"The M10 price tank is having splash damage on the previous versions of the cards as well (which are all now linked correctly in the table below!) 8th/9th Wrath of God, Ravnica Birds, etc. All falling down too, thanks to the huge supply of now available M10 versions. Yowzers!"

Wrath of God isn't in M10?

Great point! It's still by hamtastic at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 11:08
hamtastic's picture

Great point! It's still related to M10 + demand changes... just not due to being IN M10. :D

Going to Extended Only has tanked Wrath across the board.

Good catch though!

Hammy, I personally didn't by Lord Erman at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 11:07
Lord Erman's picture

Hammy, I personally didn't like the new look. Didn't look like an article to me. There's a lot of effort in this week's SotP and a lot of useful information but there's something that doesn't feels right which I think is the look of the article.

Personally I prefer the old traditional style (Maybe it's because I'm a bit conservative).

LE

NICE! by rukcus at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 14:48
rukcus's picture

I personally like the new interface. Perhaps you can figure out a way to also put the menu tabs at the bottom too, with a reset to the top of the page so it makes it easy to start the next section as well.

Not a fan of the layout by Deckwizard (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 11:22
Deckwizard's picture

I look forward to your article every week. The information is valuable and your unbiased view is really a breath of fresh air. This article was no different in content, however I must agree with LE that the layout doesn't work. Worth a shot, but I'd suggest going back to the old format.

i don't mind the new layout, by Anonymous (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 11:28
Anonymous's picture

i don't mind the new layout, but it'd be nice if the links were at the bottom of each section as well from a navigation standpoint so people don't have to scroll all the way back up.

All in all, if it's a hassle to maintain this new formatting, I'd say it's not really worth it.

i didnt' like the new format by Urzishra (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 11:28
Urzishra's picture

i didnt' like the new format because it was hard to follow.

ArchGenius's picture
5

I really liked the attempt at a new structure to better organize the article, but I agree that the scrolling up and down to get to new sections is a bit tiresome.

Is there any reason we can't get a Show/Hide "Spoiler" button option, sort of like the ones that are used on the MTGSalvation forums? I think that would be a much better solution to the problems you are trying to address with the tabs.

New layout by rfeltrin (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 12:23
rfeltrin's picture

I loved the new layout.
Its the easier way to you organize it and to us, readers, go through topics that interest us

but it'd be nice if the links were at the bottom of each section as well from a navigation standpoint so people don't have to scroll all the way back up. [2]

+1 by bubba0077 at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 12:31
bubba0077's picture

I concur

I think the new layouts by Kha at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 12:40
Kha's picture

I think the new layouts awesome and definately something i would like to see explored in future articles (by more than just hammy).

hate the new layout wtf by Anonymous (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 12:26
Anonymous's picture

hate the new layout

wtf

anonymous by mtgotraders at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:50
mtgotraders's picture
We are debating on disabling anonymous comments so please use your brain before commenting.
if we get a vote by Paul Leicht at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 19:47
Paul Leicht's picture

if we get a vote Im for disabling them. There have been NO* positive comments by Anon posters lately.

* can't believe I typod that and didn't even catch it on a reread.

Please do. by xXWarIsPeaceXx (not verified) at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 04:53
xXWarIsPeaceXx's picture

Great article hammy.. love it. love the new layout too...

im never getting from the by Anonymous (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 12:39
Anonymous's picture

im never getting from the vaults, !!!!!!dam you wotc

Well its an interesting idea by Paul Leicht at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:05
Paul Leicht's picture

Well its an interesting idea for an article layout. Very simple javascript/css and very doable. Not sure the actual execution is great but that's the web guy in me. Im no designer but it seems to lack something. I do like the idea and perhaps a sidebar menu would make more sense. For one thing it would allow for more topics without a scroll to the right. Smaller browsers can handle down better than across.

