Primer Section?

TappedOut forum

Posted on Jan. 8, 2015, 7:08 p.m. by m4ver1k

I see a lot of massive descriptions in other peoples decks and wondered if it made sense to include a collapsible 'Primer' for info on how to play the deck and so forth, which would enable users to keep descriptions super brief and then have the primer information available if need be.

Epochalyptik says... #2

The descriptions are for detail and primers (if people feel like writing them). It's up the the user to balance the length of the description.

For example, I used collapsible spoiler sections in my Damia primer. I left the headings visible and hid the rest of the text so as not to make the primer any longer than it needs to be in terms of space.

And if people want to just leave everything written out (the html for spoilers is pretty ugly), then that's their choice.

January 8, 2015 7:16 p.m.

m4ver1k says... #3

I guess that's fair, but I think a lot of the users don't know how nor would want to invest the time to learn how to make collapsible sections. I just figured it might make it a little easier to include one section that auto collapses for those people. Yours looks nice btw.

January 8, 2015 7:30 p.m.

Epochalyptik says... #4

Thank you.

For the most part, the descriptions here don't get too long. I guess I just haven't seen them as much of a problem.

Tagging yeaGO for consideration.

January 8, 2015 7:39 p.m.

This is a great idea! Yeah, I'm HTML deaf. And blind. I would dig this feature.

January 8, 2015 9:04 p.m.

yeaGO says... #6

i could think of a simple syntax to make things collapsible

============

maybe something like this would become the title

and then i could type a bunch of reallylongstuff hereand it would collapse

=============

and nobody would have to learn html!

the end

January 9, 2015 12:20 a.m.

m4ver1k says... #7

Sweet! That'd even potentially encompass a lot more. Do you think you'd be able to nest the collapsible sections?

January 9, 2015 4:57 a.m.

yeaGO says... #8

i'd have to see an example but... i guess i imagine so although it would make the syntax a bit more complicated

January 9, 2015 8:48 a.m.

m4ver1k says... #9

Like, if you took Epochalyptik's deck here, Damia, and you took all his primer info and put it inside another collapsible section that just says 'Primer'. That way all that would be hidden regardless until the primer was opened, and then the user could open various parts of the primer.

January 9, 2015 10:52 a.m.

The thing is, though, I want people to see the headers and subheads. It lets them know what's there.

Maybe we could make something that looks like a table of contents, and you could click on a section to expand it.

For coding purposes, you could ID each section like this:
1.
. 1.1.
. 1.2.
2.
3.
. 3.1

And so on. That's assuming the sections are defined with something like spans or divs that need unique IDs per section.

January 9, 2015 11:32 a.m.

m4ver1k says... #11

Epochalyptik -- I was just trying to give an example of a nested section, not actually recommending you change yours.

January 9, 2015 12:24 p.m.

I understand that. What I was getting at is that maybe we shouldn't hide the entire primer under a single heading. I'm open to convincing, though.

January 9, 2015 12:31 p.m.

m4ver1k says... #13

My thought process was that if it wasn't actually a dedicated section for a primer but simply syntax was introduced that enabled you to create collapsible sections that you could nest, then it doesn't really matter either way. You could have it laid out like you have it, or someone could be as neurotic about the organization as they want.

January 9, 2015 12:44 p.m.

So something more like shortcode? (E.g. TappedOut's auto linking system for card names)

If so, I definitely think that would be more appropriate as part of a RTE then as free syntax floating around like the other stuff.

January 9, 2015 1 p.m.

m4ver1k says... #15

Yeah, the shortcode is what I was referring to, I was just following YeaGo's earlier verbiage, I assumed that was what he was implying.

January 9, 2015 2:17 p.m.

This discussion has been closed