Subject:
|
Re: 2 Things...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:22:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
832 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, James Brown writes:
> > Do you mean the indented quoted text on the full-article view? Too light
> > and too small?
>
> Yes and no. I hadn't actually noticed that yet when I posted that, but
> yes, I find the quoted text too small/light/hard to read. I thought it
> worked quite well when quoted text was simply italicized and faded once,
> rather than getting progressively smaller and lighter.
OK, lots of other people were having the same gripe about it. It's fixed
now.
> What I was actually refering to was the text on the group pages. I find
> the sizing scheme for the various areas odd. I feel the page would work
> a bit better if the messages were larger - at least the same font size
> as the charter - and the message headers one size up from that.
You're saying you have an issue of readability with the font size? Can you
send a screenshot?
> > Would it be better if the first
> >
> > More: All | Brief | Compact
> >
> > link on each group page repeated the 4 shown messages when you clicked it?
> > In other words, if the last article is #100, and you click the "Compact"
> > view, would you rather see articles #100-#81 even though the "Brief" forms
> > of #100-#97 have already been just shown?
What if clicking "Brief" gave you #96-#77, and clicking "All" or "Compact"
gave you #100-#81? Too confusing, or just right?
> Yes. (and this is tied in with my #3, as well) Frequently, especially
> when I first catch up in the mornings, there are more than 4 new messages.
> Previously, it was one click to the group, and I'd see the last twenty
> messages, and rarely have to go down another level. Currently, I go to the
> group, immediately have to go down one level, catch up, and then go 'back',
> and read the last four messages.
OK, thanks. I understand now. So you're using the web inteface as a
substitute for a newsreader then...?
And you are disappointed that it is now more time consuming to hop among
groups to scan for new messages than it was before?
> I tend to read lots of groups. My default LUGNet page isn't .com/, it's
> /news/traffic/
OK, that's very important to know. Thanks.
Since the /news/traffic/ page is somewhat of an advanced feature, it doesn't
necessarily have to link to the main dumbed-down group intro pages. What if
the /news/traffic/ page took you directly into the 20-message compact views?
> > http://www.lugnet.com/build/?n=,-20&v=c
> > http://www.lugnet.com/general/?n=,-20&v=c
> > http://www.lugnet.com/market/auction/?n=,-20&v=c
> > etc.
>
> Hmm. That could work. If I put it in exactly as above, would that work,
> or do I have to fill in a number at 'n=,'?
Exactly as above...(just click if you're reading from the web pages). When
'n' isn't defined, it means "start at the end -- the most recent." And
incidentally, 'v' stands for "view" and 'c' stands for "Compact." There
is also v=a and v=b for "All" and "Brief" views, respectively.
> Actually, for me, the best interface would be to have the compact listing
> show up on the group page, instead of 4 compact messages.
Maybe the best thing for you (an advanced user) is simply not to be thrown
into the main group pages? (see above)
> I don't have
> the slightest clue what other people prefer, though, and, while I get
> vocal from time to time, I don't consitute a majority. :)
The "Brief" views on the main intro pages need to stay that way (not be
"Compact" views), for a number of long-term strategic reasons, but I'm sure
we can find a way to resurrect the usage patterns that you had developed
and become accustomed to using the old interface, especially if they saved
you time compared to the new way. You're certainly not alone in wanting
that, I'm sure.
> > > 4: Message display appears to be fixed at half my screen width. This is
> > > mildly irritating, since I almost always have to scroll down now, even to
> > > read a short message.
> >
> > Fixed at half on all of the pages or only the intro-pages?
>
> Fixed at half on the actual message header and text. The 'replies to' and
> 'in reply to' boxes run the width, and I suspect) the thread graphic does
> as well.
OK, so you mean you don't like the half-width "Brief"-mode message views on
the intro pages? You'd rather they were full-width like where they appear
everywhere else? Well, they've actually gotta stay half-width on the intro
pages...otherwise they either dominate the page or get lost, depending on
the height of the browser window.
It's funny, BTW: the Brief-mode views were the first thing written, and
designed specifically for a half-width display. It wasn't until way later
that they ever got used in a full-width display.
> 1024x768, 24 bit. Part of the issue (I've since discovered) is that most
> of the time I run on an LCD, and the subtler variations are harder to see
> unless I tilt my screen at a ridiculous angle.
A-*ha*. OK, now I can possibly see how the link coloring might be a problem.
How about the purely text links? How do they look? Is it mainly the little
square box that's hard to tell with, or all links?
> Probably. I did have this problem before, but not nearly to the same
> degree. I suspect that it's likely due to the size of the link. An
> entire line being a different color is easier to discern than a small
> icon, especially on an LCD.
Bummer... OK, well, maybe the little boxes are a problem then. If you
can't tell which links you've clicked and which ones you haven't, then
that totally sucks.
> > Thanks. The old stuff was just a hack thrown together, which just sort of
> > happened to work. This was thought out. I'm glad that the main problems
> > are only cosmetic.
>
> Seems to be, but I'd let it run for a while before ruling out huge,
> earth-shattering problems. :)
It's actually been running for a quite like this, but the URLs haven't been
publicly known.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | A lurkers opinion (formerly: Re: 2 Things...)
|
| OK, you've forced me out of lurkerdom with the new interface. I realize as a lurker, my opinions may be less valuable than some, but since you seem to be open to suggestions... I like seeing the recent news on the front page, but I would prefer to (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: 2 Things...
|
| (...) Yes, but for reasons too complicated to explain, not 'til later tonight. To hazard an opinion, I would suggest that size=-1/-2 is just too small for most uses. (...) More or less, yes. On an average (work) day, I'm accessing the 'net through (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 2 Things...
|
| (...) Yes and no. I hadn't actually noticed that yet when I posted that, but yes, I find the quoted text too small/light/hard to read. I thought it worked quite well when quoted text was simply italicized and faded once, rather than getting (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jun-99, to lugnet.general)
|
54 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
