FamilySearch Wiki talk:Buttons

Why kill graphical, text-based buttons?
It is proposed that users no longer add button links to the site as found on the 15 Dec 2009 revision of Community Center. The addition of the buttons in this revision was intended to make the page more friendly to newbies by making the links graphical -- by making them "pop" a little. Unfortunately, using graphical buttons with text on them also makes it hard for other editors to add buttons (links) to the page because in order to add them, one has to be able to match the fonts, curved button corners, and colors of the buttons. It makes the page harder to edit and improve.

One alternative is to use image maps as is done now with Featured Articles on the home page.RitcheyMT 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you VERY much for the clarification, Michael. I finally feel someone has clarified the issue and I completely understand. The issue is NOT buttons, but rather buttons with text graphically embedded in them. A button is technically as an image map with only one clickable area and that is where the confusion comes from. Thomas_Lerman 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. A lengthy, but not as clear, discussion is in a thread in the forums.

I love the buttons because I think it is more inviting. From a non-technical point of view, I like them a lot. I think making the wiki more graphical with visual appeal will make it more inviting to non-technical people. I can see that if they create edit problems it could be a challenge and we would want to be careful with that. Is there a way to get both the editability and the visual appeal of the buttons? LoosleDC 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you LoosleDC for voicing your thoughts here. With taking what you and Michael said, would a pretty button (no text on the button) with text underneath the button be as equally appealing? In other words, something kind of similar to the Featured Articles on the main page, but the clicking on the images would also take you to the same place as the text? At least, I believe that is the kind of thing that Michael is proposing. I am open to either way. Just trying to see if we can come up with a solution that the more technical people like and also the non-technical people. Thomas_Lerman 19:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)