Historical atlas redone

[Izambri]

I'd get one... but I'd be more interested in a large poster of Ereláe, with all the country labels in Verdurian, if that sounds like a fun project. That'd be awesome, and I think people would buy one.

Oh, a large poster would be awesome. Printed on both sides with my two most favorite maps from Virtual Verduria:





Only that I would add more names of cities, regions, geography... (both in Latin and Verdurian letters) as well as some major roads and constructions to them.

[Herra Ratatoskr]

A Google maps style atlas of Verduria would be kind of cool too (impractical to build, maybe, but cool nonetheless).

[con quesa]

Beacuse at the time of the writing of the atlas, Ereláe was the only area of Almea that had been developed fully...

Well, yes, but isn't this redoing an excellent time to update the name? I don't think any of McEvedy's books ever claimed to be the historical atlas of Earth. I don't mean to be terribly critical, this isn't a huge point or anything, but it strikes me that "The Historical Atlas of Almea" is a title more suited for something that is a historical atlas of all of Almea, rather than just one of the two most important continental areas.

[vec]

The maps are nice, and the information looks really comprehensive, but I have to agree with some of the layout issues. Perhaps you could fit things better if the text was running down the side of a map, with the links below the map? Then it's possible to have more shorter lines which are easier and more comfortable to read than a handful of long lines?

I second this suggestion. Also, using frames in general feels very 1996. I wish you could limit the measure (ie. the width of each line of type) to something more managable (65 characters per line is generally regarded by typographers as gold). If you move the text to the side of the maps, this could work.

If I had been designing this, I would have had no frames, each page would be one whole. The map and the links would each be in a fixed div that wouldn't scroll, and the type in another that did, preferably on the side.

Design aside, the content is amazing. I'll be reading it over time once the semester is over. Only three more days!

[Drydic]

The maps are nice, and the information looks really comprehensive, but I have to agree with some of the layout issues. Perhaps you could fit things better if the text was running down the side of a map, with the links below the map? Then it's possible to have more shorter lines which are easier and more comfortable to read than a handful of long lines?

Please no. text goes below the image.

[vec]

The maps are nice, and the information looks really comprehensive, but I have to agree with some of the layout issues. Perhaps you could fit things better if the text was running down the side of a map, with the links below the map? Then it's possible to have more shorter lines which are easier and more comfortable to read than a handful of long lines?

Please no. text goes below the image.

At least give the text's measure some restraint. Put it in a div and give it a max-width of 40 em, about 65 characters. In order to fit links, images and text on my screen, I need to have the browser in full screen mode. This gives me intolerably long lines of text. Maybe it's just the graphic designer in me, but I'm sure others would appreciate it.

[Lyhoko Leaci]

But I like long lines of text!

Maybe put the links under the map?

[vec]

They drive me up a wall. The board does it, too. As the browser window resizes, so does the text. It's very hard for the eye to find the following line with such ridiculous measures.

[brandrinn]

I'm flabbergasted that so many people are in favor of long lines of text that can only be displayed one or two at a time. Meanwhile, there is oodles of space to the right of the maps that isn't being used at all. It seems like a no-brainer to me to put the text to the right, and put the links beneath the image, timeline style. I'd much rather read the text on the side than scroll one line at a time.

[Mornche Geddick]

Update: I figured how to link to the year text, but not the map.

[finlay]

I never maximise my browser window because it always gives huge long lines.

I think you should make it a bit more like the layout for the Arcél one that's on your wiki. Frames also make my brain hurt.

[Drydic]

I'm flabbergasted that so many people are in favor of long lines of text that can only be displayed one or two at a time. Meanwhile, there is oodles of space to the right of the maps that isn't being used at all. It seems like a no-brainer to me to put the text to the right, and put the links beneath the image, timeline style. I'd much rather read the text on the side than scroll one line at a time.

Hint: some of us don't use a screen the size of a soda can.

[brandrinn]

I'm flabbergasted that so many people are in favor of long lines of text that can only be displayed one or two at a time. Meanwhile, there is oodles of space to the right of the maps that isn't being used at all. It seems like a no-brainer to me to put the text to the right, and put the links beneath the image, timeline style. I'd much rather read the text on the side than scroll one line at a time.

Hint: some of us don't use a screen the size of a soda can.

