These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

New forums are OK

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
#41 - 2011-09-07 07:01:24 UTC
Si Omega wrote:
I run dual screen at 1024 x 768, as might many others. Works fine and doesn't obstruct nor reduce content clarity. As you might well know, fixed width screens render and work better. They are also easier to repair in the mishmash they call CSS.

Not many others use 1024x768.The average gamer has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 and 1024 x 768 is only use by 4.8% of people being one of the least used resolutions for gamer PC's. So why have we got forums made to work for 1024 x 768 and that look terrible on 1920x1080 or higher?
Stormhammer Investments
Doomheim
#42 - 2011-09-07 07:11:29 UTC
Si Omega wrote:
Quote:
Preview button does not appear to work for New Topics. Using Internet Explorer 9 fully up to date


Just tested it, works fine. You got JS working?


Yes. I have managed to make my post now after three attempts. It could be because I had @ and ! symbols in the topic. I removed those and it posted after that.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#43 - 2011-09-07 07:12:47 UTC
Pottsey wrote:
Si Omega wrote:
I run dual screen at 1024 x 768, as might many others. Works fine and doesn't obstruct nor reduce content clarity. As you might well know, fixed width screens render and work better. They are also easier to repair in the mishmash they call CSS.

Not many others use 1024x768.The average gamer has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 and 1024 x 768 is only use by 4.8% of people being one of the least used resolutions for gamer PC's. So why have we got forums made to work for 1024 x 768 and that look terrible on 1920x1080 or higher?
Why does it matter Pottsey, when Si Omega is all right with it? After all, options are bad.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#44 - 2011-09-07 07:34:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciar Meara
Yeah the forum is ok, not GREAT but ok.

Integration wise its a step forward probably, I dunno, lets hope nobody breaks it.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
Krista Blevox
Blevox Corporation
#45 - 2011-09-07 07:37:11 UTC
Not great for viewing on a smart phone. Content window is too wide and you have to scroll to read literally. Old forums were much easier to view when on the move. Main time I use the forums is commuting as I am doing now but frustrating trying to read stuff.
Si Omega
Doomheim
#46 - 2011-09-07 07:37:26 UTC
Quote:
Not many others use 1024x768.The average gamer has a resolution of 1920 x 1080 and 1024 x 768 is only use by 4.8% of people being one of the least used resolutions for gamer PC's. So why have we got forums made to work for 1024 x 768 and that look terrible on 1920x1080 or higher?


This I am not debating. (I merely run my workbench on 2 x 19's so the res is simply good for what I do). I run Eve on a 38" LCD maxed out Blink

And yes, dynamic screen width IS a nice feature to have. But I also understand why it ISN'T implemented.

My TL;DR on it. Browsers and consistent (read predictable) CSS rendering have a history of failing developers. Yes, you can test on current browsers but you cannot test on future browers. The CSS standard is and never has been correctly integrated into browser development (MS being the worst at it). Anyone who tells you different is an fn genius and needs to be working at CCP to solve these "issues" for perpetuity.

Having said that, it does not affect functionality and needs to put into context accordingly.


PS: Tippia. Speaking of fn geniuses. You applied for that job yet?
Lu'Marat
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2011-09-07 07:49:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
stuff


Tippia, you really need a new hobby, the old high horse is starting to look a little lame.

That said, you people are right, there are a number of things missing here. Features, if you will.

  1. Signatures? Yes, I'd like to switch them off, thank you.
  2. Images? Looking back, it's hard to remember more than maybe five images in all my time in the forums that were useful in anyway. So yes, per-se it'd be more elegant to have an option to switch off images, but getting rid of them works for me, too.
  3. Fixed-width layout? Works for me, but then I don't have a massive widescreen and no issues with resizing my browser window and having monitor space left for something else. Again, could be done better, yes
  4. Event handlers that change browser behaviour? Where? You mean the onClick="this.blur" handlers?
  5. Too much javascript? Guess I'll take your word for it, my browser doesn't support switching off javascript and I've never needed it between software updates and a good free desktop security solution.
  6. No more colour tags? That sucks. More colours please, this time with editor integration, thank you.
  7. Animated smilies? You mean these forums don't have those bloated, high-colour, shady glossy bouncy wiggly smilies that have been creeping over forums these past years? Good!



