Speaking of user options.................

Topic: Speaking of user options................. (Read 9626 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Re: New menu arrangement: Com...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Speaking of user options.................

July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pm

Quote from: Eliana Tamerin – July 19, 2013, 07:19:15 pm
Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 06:58:39 pmHey thought: user option.

Really, I do like the old school setup where the My Account stuff is in the menu with the rest. It's more natural than hunting for it in some odd corner. We could always provide people* with a choice: either have the FB style where it's shoved into a corner with a piece of bat poo next to it, or have it all in the menu where it belongs.

*Meaning people, not admins.

No, make a choice and keep major design ideas consistent. Either make a user corner/area/whatchamakallit or don't, but don't offer fifty options in the default installation. That means 50² possibilities to text exhaustively to make sure that it works with every combination, and it makes you look indecisive. Let mods and themes do design differences in the final product, not user options.

So, that got me thinking about user options in general. Some of the existing ones some pointless to me. Just taking the ones from the Profile > Look and Layout page:

Show board descriptions inside boards - Doesn't need to be an option, IMO. All other sections of the app have header bars and information boxes where appropriate. So, it's logical and consistent to just echo these for the message index too. Just give them a board name and description, or possibly just board name without description*, by default and leave it at that.

*Some people for for quite verbose board descriptions, so perhaps they should only be allowed to make a total mess of the board index itself.

Show child boards on every page inside boards, not just the first- Not really needed IMO, and I've never heard of anyone wanting it. Could perhaps be a mod, if anyone really did want it.

Use sidebar menus instead of dropdown menus when possible - and - Use click-to drop down instead of hover-to drop down menus when possible - Realistically, it seems we are keeping both of these. At the least, the language strings can be cleaned up. It's not "when possible" because both options have full support. Strings would be better as "Use sidebar menu instead of dropdowns" and "Use click to open menus, instead of hover to open", IMO.

Don't show users' avatars - and - Hide the poster information area: These should both be amalgamated into one "compact layout" option.

Don't show users' signatures - As mentioned elsewhere, I'd include custom profile fields above sigs wth this, since if someone wants to hide sigs they will probably not want a face full of custom fields (which in practice are just more sig-like stuff).

Hide messages posted by members on my ignore list - This is, IMO, a no-brainer and should always have just been automatic. The whole point of any ignore list is that you don't have to see stuff.

First day of the week on the calendar - Really, who cares? If it needs to be optional it will probably be on a local, cultural basis. In that case, a global calendar setting in admin makes more sense. Most people rarely look at the calendar anyway, and even if they do wouldn't really care which day was listed first in the week. I'm used to Monday, but could just as well work with it being Wednesday.

Enable the selection of drafts from the posting screen - If drafts are enabled, this should just be automatic. I can't see any reason to make it a display option.

Use full editor in Quick Reply - Honestly, I'd be inclined to make this default too. The difference in load times is not noticeable, even on a phone, and most people* who want quick reply will want the dancing bananas.

*Meaning average forum users, not command line junkies.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #1 – July 19, 2013, 08:08:49 pm

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmShow board descriptions inside boards - Doesn't need to be an option, IMO. All other sections of the app have header bars and information boxes where appropriate. So, it's logical and consistent to just echo these for the message index too. Just give them a board name and description, or possibly just board name without description*, by default and leave it at that.

*Some people for for quite verbose board descriptions, so perhaps they should only be allowed to make a total mess of the board index itself.

Agreed. I'm sure a modder would be happy to add it back in if someone wants.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmShow child boards on every page inside boards, not just the first- Not really needed IMO, and I've never heard of anyone wanting it. Could perhaps be a mod, if anyone really did want it.

I do this myself, but I doubt I've ever used it often. Primarily I know where I'm going and I don't need to constantly refer to child boards. Then again, I've never seen someone with such an awful child board setup that they NEEDED to be perma-linked from within every page.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmUse sidebar menus instead of dropdown menus when possible - and - Use click-to drop down instead of hover-to drop down menus when possible - Realistically, it seems we are keeping both of these. At the least, the language strings can be cleaned up. It's not "when possible" because both options have full support. Strings would be better as "Use sidebar menu instead of dropdowns" and "Use click to open menus, instead of hover to open", IMO.

