I suppose that it has been said before, but I'll say it again.
It isn't every forum where the software engineer / programmer (whatever they call them these days!) answers questions and responds to comments and suggestions.
So, well done, Stephen - and many thanks.
|
It isn't every forum where the software engineer / programmer (whatever they call them these days!) answers questions and responds to comments and suggestions.
Would add even more value if the design flaws were actually fixed ;-)
|
Could I just say that I'm quite happy with the new format?
I'm certainly not going to try to show off any half baked acquired knowledge on the basis that I know better than the team who have been working on this for months.
|
|
|
WhoopWhoop
[Allow] [Deny]
|
Should probably have said, I like the new format.
Thanks for the explanation on the green "expand" button BV, I see what you mean and it makes sense. I've been using it on both the MBP and iMac, benefiting from the function and not really thinking about it.
One question though, has HJ sold the site to Fred Dinenage?
(please don't revoke my account :-) )
-------------------------
07 Kia Ceed LS
05 Citroën C4 VT
04 Mazda MX5
85 Mini Mayfair
|
Would add even more value if the design flaws were actually fixed ;-)
Isn't it more the case they these desires for panavision would simply suit you?
Generally, I've never read such a lot comments from people who don't pay for a service, complaining that their latest fashion-victim hardware & software is not catered for by, what is, a generalist website, designed for people with generally used dispays & a wide variety of browsers.
It reminds me somewhat of hi-fi buffs who are more interested in the way the copper was drawn in the wires than what they actually listen to,
Finally, why this fetish also about an edit button? An edit button would be dangerous in my view - it would allow the unfathomable & unscrupulous to change, at whim, posts & make the moderators job impossible. Defamatory comments or statements inciting illegal behaviours can be pursued in this country against publishers, of which HJ is one. No other media allows un-edited comment, think TV, radio , newspapers. If some people are so keen about this, I suggest they open a site & publish it - perhaps after the first few writs they may change their libertarian stance.
|
Why do the following only sometimes work? Maybe some "controls" in the website (ActiveX or similar) have them on and some not? eg.
- CTRL C and CTRL V to cut and paste
- Delete (as opposed to Backspace)
Sometimes okay and sometimes not.... keyboard okay as I checked at the time(s) with Notepad etc.
|
|
|
Well said, woodbines.
An edit button would only work if it were timed - i.e. you can edit a post within 5 minutes of posting (I often re-read my posts and find they make absolutely no sense). Forums with edit buttons make it very easy to un-say something, which isn't really in the spirit of this forum.
As for flaws, I think it's a bit selfish for any forum user to demand that the forum is customised for THEIR screen shape, resolution, OS or browser. I use Ubuntu 6.06, Opera 9.23, 1280x1024 res, through an LG 17" TFT screen (non-widescreen). I'm sure nobody else on the forum uses the same set-up as me so I don't expect the software to be tailor-made to my requirements ;-)
|
|
|
Generally I've never read such a lot comments from people who don't pay for a service complaining that their latest fashion-victim hardware & software is not catered for by what is a generalist website designed for people with generally used dispays & a wide variety of browsers.
I don't think you understand the nature of the problem. The previous forum would resize to any monitor width. Thus serving well those with tiny laptop screens and "fashion victims" as you call people in touch with technology. After apparent IMPROVEMENTS to the design the forum width is now locked, which might work for readers with small screens, but on large widescreens it becomes narrow strip of text, positioned offside between huge white margin and anything between 1/2 to 2/3rd of white blank space to the right. Obvious screen space wastage aside, because new "improved" forum also features white background on white page, on bright TFTs the effect is a bit like trying to read newspaper lying flat in the snow from the first floor window. Paying or not paying has nothing to do with it. Change in design is supposed to be improvement, not pushing the experience backwards. So please, understand the issue before being loud and rude about it. But then again, the man partially responsible for coding this mess told us already, Basil Fawlty style, we are not using his creation right and that designers are not idiots and know better what's convenient for users, so all hope of resolving it, is already pretty much lost to goose stepping and angry gestures...