Now, let's look at some new stuff. In no particular order, I noticed

  1. an IGNORE option. Wooohooo.
  2. RSS-Feeds, notifications, favourites. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
  3. An option to search for and browse DEV posts. Finally.
  4. A private message feature.
  5. An option to view people's past forum posts
  6. Thread preview tooltips, where I don't have to guess by thread titles whether they're trolls or not
  7. A quick reply button
  8. A number of usability tidbits like highlighted buttons
  9. Larger character limit in posts
  10. A reasonably modern, clear and usable layout
  11. Oh look, a strike tag.



So, yeah, as always things are not perfect, with a few glaring errors that need to be fixed and a few things that could be fixed when there's time and obviously a lot of stuff that you can argue about out of principle.
But so far, I gotta say I got a lot of stuff that'll be useful for what I use forums for, and I'm not missing anything really important.
Looks good.
Tiven loves Tansien
Doomheim
#48 - 2011-09-07 08:05:08 UTC
Ciar Meara wrote:
Yeah the forum is ok, not GREAT but ok.

Integration wise its a step forward probably, I dunno, lets hope nobody breaks it.


If someone breaks it, it will be only because ccp's coding allowed it.
Lu'Marat
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2011-09-07 09:57:39 UTC
Yeah. "If they didn't want me to run my truck into this building, they damn well shouldn't have given me a licence."

Which, I guess, is true to some extent Lol
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2011-09-07 10:47:49 UTC
Lu'Marat wrote:
That said, you people are right, there are a number of things missing here. Features, if you will.
  1. Signatures?
  2. Images?
  3. Fixed-width layout?
  4. Event handlers that change browser behaviour?
  5. Too much javascript?
  6. No more colour tags?
  7. Animated smilies?
2. The thing is, sometimes they are pretty much the only way to illustrate a point, and they can be trivially styled not to break the forums or take too much space. Moreover, their removal has pretty much killed a cottage industry in EVE as well as one of the ways to express the tribalism EVE encourages.
3. The problem with a fixed-width layout is that it breaks in two directions: you can't shrink it to fit a smaller space as much as you can't expand it to fit a bigger one. It's an assumption of “one size fits all” that simply isn't true, and it also prevents them from implementing accessibility features or similar customisation.
4 & 5. I mainly mean the outgoing link warnings, but the post editor itself has stuff going on that alters the input, and it also causes the search function to work less well than it should.
7. No, I mean the suitably subtle animations the old forum smilies had and which actually expressed something — since we have the same ones (albeit with a tan), why was it necessary to remove that expressiveness?
Quote:
Now, let's look at some new stuff. In no particular order, I noticed

  1. an IGNORE option. Wooohooo.
  2. RSS-Feeds, notifications, favourites. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
  3. An option to search for and browse DEV posts. Finally.
  4. A private message feature.
  5. An option to view people's past forum posts
  6. Thread preview tooltips, where I don't have to guess by thread titles whether they're trolls or not
  7. A quick reply button
  8. A number of usability tidbits like highlighted buttons
  9. Larger character limit in posts
  10. A reasonably modern, clear and usable layout
  11. Oh look, a strike tag.
3. Again, the problem with the search is that it relies so much on scripting to provide its various options that it becomes brittle and breaks very easily. There is simply no need to have those scripts there.
4. PMs have existed for 1½ years now — all that has happened is that they're more immediately available (but that immediacy comes at the cost of no longer having immediate access to all the EVE web content).
6 & 7. Breaks easily and/or obscures other information. And once again, no fallback even when one is possible and should be available.
10. …which is actually contextually and semantically very confusing once you break it down. There is a crapton of redundant information mixed in with completely useless bits mixed in with completely misapplied highlights and emphasis. Now, the great news is that, with a somewhat modernised document structure, all of that is trivially easy to fix (which they haven't done).
11. That one has been around for ever.
valerydarcy
Doomheim
#51 - 2011-09-07 20:24:36 UTC
I used to use 1024x768.

When I was playing Quake 2.

Seriously tho, when are you going to introduce post counts?

Post with your main™
triplleboy
Malum Mortuus
#52 - 2011-09-07 20:25:46 UTC
+1 i hope it keeps up this time!
Previous page123