Agree.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmDon't show users' avatars - and - Hide the poster information area: These should both be amalgamated into one "compact layout" option.

Yes, this makes sense. They both pretty much get to the same end result, a smaller/minimal poster info area.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmDon't show users' signatures - As mentioned elsewhere, I'd include custom profile fields above sigs wth this, since if someone wants to hide sigs they will probably not want a face full of custom fields (which in practice are just more sig-like stuff).

Yes to this. Make sure we keep this as an option, I know of plenty of sites where this is useful.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmHide messages posted by members on my ignore list - This is, IMO, a no-brainer and should always have just been automatic. The whole point of any ignore list is that you don't have to see stuff.

Yeah, I wouldn't know why I'd keep an ignore list if I wanted to see the posts.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmFirst day of the week on the calendar - Really, who cares? If it needs to be optional it will probbaly be on a local, cultural basis. In that case, a global calendar setting in admin makes more sense. Most people rarely look at the calendar anyway, and even if they do wouldn't really care which day was listed first in the week. I'm used to Monday, but could just as well work with it being Wednesday.

I'm used to Sunday, but I think the last time I used the SMF calendar was...5 years ago?

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmEnable the selection of drafts from the posting screen - If drafts are enabled, this should just be automatic. I can't see any reason to make it a display option.

Agree.

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmUse full editor in Quick Reply - Honestly, I'd be inclined to make this default too. The difference in load times is not noticeable, even on a phone, and most people* who want quick reply will want the dancing bananas.

*Meaning average forum users, not command line junkies.

It's 2013, this should be default.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #2 – July 21, 2013, 07:18:57 pm

Anyone else want to weigh in? My thinking about getting rid of these (IMO) redundant options is that not only do we clean up our codebase a bit, but we make the gui less confusing for average users. If the stuff they want is already mostly set, it'll be a more comfortable introduction to the app.

See groovy screenshotz.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #3 – July 22, 2013, 12:50:57 am

Return to topics after posting by default

Seriously, make this default in the software. No other major board software, not vB, not IPB, not phpBB, not myBB, not even Vanilla has this ability. Considering that most people don't preview their posts, it gives them an opportunity to read what they wrote and correct mistakes. I've never seen someone uncheck this option.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #4 – July 22, 2013, 02:40:04 am

emanuele doesn't use preview, almost doesn't use the full post page and he has it unticked.

emanuele doesn't want to return to the topic by default, it's totally useless

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #5 – July 22, 2013, 06:52:19 am

Quote from: Antechinus – July 19, 2013, 08:00:17 pmShow board descriptions inside boards - Doesn't need to be an option, IMO. All other sections of the app have header bars and information boxes where appropriate. So, it's logical and consistent to just echo these for the message index too. Just give them a board name and description, or possibly just board name without description*, by default and leave it at that.

Done. https://github.com/norv/elkarte/commit/c5265c6ff14510d15fcf2f40ea620a74708bfd6c

QuoteShow child boards on every page inside boards, not just the first- Not really needed IMO, and I've never heard of anyone wanting it. Could perhaps be a mod, if anyone really did want it.

Done. https://github.com/norv/elkarte/commit/3294a5cf7b554572f59f2340878e9d96d46f79d1
I don't think this hurts, but it's a little over the top. A theme can show them. Currently a mod will need to edit theme.

QuoteUse sidebar menus instead of dropdown menus when possible - and - Use click-to drop down instead of hover-to drop down menus when possible - Realistically, it seems we are keeping both of these. At the least, the language strings can be cleaned up. It's not "when possible" because both options have full support. Strings would be better as "Use sidebar menu instead of dropdowns" and "Use click to open menus, instead of hover to open", IMO.

Done.

QuoteDon't show users' avatars - and - Hide the poster information area: These should both be amalgamated into one "compact layout" option.