Finally why this fetish also about an edit button? An edit button would be dangerous in my view - it would allow the unfathomable & unscrupulous to change at whim posts & make the moderators job impossible. No other media allows un-edited comment.
Actually I can't think of a single forum or even bulletin board software that wouldn't allow posters to make corrections and erratum of their post, even if such option is strictly time limited. No reason to be paranoid about it - it's standard.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
{Edited for you to remove the excess of bold text, seeing as you don't have an edit button of your own ;o) - DD}
|
"No other media allows un-edited comment"
BBC?
|
|
|
In response to v0n..
The previous forum would resize to any monitor width...
But presumably the test size & line length was constant?
..positioned offside between huge white margin and anything between 1/2 to 2/3rd of white blank space to the right.
On my screen, the 'white' margin is a restful, non-reflective grey - ideal in my view, just like reading a well weathered hardback book. Slightly tongue-in-cheek question: but what size books do you like reading? Nothing less less than coffee table size, with a busy margin?
The text box presents in a pleasant light turquoise, in 12(?) point text, suits me (..and many others judging by the straw poll of posts) , so I can't comment on why yours appears all white.
Sorry if I came across as rude, not my intention - just a robust response to some of the rather partial & specious posts I'd read. Just as you characterise the designers response as 'Basil Fawlty' -esque & liken the site to a 'mess' with a final (slightly odd..) reference to 'goose stepping and angry gestures... ' , I'm sure it's all taken in the right spirit!
Actually I can't think of a single forum or even bulletin board software that wouldn't allow posters to make corrections and erratum of their post, even if such option is strictly time limited. No reason to be paranoid about it - it's standard
Well, er, we can can't we? I always use the useful 'Preview' button to check what I've written (even then some mistakes get through!) then re-edit if necessary. The option of post hoc editing, in my view, would lead to more trouble & confusion than it's worth - a bit like Parliamentarians being able to re-jig Hansard at will when it suited - logical & useful debate would be the loser. Just as when sending email , the luxury of 're-edit after posting' is not available - I regard forum posting in exactly the same way.
The Pandora's box that would be opened with post hoc editing would allow those with little or no responsibility for the consequences (the posters here, inc. me!) to put in jeopardy those with the publishing responsibility (the site owners) - it seems entirely reasonable & fair they protect & indemnify themselves. It's not paranoia really, just application of standard (& best) business practice.
|
|
|
|
"complaining that their latest fashion-victim hardware & software is not catered for"
LOL! He's also forgetting that some of us like to browse with a laptop, but perhaps he's got a 23" one of those, too...
|
I use a 1280x1024 resolution on a 19" monitor and it's fine. I like having the space at the left and right, it makes everything seem less cluttered. The design is also much cleaner and I like the colour scheme. The fixed width may not result in the perfect display for a few, but it's good enough for the vast majority.
You'll get used to it. :)
|
The edit button subject has come up countless times, there are good arguments for and against. However, each time it has been raised we have been told we won't get one so the discussions are a bit pointless.
Why has the Technical section stopped working? I can't help out the Renault owners any more... :-(
|
Why has the Technical section stopped working?
As in what way? Can you elaborate what problems you're experiencing.
|
|
I get an IE box popping up with the message: "Xajax Debug: Request Object Instantiation failed"
|
|
Ok, I'll pass across to Stephen to take a look. Must admit though that there have been several contributions in Tech Matters this morning, and not had any problems myself.
|
|
google 'Xajax Debug: Request Object Instantiation failed'
|
The only difference on the Technical forum to this one is that in there we check that you have to enter a make and (optionally) a model. It isn't enough to have category in there.
----------------------------------
Stephen Khoo
www.khoosys.net
|
|
I get the message when I try and select anything from the drop down menus. Not just 'Technical'. Oh well, I shall just stay in 'Discussion' for now. Time for my two hour French lunch... :-)
|
In the Technical Forum, if I try to hop back to the next subject I end back in discussion. I have to click on 'any make' and 'any subject' before I am locked into Technical Forum.
Otherwise works fine.
Think a collar and tie should be Photoshopped in to HJ's picture.
|
LOL!