I am so tired of this crap. I'm using a 15.4" screen, totally normal size. Actually a little big by laptop standards. But even for me the text feels restricted. I honestly can't think of a single reason why anyone wouldn't want the text on the side rather than the bottom. It's far more comfortable to read. Plus, that's how the Penguin atlases Zompist loves so much did it: map on one page, text on the facing page.

[Declan]

I'm also astounded that people would prefer long lines. In any web design I've ever done, I've always limited the length of lines. I find that if a paragraph only takes up two or three lines, not only can I not skim the text if necessary, but I find it hard to follow too.

[linguofreak]

I am so tired of this crap. I'm using a 15.4" screen, totally normal size. Actually a little big by laptop standards. But even for me the text feels restricted. I honestly can't think of a single reason why anyone wouldn't want the text on the side rather than the bottom. It's far more comfortable to read. Plus, that's how the Penguin atlases Zompist loves so much did it: map on one page, text on the facing page.

On a traditional 4:3 screen, text on the bottom is probably preferable. For a 16:9 screen, it's not so great.

I also generally hate frames, but I will concede that they help keep the map in view no matter where you are in the text, and I'm not sure what would be better than frames as far as that's concerned.

[brandrinn]

I also generally hate frames, but I will concede that they help keep the map in view no matter where you are in the text, and I'm not sure what would be better than frames as far as that's concerned.

If the question is "what is better than frames," then there are many answers. But the real question is "what is better than frames that Zompist is actually willing to do?" A clickable map where you can click on different regions to get a brief rundown of what's going on at that time, which would fit easily onto one page in most cases without requiring any scrolling, would be great. But that's a lot of work. A vector map where you can zoom into certain regions to see the text you want would also be awesome, but again, too much work. The frames are workable, and as such they will persist, but if we let our imagination run wild, there are lots of superior alternatives.

[zompist]

One advantage of my structure is that it takes only some minor tweaks to rearrange. So, there is now the option to display the commentary to the right of the maps rather than below.

[brandrinn]

One advantage of my structure is that it takes only some minor tweaks to rearrange. So, there is now the option to display the commentary to the right of the maps rather than below.

I take back everything I said about frames!

[vec]

Of course, had CSS been used, it would allow the same kind of rearrangement, but I'll take what I can get!

[Mr. Z]

Nice. The design is better, because there's more room for text, and I don't miss lines anymore. I also really like the information in the beginning, about the war, of which there was very little information until now (as far as I know). One question about the content, though: why did everybody lose civilization after the Iliu - Ktuvok Wars?

[Neek]

Are frames even necessary anymore? I somehow feel this can be done entirely with stylesheets.

[Warmaster]

Nicely done. The new maps look really nice (Been doing something similar for my conworld, but I simply cannot get mountains looking that good)

The new position of Gurdagor (And the Chia Sha and Mgunkipe) is the only thing that hit me as seeming 'wierd' compared to my last read of the old atlas. I know it fits for climate reasons, but it seems a bit odd from a strategic point of view. You would have thought the peninsular would have been better for control of costal routes (But then Gurdagor does seem to hold the islands off the tip which works as well)

Also, 3480 - Obenzaya has no southern border marked any more. Considering the nature of that state not sure if it is deliberate or not.

[brandrinn]

The new position of Gurdagor (And the Chia Sha and Mgunkipe) is the only thing that hit me as seeming 'wierd' compared to my last read of the old atlas. I know it fits for climate reasons, but it seems a bit odd from a strategic point of view. You would have thought the peninsular would have been better for control of costal routes

By that logic, Tierra Del Fuego should've been the center of the world for, like, three hundred years. But it's really not that far from Gurdago to the cape. And besides, if they're sending boats all the way to Skouras, what's a few extra nautical miles?

[Corumayas]

I have two minor problems with the interface; neither one is serious, they're just slightly inconvenient. First, clicking the right arrow from the title page takes me to the terrain page, skipping the intro; to read the intro I have to go forward, then back. Second, using the browser's back arrow goes back to the previous page of text but doesn't change the map. I remember the old atlas worked the same way, and I'm guessing it's an unavoidable consequence of the frames setup? It's easy enough to use the arrow links instead, but sometimes I forget and then it's kinda disorienting.

I'm enjoying reading it though! I'd probably buy a book version (and definitely a poster-sized map).

[Warmaster]

Just a note (Not sure if it is my browser or generally - I'm using Opera) Clicking on the Almeopedia links in the commentary is garbling them and i'm just ending up with something like Mëranac for Mëranac