They're not the same. From the perspective of a user using a forum, you'd expect from a forum to show you content, and some amount of bells and whistles on the users. A forum spends quite some space and options on signatures, profile fields, avatars, stuff personalizing the appearance of a user. I'd think of the dont-show-avatars option as an welcome simplification of the display, but still forum-ish, still classical layout which gives some space to the user too.
Compact layout is IMO different: it's almost content-alone, only author name. That's cool to have, but not the same. People should be able to simplify their traditional forum-ish display, without changing it necessarily to content-alone-or-close-to.

QuoteDon't show users' signatures - As mentioned elsewhere, I'd include custom profile fields above sigs wth this, since if someone wants to hide sigs they will probably not want a face full of custom fields (which in practice are just more sig-like stuff).

Done. https://github.com/norv/elkarte/commit/77572cacc265e0e4fd883d1a992d5a70e1a67ceb

Quote
QuoteHide messages posted by members on my ignore list - This is, IMO, a no-brainer and should always have just been automatic. The whole point of any ignore list is that you don't have to see stuff.
Yeah, I wouldn't know why I'd keep an ignore list if I wanted to see the posts.

Ignore lists were designed for PMs, not for posts. Primarily, so you can refuse personal messages, interaction from the person. While display of posts in the boards is secondary (and it will affect the flow of the discussion you're reading).
However, despite this, ignored posts on display have the ignore toggle, so you still have the ability to see the content. Removed: https://github.com/norv/elkarte/commit/ce0d37cab68dbbd967a60d804f5f05d64a75f8f3
I think this is easy to add back - though again only theme can do it seamlessly currently (I think). This is probably really worth checking out for addons/mods. Or just let me know to undo it if it still makes more sense to have it in. (seems a 51% thing).

QuoteFirst day of the week on the calendar - Really, who cares? If it needs to be optional it will probably be on a local, cultural basis. In that case, a global calendar setting in admin makes more sense. Most people rarely look at the calendar anyway, and even if they do wouldn't really care which day was listed first in the week. I'm used to Monday, but could just as well work with it being Wednesday.

First day of the week is a calendar option. Not exactly a profile option like the others. For the user of the calendar it's a common sense and very expected option. Can't think of a calendar which wouldn't have it.
Please keep in mind that forums are not necessarily regional forums, on the contrary likely most are worldwide, or at least open to worldwide audience.

QuoteEnable the selection of drafts from the posting screen - If drafts are enabled, this should just be automatic. I can't see any reason to make it a display option.

This is less relevant than others, because the feature is new. But yes, in the time I've been using it (and I use drafts extensively), I didn't see any reason why I wouldn't want a (collapsible) section with loaded drafts titles. I see the possibility that you wouldn't want them all (sometimes they're too many), I just don't know what can possibly be the criteria to choose (...paging?). Moreover, I thought that if the option is disabled, it doesn't make sense for the server to load the drafts, but this isn't the case: they're always loaded, content included, even.
In all cases, profile/user option means they'd want the collapsible section or not... which is not what this particular choice is mostly about. Removed it here: https://github.com/norv/elkarte/commit/00ea5cb4c16dee9bd7f6e36c93664b52997354bf . A thought on it: perhaps what is needed, is to replace it with some tweak to the list being loaded. Load only 10? Allow loading latest only? Previews? (it'd allow you to make sense of many identical titles in your drafts list). Dunno. I didn't see anything obvious enough.
Also, unless I'm missing some bit here, I think the behavior that makes sense here is: load the list of titles all the time, but not content, and load content when the user asks for it.

QuoteUse full editor in Quick Reply - Honestly, I'd be inclined to make this default too. The difference in load times is not noticeable, even on a phone, and most people* who want quick reply will want the dancing bananas.