Talk about missing the point altogether.
1. Widescreen is now standard technology. To the poster that suggested it was a fashion item, you obviously have no concept of current technology.
2. The previous site resized itself to suit ALL formats - both widescreen and old-format. it worked well. It adjusted to old laptop screens, old CRT monitors, new LCD monitors and new widescreen monitors. Why has that functionality been lost in the new "improved" site?
I only hope all those self-motivated people crowing on about it not being a problem for them never have top replace their ageing monitors with something current!
|
I only hope all those self-motivated people crowing on about it not being a problem for them never have top replace their ageing monitors with something current!
Have you considered that a resizing page gives an inconsistent medium for the presentation of content and/or advertising? Fixed width means it looks the same for everyone however "cutting edge" or otherwise they may be (personally I prefer multiple screens to great big ones). I suggest that for content providers it is the advent of widescreen that makes fixed width essential.
|
Widescreen is now standard technology>>
Sometimes, a forward step in technology can be a backward step in reallity, as it appears your finding out!
I only hope all those self-motivated people crowing on about it not being a problem>>
I dont think we are "crowing" about it not being a problem for us, just stating our views of the new site as it affects us, all in all it appears that the general concensus of opinion is in favour of the changes, but as with changes in general, there will always be some dissenting voices, hence the birth of the saying:
"you can please some folk some of the time" , etc. etc
|
I only hope all those self-motivated people crowing on about it not being a problem for them never have top replace their ageing monitors with something current!
Currently available and standard are not the same thing.
Most work PCs I know of - this one included - are oldstyle format.
As baskerville says if you need to see more you get 2 screens.
I like everything about the new site (including Stephen's willingness to stand up and be counted) EXCEPT the blue tint.
I vote for Fuchsia fading to pale pink when read ;-)
Dan
|
Have you considered that a resizing page gives an inconsistent medium for the presentation of content and/or advertising? Fixed width means it looks the same for everyone however "cutting edge" or otherwise they may be (personally I prefer multiple screens to great big ones).
It doesn't. Tables to the right, and if required, to the left, can be fixed in size, just like they were on old site. It's nothing new, worked with the old forum page.
Take a look - this is how forum page looked like on small screen here at work:
tinyurl.com/yu4vkb
And that's how it looked like on a larger screen:
tinyurl.com/2yzsxg
So, as you can see, in terms of advertisement appeal (or the lack of) there was very little difference.
On the other hand, for someone with normal, regular, 1280x1024 screen the forum page now has approx 50% of content across, positioned weirdly to the left off the centre, and towards the top of the screen, to the right of the forum there seems to be a randomly positioned cluster of adverts of various lengths and sizes. Slap a google adwords and couple of torrent links in the middle and it almost looks like typical spam site organized after a domain is lost to poachers.
On 1600 widescreen monitor this looks even more out of place.
From commercial point of view, as you can already see in this thread - this design will annoy - not everyone, not on every machine, but it is annoying. And more wise cracking from technological dyletants on how we should go back to 15" CRTs to take improve new forum experience can only divide us.
I like the new site, as a whole, I don't think it's particularly better than the previous one and I think it's very fin de siecle looking, but it's ok, it's even likeable, in the kind of NHS scrubs pastiche kind of way. But inflexible forum width - that annoys.
From my perspective, in terms of redesign,we didn't get edit button people asked for years, no bugs or previous login annoyances were fixed and designers introduced something even more annoying in the process - they made the forum page cluttered and narrow for people with high resolution screens. You know what? Two pages of irony, bickering, rudeness and tired wise crackery from those who couldn't be bothered to read first thread top to bottom - all because "improvers" can't remove one width tag on forum page... We don't need this guys. Stuff it. It's not worth my energy.
--------------------
[ Anything I drive can and will be used against me ]
|
.. this is how your current post would have looked like in the old site on a large screen
www.honestjohn.co.uk/media/misc/forum_wide.gif
Given my earlier line-length comments and readability, it is pretty clear that this sort of line length is far from ideal.
