This page is indeed in a sorry state. With JavaScript switched off the Interactive Diagram does not appear, and we get to see a number of non-functional buttons with the Diagram's definition displayed below it as reformatted text. People then only get to see the static image of the setup in the Alternate Pieces section, plus two static move diagrams, which uses a hitherto unintroduced and far from self-explanatory piece representation.
In fact it is strange that these move diagrams are on the page at all; none of the other pieces have such move diagrams, and all piece descriptions already refer to a page with animated move diagrams. Note that separate move diagrams are not really a luxury here even for people that can see the Interactive Diagram, as the capture mode of some of the pieces is not properly demonstrated by the move diagrams that by default can be displayed through this Diagram: it would show moves of the piece on a board that is otherwise empty except for a single opponent 'pawn' that can be moved around through hovering over the board. Pincher Pawns, Chameleons and Coordinators never have any captures under those conditions, but the Withdrawer is one of the few pieces for which the Interactive Diagram would work (if JavaScript is switched on).
I see no logic in having a separate page for move diagrams, no matter how revolutionary these were at the time of their publishing. Move diagrams belong in the piece section of the article describing the variant, and the page with the move diagrams would make an excellent Pieces section for this article.
I also see no reason to show an Alternate Pieces section if there already is a (working) button through which the Interactive Diagram can show this same, as well as several other alternate representations. So this section should be hidden when JavaScript is switched on. And with JavaScript off the setup should be shown not only in the 'alternate' representation, but also in the preferred one. A more logical layout would be to delete the section, but show the diagram side by side with a static image of the setup with ordinary chess pieces (and inverted Rook) in the Setup section.
As to the piece sets that can be shown through the buttons: is it really needed to include the 'Alfaerie Animals' representation? Showing multiple representations can only increase confusion. It should be obvious that chess pieces can be represented by any set of images, and one can even buy orthodox chess sets where all pieces are sheep, frogs, pigs or heroes and villains from Star Wars. Is anyone actually using this 'Alfaerie Animals' representation? If not, why would we encourage this particular choice over the few million others that could be concocted with animal images from the Alfaerie set?
I also seem to recall that originally the initial (static) setup diagram used the ('small') Utrecht theme with the 'inverted-Rook representation'. Now that Utrecht is available in SVG and 50x50 PNG I think it would be better to use that rather than Alfaerie to present this representation as the primary diagram, and only show 'Ultima-Alt', 'Alfaerie Queens' and 'Abstract' as alternatives.
This page is indeed in a sorry state. With JavaScript switched off the Interactive Diagram does not appear, and we get to see a number of non-functional buttons with the Diagram's definition displayed below it as reformatted text. People then only get to see the static image of the setup in the Alternate Pieces section, plus two static move diagrams, which uses a hitherto unintroduced and far from self-explanatory piece representation.
In fact it is strange that these move diagrams are on the page at all; none of the other pieces have such move diagrams, and all piece descriptions already refer to a page with animated move diagrams. Note that separate move diagrams are not really a luxury here even for people that can see the Interactive Diagram, as the capture mode of some of the pieces is not properly demonstrated by the move diagrams that by default can be displayed through this Diagram: it would show moves of the piece on a board that is otherwise empty except for a single opponent 'pawn' that can be moved around through hovering over the board. Pincher Pawns, Chameleons and Coordinators never have any captures under those conditions, but the Withdrawer is one of the few pieces for which the Interactive Diagram would work (if JavaScript is switched on).
I see no logic in having a separate page for move diagrams, no matter how revolutionary these were at the time of their publishing. Move diagrams belong in the piece section of the article describing the variant, and the page with the move diagrams would make an excellent Pieces section for this article.
I also see no reason to show an Alternate Pieces section if there already is a (working) button through which the Interactive Diagram can show this same, as well as several other alternate representations. So this section should be hidden when JavaScript is switched on. And with JavaScript off the setup should be shown not only in the 'alternate' representation, but also in the preferred one. A more logical layout would be to delete the section, but show the diagram side by side with a static image of the setup with ordinary chess pieces (and inverted Rook) in the Setup section.
As to the piece sets that can be shown through the buttons: is it really needed to include the 'Alfaerie Animals' representation? Showing multiple representations can only increase confusion. It should be obvious that chess pieces can be represented by any set of images, and one can even buy orthodox chess sets where all pieces are sheep, frogs, pigs or heroes and villains from Star Wars. Is anyone actually using this 'Alfaerie Animals' representation? If not, why would we encourage this particular choice over the few million others that could be concocted with animal images from the Alfaerie set?
I also seem to recall that originally the initial (static) setup diagram used the ('small') Utrecht theme with the 'inverted-Rook representation'. Now that Utrecht is available in SVG and 50x50 PNG I think it would be better to use that rather than Alfaerie to present this representation as the primary diagram, and only show 'Ultima-Alt', 'Alfaerie Queens' and 'Abstract' as alternatives.