This is display topic page. Most people read the topic, and don't post. For those who use full editor for quick reply all the smileys and bbc will be loaded (and if there are customized smileys, the db will be used). May not be noticeable (there is caching) for some forums, but I think the current behavior is correct: it's a choice, who can and wants to choose it, can choose it.
Either way, my guess is posting boxes and their options may need looked at (for optimization, or for cleanup of redundant, non-optimizing stuff; for bbc), but optimizations are for later in my todo list, and I wouldn't just jump and make this default.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #6 – July 22, 2013, 07:22:33 am

Quote from: emanuele – July 22, 2013, 02:40:04 am
emanuele doesn't use preview, almost doesn't use the full post page and he has it unticked.

emanuele doesn't want to return to the topic by default, it's totally useless

Eliana Tamerin thinks emanuele is in the minority. The tiny, tiny minority, population: 1.

Quote from: TestMonkey – July 22, 2013, 06:52:19 am
QuoteUse full editor in Quick Reply - Honestly, I'd be inclined to make this default too. The difference in load times is not noticeable, even on a phone, and most people* who want quick reply will want the dancing bananas.
This is display topic page. Most people read the topic, and don't post. For those who use full editor for quick reply all the smileys and bbc will be loaded (and if there are customized smileys, the db will be used). May not be noticeable (there is caching) for some forums, but I think the current behavior is correct: it's a choice, who can and wants to choose it, can choose it.
Either way, my guess is posting boxes and their options may need looked at (for optimization, or for cleanup of redundant, non-optimizing stuff; for bbc), but optimizations are for later in my todo list, and I wouldn't just jump and make this default.

If someone is a person who reads and doesn't post, they can turn off quick reply. Or have it on collapse. The editor buttons on quick reply are becoming pretty standard for boards.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #7 – July 22, 2013, 07:29:51 am

Quote from: Eliana Tamerin – July 22, 2013, 07:22:33 am
Quote from: emanuele – July 22, 2013, 02:40:04 am
emanuele doesn't use preview, almost doesn't use the full post page and he has it unticked.

emanuele doesn't want to return to the topic by default, it's totally useless

Eliana Tamerin thinks emanuele is in the minority. The tiny, tiny minority, population: 1.

emanuele is pretty sure we are at least two.

emanuele looks around searching Arantor for support

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #8 – July 22, 2013, 07:32:59 am

Quote from: Eliana Tamerin – July 22, 2013, 07:22:33 am
Eliana Tamerin thinks emanuele is in the minority. The tiny, tiny minority, population: 1.

TestMonkey thinks that fits the definition of geniuses too.

And not only, I give ya that.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #9 – July 22, 2013, 06:16:28 pm

Quote from: TestMonkey – July 22, 2013, 06:52:19 am
QuoteDon't show users' avatars - and - Hide the poster information area: These should both be amalgamated into one "compact layout" option.
They're not the same. From the perspective of a user using a forum, you'd expect from a forum to show you content, and some amount of bells and whistles on the users. A forum spends quite some space and options on signatures, profile fields, avatars, stuff personalizing the appearance of a user. I'd think of the dont-show-avatars option as an welcome simplification of the display, but still forum-ish, still classical layout which gives some space to the user too.
Compact layout is IMO different: it's almost content-alone, only author name. That's cool to have, but not the same. People should be able to simplify their traditional forum-ish display, without changing it necessarily to content-alone-or-close-to.

It's not just content alone. They still have the user info drop menu from the poster name. That contains a lot of stuff. If people want a simplified layout, why not just give them one? Why make them chase multiple options, especially if they are new to the software? I honestly can't see the point.

QuoteIgnore lists were designed for PMs, not for posts. Primarily, so you can refuse personal messages, interaction from the person. While display of posts in the boards is secondary (and it will affect the flow of the discussion you're reading).
However, despite this, ignored posts on display have the ignore toggle, so you still have the ability to see the content. Removed: https://github.com/norv/elkarte/commit/ce0d37cab68dbbd967a60d804f5f05d64a75f8f3
I think this is easy to add back - though again only theme can do it seamlessly currently (I think). This is probably really worth checking out for addons/mods. Or just let me know to undo it if it still makes more sense to have it in. (seems a 51% thing).

