Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish.html
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Feb 2004 04:00:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6115 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> [ followup-to .publish.html, since this isn't generally interesting. :) ]
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > > And like I said, I disagree (but at least we agree on the boring part). :-)
> > > Hey, if you like boring, that's fine with me. To each his own, and all.
> > You seem confused - I was refering to Lugnet's visual appearance.
>
> And that is indeed why I'm confused. I was referring to the phpBB on
> Classic-castle in the paragraph you quoted. Like all such BB forums, it
> basically has a big monotone ugly spreadsheet as the first level forum
> list, an even worse one as the second level "topic" listing. When you get
> down below that, the id pictures and the various icons on the posts
> suddenly give a bunch of color, but it's still in that spreadsheet format
> -- and the color is just decoration devoid of meaning.
Well, heck, maybe I'm confused and that confused you in turn.
I don't spend that much time at the two levels you mention at C-C, so they don't
bother me. They give me the minimum clutter to move on to where I want to go.
Not that I actually go and look at them, yes, you critcisms are certainly valid,
but they are only a way station while spending most of the time at the messages
themself. Lugnet is more professionally set up in many ways, but rather sparse
at all levels. I think it could move on, but I thought it clear Todd either
doesn't have the time, energy, or interest to upgrade Lugnet. He has done the
community a great service, and I have had the distinct impression (pretty much
confirmed by him in recent messages) that he is quite content to let other take
things to the next level.
>
> news.lugnet.com, while arguably "boring" in some ways, doesn't suffer from
> this. It uses different color codings to draw attention in meaning. And
> the different forums often have their own little distinctive logo or
> graphic -- and underneath that, the "hot" posts in that area.
>
> And when you click on a post, you get a nice *graphical* tree showing its
> relation to others. Within the post itself, different levels of quoting
> are subtly but clearly color-coded, and of course there's the FTX stuff.
> And if you want to see all of the replies on one page, you can, again with
> color-coding and a clear spacial representation. No spreadsheet here!
As I mentioned, with the cross-posting here, following a thread can be difficult
and the graphical tree helps (until it gets to the 100 message "dots" and then I
just find it almost useless), but over at C-C I haven't felt the need for it.
>
>
> > Yup, confused. Sorry if I wasn't clear along the way. I meant Lugnet was a
> > step up visually from r.t.l., as newer boards are a step up visually from
> > Lugnet.
>
> You must be looking at some yet newer board of which I am not aware....
> The web "bulletin board" style forums (which bear little resemblance to
> the old-school BBS systems despite the similar name, btw) predate Lugnet
> by at least two years. And that was the dot-com times, so two years in the
> then-current Internet Time is like, 25 real years. :)
>
> Pretty much they sucked back then too -- spreadsheet-based forums, leave
> your message as a post-it note in the appropriate cell.
Plain blah text messages are what I would call "post-it" notes and that defines
Lugnet, so I'm of the opposite opinion. If this was a less visual hobby then
Lego, maybe it would matter as much to me.
>
> Of course, they've evolved some, and one neat thing the newer BB systems
> (like phpBB used by Classic-Castle) often have is the id picture -- the
> "avatar". So at least it's easy to tell the post-it-note-posters apart at
> a glance. Adding that to Lugnet would be cool. So much so that I might
> harrass Todd about it, in fact. :)
I love the avatars, but as mentioned, this is about as far as Lugnet is going to
go, so bugging Todd probably won't have an effect. I still like Lugnet as is -
something better has to come along before I'll move on.
>
>
>
>
> > > But there isn't an analogue to the graphical adventure in anything we
> > > talked about. Unless you meant Lugnet, and I don't think you did.
> > Defintely confused - I meant exactly that (another respondent knew I meant
> > Lugnet, so I didn't think myself unclear, but such is the written word).
>
> Well, you replied directly to something that was clearly a description of
> BB -- Kelly said something about "Kids like the visual cues and color" of
> not-Lugnet. But if you actually look, most BB style sites have plenty of
> flash but few actual visual cues -- that's one of my complaints -- and
> generally color only to set the overall tone of the site. Classic-castle's
> formum has a big blue grid -- there's not really such a thing on Lugnet at
> all. (Lists, yes, but there's not much by way of grids.)
It's a big white grid with blue borders. :-)
I don't know how customizable C-C is, but I know they are working at refining
it.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
208 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