As someone else mentioned here, for optimum readability one would probably want to reduce the width of this forum column by an inch or so, not make it larger.
And as I said many large sites use fixed widths for their forums anyway.
For example:
Adobe: forum.adobe.com/webx/.3be69027
Apple : discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1029360
Dell : www.dellcommunity.com/supportforums/board?board.id...s
Parkers Guide: www.parkers.co.uk/advice/forum/
Myspace: forums.myspace.com/
Wordpress: wordpress.org/support
What one tends to find is that where a site has forum software bolted on, it tends to run full screen as it is often in its own domain - linked of course to the site:
e.g. forums.macrumors.com/
- main site: www.macrumors.com/
But where forum software has been integrated tightly into the site, it is made to fit widths of the site's overall design - as in the list above. This is clearly a generalisation, but goes some way to showing how site's like this one need consistency throughout and so fix down widths of columns to suit. For example there are 4 basic page layouts on this site.
I can understand that you would like the choice to make the width wider for your own needs and don't like being constrained by the design of this site. That is a valid complaint and it can appear very irritating if you are no longer in control. But that's just life for many things that we use on a daily basis and there are boundaries as to how much we are able to customise for our own ends with everything.
So I am sorry that you have lost your width customisation in this case, but we take the view that readability, site design consistency, ad placement (as they do fund this site) are more important. And for every viewer who hates the size constraint, we will find others that like it.
----------------------------------
Stephen Khoo
www.khoosys.net
|
.. this is how your current post would have looked like in the old site on a large screen www.honestjohn.co.uk/media/misc/forum_wide.gif
And this is 1900 pixels, right? Looks excellent. Can we have it back please?
And as I said many large sites use fixed widths for their forums anyway.
And many don't. For example:
Adobetalk: www.adobetalk.com/
Apple Users: www.mac-forums.com/forums/
IBM: www.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/
Old Honest John Forum
you see where it's going. :)
Look, you don't have to convince me that bad designs exist out there. And you know yourself most of the big boys actually use it for backward compatibility more than anything else. You can probably browse most of these forums with old Netscape and they will, mostly work. You don't have to do it here though. In fact if it's standards you grasp to so hard, then just think about it this way - all leading bulletin board software have no width restrictions by default, with wrappers or customized headers or not.
We already had forum page WORKING for everyone. Now it's broken for some of us. Please don't waste your time trying to convince us the new resolution shouldn't be annoying. It already IS annoying. Talking about it won't make it any less shot.
But where forum software has been integrated tightly into the site it is made to fit widths of the site's overall design - as in the list above.
Yes. So let's have it back as it was. New colours and the lot but just no silly width?
I can understand that you would like the choice to make the width wider for your own needs and don't like being constrained by the design of this site. That is a valid complaint and it can appear very irritating if you are no longer in control. But that's just life for many things that we use on a daily basis and there are boundaries as to how much we are able to customise for our own ends with everything.
Nothing to do with "control". Perhaps it's my English, perhaps I don't articulate my point across clear enough - so let me try and clarify it again. What happened to this page is just like I, without any precedense, decided to narrow down entrance to parking in front of your office to such width that only the smallest cars could get through the gate. And to your honking and irritated gestures in the morning I replied "tough, get smaller car".
In other words:
- resolution WAS working fine and was convenient for all
- you came, you changed, you broke
- it's now not very convenient for some of us, others don't seem to care much either way.
So I am sorry that you have lost your width customisation in this case but we take the view that readability site design consistency ad placement (as they do fund this site) are more important. And for every viewer who hates the size constraint we will find others that like it.
Well, we already know ad consistency is shot (dude, those ads mixed with links to the right to reply windows - what on earth is going on there), and was better on old site, so that's not really a valid argument.
But let's, just for the sake of it, look at possible fixing scenarios:
- remove width restriction = small screens happy, big screens happy, you - not happy
- don't remove width restriction = small screens happy, big screens unhappy, you - happy
I know it's easy to loose touch with some aspects of design when you work on it for a while. You were told by few posters, even literally, that the new site design is generally ok, but resolution of the forum blows. Design of the site, if I understand correctly, wasn't yours, Back Room resolution however was your doing. If we ask you nicely, can you, will you fix it?
