[tboparis]

Originally Posted by Oneota 

BTW - I think your sig is violating the size guidelines.

Fixed... I hope.

[TETENAL]

Nope.

http://forums.macnn.com/feedback/ann...dated-2006-08/

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by tboparis 

Fixed... I hope.

200x50 pixels

[kick52]

the games forum link down the bottom does not work.

[Eug]

See below...

When loading an image, the post window width defaults to the size of the image, before resizing it to 480. Thus, if the image is slow to load, the formatting is off for a while before it rights itself. Is there any way of forcing it to load at 480 only first?

[Eug]

As I said earlier, overall, it's excellent. Very pleasing.

I too much prefer the sigs on the right. I also like the fact the sigs don't have that dividing line anymore. BTW, with the new design, I think it goes best with sigs that don't have text. Thus I have removed the text for my sig for now.

I also like the fact that post counts are gone. I never liked them there anyway. I never understood why people cared so much. The only time I think thread counts may matter is for very new users. I think the idea that someone suggested to prevent new users from posting links is a good one. Requiring 5-10 posts before links are posted might stop some casual spammers.

I also like the bigger font size for thread titles.

However, minor issues: The left column is a bit wide. I also echo the statement that the contrast between thread titles is little on the subtle side (although it's OK since the threads are physically spaced apart), as are the icons for threads we've posted in, compared to the icons for other threads.



P.S. Out of interest's sake, why was the choice made to require clicking only on the bar to resize an image, instead of clicking on the image? Not a big deal, but it's not as intuitive, at least for me. If it's just your preference or an issue with implementation, I can fully understand though.

[tboparis]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

200x50 pixels

Thanks. This should be good: 180 x 50 pixels.

[Eug]

Images in links are now underlined for some reason:

[skalie]

Originally Posted by skalie 

[btw]
Viewing the forum defaults to a serif font for me using Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Win 2000 pro. I can change it with the styles button top left ( edit: I meant top right, do'h ), but returning to the forum means returning to the serif font.
[/btw]

That's not the case anymore, if no-one debugged anything MacNN side, then it was a local issue here. ( cookie issue, needed to clear my cookies to get a cms to behave itself for some reason )

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Images in links are now underlined for some reason:

hmm..... not in sigs tho.

[gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by Eug 

See below...

When loading an image, the post window width defaults to the size of the image, before resizing it to 480. Thus, if the image is slow to load, the formatting is off for a while before it rights itself. Is there any way of forcing it to load at 480 only first?

Given the way the JavaScript works, I don't think so.

P.S. Out of interest's sake, why was the choice made to require clicking only on the bar to resize an image, instead of clicking on the image? Not a big deal, but it's not as intuitive, at least for me. If it's just your preference or an issue with implementation, I can fully understand though.

It becomes an issue if the poster wanted the image to link to something.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola 

It becomes an issue if the poster wanted the image to link to something.

Let me test that then.....



edit: seems to work fine....

[Eug]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola 

It becomes an issue if the poster wanted the image to link to something.

Doh! Yeah, that should have been obvious, especially since I was talking about image links in another post.

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

hmm..... not in sigs tho.

It might be because it's a .gif with a transparent background.

<-- Note the underline in the link.

[krove]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

...when I'm posting from my 800x600 clamshell.

Yikes! Me thinks you need to upgrade to something with at least 1024x768 resolution (if not more).

[krove]

I'm not sure what program was used to create all the custom image buttons like edit, quote, quick reply, url, etc... but the text is really crappy. I don't want this thread to turn into a referendum on the quality of Mac OS X anti-aliasing, but I have to say that in comparison, your button images are awful.

I have to echo Eug on the contrast in the thread listing. I much prefer the vertical color alternation of the past rather than the very light alternating row contrast.

Other than these points, I like the changes.

[mduell]

With the new design, the lists of posts in a forum is quite sparse. My usable browser area is about 850 pixels tall, yet at the top of a forum, I can see 9 "real" threads (including stickies, excluding announcements). Scrolling down so that only threads are in view, I can see 21 threads at most. This is the result of each thread listing taking up three lines. I understand that the designers may want to provide visual space between threads, but how about just one extra line per post instead of two?

Also, it would be nice to move the last post user and time to the same line. Many people have widescreens these days, so the horizontal space isn't at such a premium.

Also, how about making stickies stand out? The announcements stand out in bold, but the stickies like this one are easy to brush over.

[lavar78]

I think things look great. Once "jump to first unread post" is fixed, it'll be outstanding. That being said, I do have one bit of constructive criticism:

Originally Posted by Eug 

IMO, this really illustrates how much better the red dots were.

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by lavar78 

IMO, this really illustrates how much better the red dots were.

Agreed; now that I look at the old theme, I really prefer having the threads I've participated in marked using a completely separate icon from the others. It's so much easier to tell at a glance.

It's all well and good for people to say "you'll get used to the new way" but that's not the point. The point is that the old theme didn't need getting used to. It was extraordinarily usable, right from the start - granted, its appearance was somewhat dated, but it worked.

The new theme looks 2000% better. No joke. But it's only about 80% as usable. IMO, of course.