As usual the content itself is great. Destroy all creatures...but no stops regen...sadly not a Wrath reprint. But yay for the 4cmc. I wonder how hot it will be. I guess that will depend on how hot the demand is in standard since we still have Wrath in the other formats.

I too am inclined to say even if I had the money I wouldn't buy the From the Vaults set. Individual cards sure but what use do I have for something restricted/banned in many formats? Collector's item? well maybe for some...not for me.

I did briefly take a look at the new forum and I am not thrilled with it but perhaps it will grow on me.

I wonder why Knights gained .2 this week. Did someone find another deck to break them in?

Knights are rumored to be by hamtastic at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:14
hamtastic's picture

Knights are rumored to be getting a HUGE boost from a new mechanic in Zendikar, so probably some speculation demand.

One of the recurring ideas in by CottonRhetoric at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:44
CottonRhetoric's picture

One of the recurring ideas in any document design class is that (except for special cases) you should prioritize usability above visual appeal.

When someone reads an article, it's easiest to scroll from top to bottom once, not back and forth six times. Since there's no functional benefit to the new format, and in fact quite a hindrance to it, I'd have to encourage against it for the future. Sorry :\ I admit it does look cool though.

But... by bubba0077 at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 15:45
bubba0077's picture

... if they add the same buttons along the bottom and have it automatically scroll back to the top, I think this *is* an improvement. By doing it in javascript, this already has the advantage of not requiring a reload to get to the next section (which is usually my biggest complaint against paginated articles). If the buttons are along the bottom, they are in a good location to choose after reading a section, and if doing so often scrolls back to the top, you're not adding tedious user actions. And there is a functional benefit, since it makes it easier to skip sections you don't care about (and allows hammy to pack more information in if he wants without making the article seem ridiculously huge).

Let's see. One version by CottonRhetoric at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 17:52
CottonRhetoric's picture

Let's see. One version involves clicks and one version doesn't. I'm actually going to disagree that option A is an improvement.

lol click allergy? by xXWarIsPeaceXx (not verified) at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 04:59
xXWarIsPeaceXx's picture

is a great idea, easier to read, no reloading is awesome (good point bubba)

this interface feels more like what we are using on the web, and less like a "book" or newspaper... /me applauds, and is ammused at those who have a daily click limit

Layout and WOTC Forums by Avery (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 13:58
Avery's picture

I'm leaning against the new layout. It's cumbersome and just doesn't feel like an article bit, like some of the other guys who posted, maybe I'm just used to the traditional layout.

Also, is anyone else having problems with the new WOTC forums? I can't get it to take my personal info and even get to look at the rest of the content. IT won't take my user name and password at all.

Good idea, mediocre execution by aahz77 (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 14:13
aahz77's picture

The new layout is a good idea, though I too must admit that it's not executed the best way.

It's great because you can easily skip the topics you're not interested in. It's a bit frustrating because I have to switch on JavaScript every time (I usually browse with JavaScript deactivated, because it's the safest way regarding web site exploits - and waaaay faster on many major sites). OK, I can handle that.

And for the scrolling up again: it's indeed the only thing preventing my opinion from being "all fine", because the usability is indeed quite bad. On the other hand, there's no need to "scroll up" if you're familiar with your keyboard's functions within your browser: Pressing "Home" brings you back to the top of the page!

Nice Try by paul7926 at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 14:34
paul7926's picture
5

I'll give you 5 stars for effort with the new layout.

I'm not sure if I like it but perhaps that's just because it's new and I'm old! lol.

I'd like to see it stay for an article or two so that I can really get used to it. If anything I would suggest less headings. Having the spoiler like that is fine and also the totally descrete parts but to have, for example, the card prices and graphs in two different tabs felt like using them just for the sake of it.

If you can duplicate the tabs at the bottom then great but I guess I'm just used to reading big analysis documents on screen so I have no problem with using the 'home', 'end' navigation style buttons rather than using the mouse to scroll.