At the end of the day, it's about us feeling comfy enough to come back here, not about your professional integrity? Pretty please.
--------------------
[ Anything I drive can and will be used against me ]
|
|
Please read my last post. You've had the answer from the horse's mouth. Please contact Mods by e-mail if you still have issues.
|
Yes Pugugly, this was last plea from me - not only because it feels like waste of time, but mostly because we got to the point where the only thing left to do is screaming "This is sparta!" and giving cartoonishly evil eye. ;)
--------------------
[ Anything I drive can and will be used against me ]
|
I only left your post in as I suspected you were typing it as I posted and obviously took a lot of time and effort over it !
|
I only hope all those self-motivated people crowing on about it not being a problem for them never have top replace their ageing monitors with something current!
I think it's you who is missing the point. Yes, widescreen is standard technology, but so is standard aspect still. Go into PC world and you'll see some of each. My "ageing" monitor is about 4 months old, I expect it'll last another 5 years. Widescreen is good for watching DVDs, but it's little more than a gimmick for most users.
|
LOL! ! !
Thats cleared that up then. It's *MY* fault for having a widescreen monitor, not the forum's fault for no longer being compatible!
It's like Shell bringing out a "new" diesel fuel that only works with old direct injection engines, and then quoting the disadvantages of Common Rail technology to owners as the reason why the fuel no longer works in their cars!
It's a good job that every other website and forum I visit (*without exception*) still works fine!
Shoulda known better than to expect a reasoned debate on here (sigh)! :-)
|
It's like Shell bringing out a "new" diesel fuel that only works with old direct injection engines and then quoting the disadvantages of Common Rail technology to owners as the reason why the fuel no longer works in their cars!
No, it's really not, because the site still works with your monitor. It's more like you buying a bigger house and then complaining that the new Turkish rug you've been given only covers part of the dining room floor. "All my other rugs can be stretched to fit," you say. "The pattern may not what the designer intended, but I prefer it. And I am right because I understand these things better than anyone else."
Here's a solution for you anyway. Take a piece of black card, roughly the size of your monitor. Now, cut out a section from the card the same size as the text area on this site (ask an adult to help if you have difficulty with scissors). Tape the card onto your monitor so that you can see the lovely new HJ site through the hole. Et voila! All that dazzling white space gone and the site fits your viewing area perfectly. An elegant technical solution for our high-tech friend.
|
Thats cleared that up then. It's *MY* fault for having a widescreen monitor, not the forum's fault for no longer being compatible!
Incompatible now! I thought it was just the big white gaps.. sorry must have misunderstood (again!)
It's like Shell bringing out a "new" diesel fuel that only works with old direct injection engines, ... the fuel no longer works in their cars!
But it does work doesn't it? Viz, your post! Ever heard the expression 'don't sweat the small stuff' ? (see Baskerville's suggestion for an excellent technical work-around)
Shoulda known better than to expect a reasoned debate on here (sigh)! :-)
Why pray? Can you give er, reasons? I've seen plenty of reasoned debate on this thread & others.
|
Incompatible now! I thought it was just the big white gaps.. sorry must have misunderstood (again!)
Welcome to Planet Whoopwhoop, where Hondas aren't reliable, and websites that don't stretch to letter-box shapes are obviously incompatible with your computer. Meanwhile back here on Earth nobody really cares that the site's changed slightly as it looks more modern and still functions correctly.
|
Ran it on my Vista Widescreen laptop yesterday for the first time. It's ok, no problem at all.
I think that the widescreen issue has run its course - you've had an explanation from Stephen as to why it is the way it is, so lets move on. - PU
|
PU--one more thing please.
There is an extension for Firefox called Greasemonkey which uses scripts to modify websites at the user's end. I haven't looked, but I would bet there is a script to make fixed width sites behave as "liquid" or one that could be modified. Those who care know that Google is their friend or they could write their own. It isn't hard apparently. Greasemonkey:
addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
|
|
|
|
|
|
