Skip to main content
EARLY Beta version of 2.0 Started by Administrator · · Read 234692 times 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. previous topic - next topic

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #45

Yes, rather I guess I meant to signal a failure on my part to see any difference with how it's always been since all the way back in SMF?

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #46

The old one was a plain textbox (assuming you have full editor off) after the menu, breadcrumbs and posts Untitled1.jpg
The new one is more in the flow of the posts, appearing as the last post, with your avatar etc but with no text.  Untitled.jpg
See its so clean now you did not even notice a difference :smiley:


Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #47

Updated the site again with the latest commits from the Github repo. 

This means, some bugs are fixed, some remain, and some new ones were introduced with the brilliant goal of  Fixed > Introduced !

There were fixes pretty much everywhere, and there are still several that I am aware of but the fixes are not yet committed.  There were also some theme fixes to both light and beSocial.

As always report them as ya find them.

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #48

And another round of update was applied today. 

Once again, more bugs fixed and maybe some introduced!

Be sure to refresh you browser cache (if you wee any problems)

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #49

Before I forgot, should some one see if this small site icon or favicon things be made easily manageable because most ElkArte sites don't show this properly especially in site's shortcut. Not that it is important but for the sake of completion may be.

Screenshot_20220414-130611.png

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #50

Thanks, I had forgotten about that (it should be back on here).

I think the issue comes from us moving away from the old favicon.ico (some time ago) and instead one needs to have a mobile.png file in sites root.  That should allow the old favicon in the browser tab as well as a proper mobile shortcut icon.  Its called out as
Code: [Select]
<link rel="shortcut icon" sizes="196x196" href="......mobile.png" />

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #51

Honestly? I think it's pretty crude at this stage. A lot of the detailing seems to be a backwards step from the original. It works, but it's visually clunky.

However, obviously I can make it look any way I want it to look, if I really want to, so...
Master of Expletives: Now with improved family f@&king friendliness! :D

Sources code: making easy front end changes difficult since 1873. :P

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #52

As always, details and specifics are welcome.

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #53

Honestly? Too long a list. The short version is that the overall impression is crude, thrown together, a collection of code with no overriding vision or aesthetic. The board icons are an obvious example.

The finished result does not necessarily have to reflect my current ideas on aesthetics. I'm happy to admit that other guys are capable of making coherent themes, which look great, and which contain things I may not have thought of myself. However, IMO, as things stand, this ain't one of those themes.

And TBH I cannot see the point of cramming the info centre over at the right side of the forum. Yes, it's very simple CSS to change it, so no problem there. Yes, it does fill up a bit of space on wide screens. But it does that by making the whole page look unbalanced, so no aesthetic benefit. It also only applies to the board index, so as soon as you are inside a topic you are back to the same problem of chasing sentences fives miles across your screen. Really a sane max-width on post content is what's needed for easy reading. Basic typography stuffz. Has been known for literally centuries. :)
Master of Expletives: Now with improved family f@&king friendliness! :D

Sources code: making easy front end changes difficult since 1873. :P

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #54

The board icons are what they have been since 1.1?, so no change has been made there, at least that I recall.  But I know some folks were unhappy with the SVG icons vs PNG ones.

The info center on the right (the 2.0 theme "what do you think about"  is a separate topic) is simply a test to gather feedback.  Obviously its what Xenforo does on their board index and there, as here, it goes back to the to a wide a view on the topic listing and messages.   Just a test to see how many folks would come by to poop on the statue !

I'm not sure how much effort needs to be put into wide viewing vs narrow viewing.  Its hard to get a feel for what the predominant format is now, although I tend to feel its laptop and down (1920 and down, and even so 1280/1024 and down).  One could add sidebars to all of the main areas, but that also gets busy, to much information to take in at one time, too much visual clutter.

Anyway just  putting things out there to gather feedback on what folks expect and how they interact with sites these days, honestly I've not seen anything "new" in forum layout, but that may be an indication that folks don't want to re-learn an interface for each forum they may participate on, they all tend to be familiar so they are easy to navigate.  I'll record your vote as old way better ;) Thanks for the feedback.

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #55

Site icon is working now. Great.

I am not about other things in specific so I rather not comment except good work so far. Keep it up.

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #56

I suggest running your Darktanion variant through this: https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

As things stand, it comes nowhere near meeting basic a11y guidelines.
Master of Expletives: Now with improved family f@&king friendliness! :D

Sources code: making easy front end changes difficult since 1873. :P

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #57

And now the site won't let me change back to the Light variant. I'm stuck on Darktanion. :P

Looks like you have some sort of bug with variant selection.
Master of Expletives: Now with improved family f@&king friendliness! :D

Sources code: making easy front end changes difficult since 1873. :P

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #58

QuoteLooks like you have some sort of bug with variant selection.
Seems to work as long as you do not use the "Forum Default" selection area.  But yes that overall area is still not working as it should, something else to look into  :P

QuoteAs things stand, it comes nowhere near meeting basic a11y guidelines.
If I get motivated I'll do that! Overall it was mostly a test (for me) to see if I had broken out enough color vars in the CSS to make at least basic styling "do-able", I doubt it will go anywhere.

Re: EARLY Beta version of 2.0

Reply #59

Yep, I got myself back to the Light variant somehow. Can't remember exactly how I did it, but basically "ok, try this now and see what happens".

The WebAIM site is a very good resource. I use it a lot. One of the things I have noticed about dark themes is that I find them much easier on the eyes if everything is balanced for contrast ratios. IOW, body text, link text, titles, etc (and taking into account that a larger font-size and/or higher font-weight gives the visual impression of higher contrast for the same colours). If not all backgrounds are the same, I often don't use the same text/link colours on all backgrounds.

I tend to use the contrast checker a lot as a starting point, then tweak things from there to compensate for font-size and font-weight. I don't always go for passing WCAG AAA either. From memory, I think WCAG AA is the usual standard for most countries, and dyslexic users (not an insignificant percentage) find too much contrast makes their dyslexia worse (the text starts crawling around the page for them) so there are arguments for not using too much contrast in a default theme. Black on white, or the inverse, are way too harsh, IMO.
Master of Expletives: Now with improved family f@&king friendliness! :D

Sources code: making easy front end changes difficult since 1873. :P