Keep the format for a week or two, or an article or two and use it where is benefits and not just because you can and I think you have a winner.

The new Channel and Strip Mine by theintangiblefatman at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 14:36
theintangiblefatman's picture

The new Channel and Strip Mine arts are gorgeous; I wonder why Wizards didn't feature them in the article over some of the...less well done ones. Too bad they're not available unfoiled. I like the new article format; makes it easy to skip over some of the parts which I don't typically read but others value and improves the overall organization. Links at the bottom of each section would be a plus, though.

New layout isn't printable by Paul (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 14:49
Paul's picture

Without a printable link on puremtgo.com the articles are tough to print out. This one is so difficult to print that I won't even bother. But that won't stop me from reading and enjoying it later, keep up the great content!

-Paul

I like the tabs. Is it really by Cantripping (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 15:00
Cantripping's picture

I like the tabs. Is it really so difficult to click 'page up'?
Good info as always.

Hate the new layout. I'm by FierceTable (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 15:13
FierceTable's picture

Hate the new layout. I'm probably not the target audience though. I always read all the article and like only having to hit the down arrow to read the entire thing. When I click on a card that doesn't open in a new tab and click back it brings me back to the intro page which is rather annoying, but I could right click or alt click and avoid that. Ultimately, I like the idea of trying something new, but personally (even when implemented better as others have suggested) the new layout will never be as good as the previous style for my own purposes.

layout by Anonymous (not verified) at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 16:31
Anonymous's picture

I don't really like the new layout, because I just like to scroll and read everything. But if you have to keep the new format, then can you have next buttons at the end of each section?

I hate having to scroll back up to read the next section. Also, highlight what current section I am on, so I don't have to remember which section I was at.

Thanks! by hamtastic at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 16:45
hamtastic's picture

Thanks everyone for the comments! They've been very constructive and very well thought out (well, almost all of them, anyway!)

I'm mostly just getting a feel for the pro's and con's so far so please keep the comments coming.

And I admit that I've learned more about my reader's habits this week than any other article, which totally rocks! :)

I don't know if its possible, by Kha at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 04:34
Kha's picture

I don't know if its possible, but would it be worth having the full article in one of the boxes and the sub sections split out for those that want it?.

If you plan on keeping with by FierceTable (not verified) at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 20:07
FierceTable's picture

If you plan on keeping with the new format I'm strongly voting for this implementation.

Personally I prefer the by spg at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 18:01
spg's picture

Personally I prefer the traditional version by a wide margin.

Layout by Jyalt at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 21:02
Jyalt's picture

Neat layout, probably beyond my abilities to replicate. Still, it's more flash than substance. You have too many tabs for what's inside them. I'd rather not have to click five or ten times to read an entire article, so be fancy all you want, but still put 'the whole thing' under one tab somewhere. Also if your conclusion is a couple short sentences, it hardly rates a tab of it's own.

New Format by Katastrophe at Fri, 08/28/2009 - 22:04
Katastrophe's picture
5

This is a lot of content that's hard to organize.

You could make this two articles, rather than eight. One for the news, editorial, and discussion items. And the other article would be marketplace + spoilers.

I'll check out that new forum tonight.

Thank you thankyou thankyou for the .5 ticket threshold on the movers and shakers. :)

New Layout by bombwizzi702 (not verified) at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 00:59
bombwizzi702's picture

I have yet to actually see the new layout on my computer but from my phone (Sidekick LX) I cannot view any of your article other than the comments. This is sad, sad, sad because I look forward to reading your article every week. I hope you decide to go back to your old layout.

I also prefer the traditional by PiDave at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 02:42
PiDave's picture
4

I also prefer the traditional layout. If you need a way to hide those spoiler there's always the possibility to use a script that's very similar to the one Wizards uses on DailyMTG (the one that "blanks" the page unless you click on a link).

