Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

tboparis · Feb 3, 2007, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Oneota

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

Fixed... I hope.

TETENAL · Feb 3, 2007, 01:39 PM

Nope.

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

C.A.T.S. CEO · Feb 3, 2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by tboparis

Fixed... I hope.

200x50 pixels

kick52 · Feb 3, 2007, 02:09 PM

the games forum link down the bottom does not work.

Eug · 03:08 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 02:58 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

200x50 pixels

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

Eug · Feb 3, 2007, 03:57 PM

Images in links are now underlined for some reason:

skalie · Feb 3, 2007, 04:28 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Images in links are now underlined for some reason:

hmm..... not in sigs tho.

gorgonzola · Feb 3, 2007, 05:11 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 05:27 PM

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 · 06:35 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 06:30 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 06:35 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 07:16 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 07:18 PM

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 · Feb 3, 2007, 07:35 PM

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.

analogika · Feb 3, 2007, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by seanc

The reason I like and want post counts back is simply that I prefer solid figures rather than 'estimating'. If I see 267 and 269, I can instantly see that it's 2 posts higher whereas if I see Mac Elite, that could be ANYWHERE between 1000 and 2499. Putting post counts hidden in the user info is IMHO a Microsoft habit, and a bloody annoying one! Hiding information from the users/making them perform more steps to get there, bad!

, one reason why Vista is less intuitive than XP and even more unintuitive than OS X.

It's actually much more Mac-like: Make the intutive simplicity of stars the default, but keep complexity there for the person who can actually seek it out.

And while it's true that it is now a little more difficult to see if somebody has *two* posts more than you, that's not even an internet foreskin, let alone penis.

analogika · Feb 3, 2007, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

i was going to PM you demonhood about this, but can not for the moment (see my thread in the feedback forum) is there a way to put pictures on top of text or pictures below text in the signatures??

Alex

type a return, just like in every other multi-line text entry field.

Appleman · Feb 3, 2007, 08:03 PM

Me have to get used to it, but benefit of the doubt. Great job though!

Thinine · Feb 4, 2007, 04:53 AM

Okay, somehow, when this thread was moved (http://forums.macnn.com/68/developer...ompiler-for-c/) a new subforum was created in "Other Topics" that contains just that thread. What the heck?

gsxrboy · Feb 4, 2007, 05:05 AM

Odd but the login button doesn't do anything for me, I had to try to reply to a post and login that way. Looks nice though

kick52 · 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Thinine

Okay, somehow, when this thread was moved (http://forums.macnn.com/68/developer...ompiler-for-c/) a new subforum was created in "Other Topics" that contains just that thread. What the heck?

i dont think i know what you are saying, but i just noticed that if i go into Other Topics, Developer is not there.

EDIT: wait, nm.

OreoCookie · Feb 4, 2007, 06:23 AM

That was me. I accidentally moved the thread to an old forum (Developer instead of Developer Center).

khurtwilliams · Feb 4, 2007, 08:22 AM

I love the new design. Clean.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Frankly I think the join date is a lot more important than post count for determining one's rank (as though rank really mattered in a forum).

Not really. Some people joined long ago but rarely contribute to this forum.

Person Man · Feb 4, 2007, 09:58 AM

What's wrong with my idea of making post counts optionally displayed or not? Can it be done?

Oisín · Feb 4, 2007, 10:04 AM

Not that I want to be a clone or anything, but ‘pulling an effgee’ here, I’m going to quote myself from the post count thread in the beta-testing subforum:

Making [displaying post counts] a user option would of course be the ideal solution—but as with all ideal solutions, vB will probably do backwards somersaults and become a blue sponge orange before it will allow it.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 10:43 AM

All in all I would say it LOOKS better. But I think the older forum was more visually FUNCTIONAL. And easier to read. Esp on LCDs.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 11:38 AM

Also in the User Control Panel the New Subscribed threads should be BELOW the subscribed forums.

Simon · Feb 4, 2007, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Also in the User Control Panel the New Subscribed threads should be BELOW the subscribed forums.

Why? That's not way it used to be either.