I think assuming that anyone will toggle the post display if they want to is fine. However, if that old profile option linked your PM ignore list to your post ignore list and combined the two, it should have specfically said that. I assumed it was for a poster ignore list. Why else would it be in profile options, with all the other board display options?

This is some of the old silly SMF confusion, IMO. SMF set the PM ignore list in profile options, which is bad news. It should be set in PM options. I have no idea why it wasn't. If we are having two separate lists (PM ignore and poster ignore) then they should not be mixed up anywhere.

QuoteAlso, unless I'm missing some bit here, I think the behavior that makes sense here is: load the list of titles all the time, but not content, and load content when the user asks for it.

I think this makes the most sense.

QuoteThis is display topic page. Most people read the topic, and don't post. For those who use full editor for quick reply all the smileys and bbc will be loaded (and if there are customized smileys, the db will be used). May not be noticeable (there is caching) for some forums, but I think the current behavior is correct: it's a choice, who can and wants to choose it, can choose it.
Either way, my guess is posting boxes and their options may need looked at (for optimization, or for cleanup of redundant, non-optimizing stuff; for bbc), but optimizations are for later in my todo list, and I wouldn't just jump and make this default.

What Eliana said.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #10 – July 22, 2013, 06:21:20 pm

Quote from: emanuele – July 22, 2013, 07:29:51 am

Quote from: Eliana Tamerin – July 22, 2013, 07:22:33 am

Quote from: emanuele – July 22, 2013, 02:40:04 am
emanuele doesn't use preview, almost doesn't use the full post page and he has it unticked.

emanuele doesn't want to return to the topic by default, it's totally useless

Eliana Tamerin thinks emanuele is in the minority. The tiny, tiny minority, population: 1.

emanuele is pretty sure we are at least two.

emanuele looks around searching Arantor for support

Count me in ema's camp too. Going to the topic is a waste of time.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #11 – July 23, 2013, 02:40:18 am

IchBin: what browser were you using when you posted the message above?

There are plenty of unwanted new lines... $:-\$

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #12 – July 23, 2013, 10:52:31 am

Latest Chrome. I don't remember what I did either. I did click quote obviously, but I don't remember if I did anything special while in the editor....

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #13 – July 23, 2013, 01:12:42 pm

Quote from: Antechinus – July 22, 2013, 06:16:28 pmWhy else would it be in profile options, with all the other board display options?

This is some of the old silly SMF confusion, IMO. SMF set the PM ignore list in profile options, which is bad news. It should be set in PM options. I have no idea why it wasn't. If we are having two separate lists (PM ignore and poster ignore) then they should not be mixed up anywhere.

Er... wait, no: for the user it's a single list, ignored users. People can set the option to ignore the PMs from ignored users. They can also set the option to ignore posts from the same list of ignored users. Unless I misunderstand you, it made sense to me (I see people were confused, but it made sense to me).

Well not anymore, because I just merged the PR which leaves the posts ignored for good - with the possibility to see the message if you really want to.

By the way, please consider to update your installation. These changes are something you'd need, for the layout you screenshotted above. Well, some of it.

It looks much easier to read that way, with separated sections on the page. At your convenience, lets try to get that layout in, it seems it fixes issues with profile.

Re: Speaking of user options.................

Reply #14 – July 23, 2013, 06:10:33 pm

Ok.

Oh and i find the editor gives me extra blank lines sometimes too. I have a suspicion it may be related to this in post.js:

Code: [Select]

				if (can_quote)
					newPostsHTML += '<ul class="quickbuttons" id="msg_' + newPosts[i].getAttribute('id') + '_quote"><li class="listlevel1"><a href="#postmodify" onclick="return insertQuoteFast(' + newPosts[i].getAttribute('id') + ');" class="linklevel1 quote_button">' + txt_bbc_quote + '</a></li></ul>';

				// Eh wot? Why is this here? That explains why I keep getting extra effing line breaks before quotes.
				// Is this essential? Will something break if we remove it? Would be great to get rid of it if possible.
				newPostsHTML += '<br class="clear" />';