Anyway, great reading as usual. :)

I really enjoyed how this by LOurs at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 03:13
LOurs's picture
5

I really enjoyed how this state of the program looks ! Great effort, much easier to read and always pretty interesting. Congrat Hamtastic !
About the 2 commander decks, i totaly agree with you. they are really good ! WotC did a lots of effort to propose a nice panel of cards and this is nuts for any player wanting the join the eternal formats. This is clearly one of the best precon decks release since JvC, even maybe better because it provides really good cards to players.

I like this style a bit more, by marengo at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 06:47
marengo's picture

I like this style a bit more, there are a couple of sections that I like to look first, so this way is easier instead of scrolling up and down. I don't know if the work is worth it, it's almost the same.

In any case, I always enjoy your articles :)

Hammy - Please say it isn't so by Jacobs at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 07:41
Jacobs's picture
5

Love the article coverage, as always, but hate the new format. I prefer the way you have formatted it in the past. Please don't make this new format the norm. Thanks for listening.

- Jacobs

What about? by Rerepete at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 18:37
Rerepete's picture
5

Persomally, I like the new layout (except the need for buttons at the bottom).

What about this? Leave the article the way it was, but use the buttons to jump in the text to the other sections? Sort of a compromise....and leave the spoilers hidden under the last tab like you have it now.

Maybe I paid attention in by Zwick (not verified) at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 19:43
Zwick's picture

Maybe I paid attention in middle school English, but everytime I see someone type "personally, I feel" a little part of me dies inside.

don't feel too bad by Paul Leicht at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 21:39
Paul Leicht's picture

People write informally the way they speak. Spoken idiom is not confined to the strictest rules of grammar in normal society. Some people may break rules that make you wince but just be glad you do not do the same thing. :) I mean we aren't writing great literature on these posts. (No offense to anyone who thinks otherwise :p)

I find it somehow fitting by Anonymous (not verified) at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 23:07
Anonymous's picture

I find it somehow fitting that the same week that WOTC reveals the downgraded forums hammy reveals the downgraded SotP. Yes, the tabs seem like cool features at first (just as the MTGO groups/wiki/etc. seem cool), but the reality is that this requires more work by the user with not much gain. Tabs at the bottom would help, but the only way I would be really happy would be a default to the original format - the navigation tabs could be left as a bonus option for those who want to use them. Bet if you do this you will find the tabs used by only a small percentage of readers.

Now a tab that links back to the previous SotP, for when I've missed a week or just want to look back for whatever reason, that would be truly added functionality that I could get behind.

like the tabs by pcjr at Sat, 08/29/2009 - 23:34
pcjr's picture

I like the new format.

Don't like the new format. by Felorin at Sun, 08/30/2009 - 08:21
Felorin's picture

While I appreciate the effort to try something new, I think the main thing this format does for me is make it take more time and effort to read the articles (which I look forward to each friday, btw!)

Try this. Go to Price Tables, or anything else that has card links you might want to click on. Click on a card you aren't familiar with, or want to see if its price on MTGOTraders has gone up/down even more since the article was posted, etc. etc. Look at the card. Now click the Back button in your browser. Surprise surprise, you're on Introduction again and have to click the tab of whatever you were in the middle of to get back to where you were, and maybe scroll down as well!

Having the tab you're currently on clickable, but doing absolutely nothing when you clicked on it, is bad interface design. I clicked "Introduction" 5 times and thought "the tabs don't work for my browser" and tried another browser before I figured I had to start with the SECOND blue tempt-you-to-click-me-to-see-stuff link at the top, not the first.

And of course, every time you finish a section in the old version, you would just - scroll down some more. Now it's scroll all the way to the top, click something, and start heading down again. More work, more time consuming, and what did I gain out of it as a reader? Nothing that I can perceive as mattering to me at all.

I want the old look back by manzanill at Sun, 08/30/2009 - 10:06
manzanill's picture
1

ty and hf + gl