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I prefer the sigs on the left.
It makes reading short replies
easier since that's where you
start reading from.

On a wide screen
it means
really
tough
reading.

See?

Otherwise, I like it.

Yes, it's quite lovely that the sigs are now there if you want them, but otherwise won't distract from the flow of reading.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Why? That's not way it used to be either.

Never said it was.. but it's the way most forums seem to do it.

And it looks cleaner.

Also the LARGE image feature thing is nice, but when it first loads it loads like it was large image. The image shrinking down and made "smaller" is the last step in the page loading scheme. Which makes loading certain paging obnoxious and awkward.

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

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.

Because otherwise, how would you embed an image with a click-through link?

analogika · Feb 4, 2007, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stogieman

I agree. The current smilies don't mesh well with the new design. Let's get something a little less jaggy. Adam Betts did a great job on the stars. If he's willing, I say let him redesign the smilies too.

Considering how much work that would be for the huge number of smilies, that costs money.

It should, too - but that will affect whatever decision is made.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 12:22 PM

Did Adam charge for the stars?

I do things all the time for free. Adam def deserves special stars and status.

Eug · Feb 4, 2007, 01:00 PM

I dunno Kevin. I kinda liked the green for the radioactive breasts text.

Originally Posted by analogika

Because otherwise, how would you embed an image with a click-through link?

Thanks, but my question was already answered earlier in the thread.

I guess that what I get for posting a dumb question though.

Appleman · Feb 4, 2007, 01:52 PM

How is the rating done now? I lost a star and I am not addicted anymore to MacNN?

slpdLoad · Feb 4, 2007, 02:00 PM

Someone's probably said this already, but the new polls look really nice.

Grrr · Feb 4, 2007, 02:09 PM

I like it.. But it does seem rather inefficient space wise. Particularly when looking at a list of posts in a forum heading.

Kevin · Feb 4, 2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I dunno Kevin. I kinda liked the green for the radioactive breasts text.

I'm trying out different colors. Running a small beta test.

Big Mac · 04:58 PM

Is there a bug in the URL text autocomplete feature? Whenever I try to enter a URL's custom text, the forums autocomplete it with the full text of the site's title instead: MacNN instead of just macnn.com that I entered. This only used to happen previously when no custom text was specified.

On a different note, I preferred it when the breadcrum navigation on top was in bold. Now it blends in too much with other text.

Oisín · Feb 4, 2007, 04:01 PM

That sounds strange—haven’t seen that happening before...

Yeah, didn’t happen for me now, either. Are you sure you entered a custom text?

TETENAL · Feb 4, 2007, 04:34 PM

The new poll result bars look blurry somehow. It makes my eyes hurt since it feels like I can't focus.

Can we go back to simple single-coloured rectangular bars? It would probably also be easier to compare them with each other without the rounded cap.

larrinski · Feb 4, 2007, 04:51 PM

It looks purdy...I like the look!

Big Mac · Feb 4, 2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Oisín

That sounds strange—haven’t seen that happening before...

Yeah, didn’t happen for me now, either. Are you sure you entered a custom text?

Okay, it happens on the PC version of FireFox for some reason.

gorgonzola · Feb 4, 2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

What's wrong with my idea of making post counts optionally displayed or not? Can it be done?

It can be done. In fact, mods and admins see them while others don't. But the problem with your idea is that it completely defeats the purpose of disabling them.

The only reason to remove them was that we wanted to recognize people's posts while discouraging post whoring. If it's just an option, all the post whores will turn it on and it'll be the same as before. There is an argument to be made that this does not really discourage post whoring, and I am not opposed to turning them back on, but I think this new system could achieve a good balance of having clear status ranks (more stars = more posts) but also not having people's numbers go up for every single post they make.

What I will probably do is just leave it this way for a few weeks (so people can try this out) and then run a poll to see how many people really care about post counts being so visible.

shabbasuraj · Feb 4, 2007, 05:22 PM

Change is good.

Weezer · Feb 4, 2007, 05:27 PM

Again, any response on green stars at 1,000 and multi-colored at 10,000?