Forum Re-Design

[Matthew Schenker]

I use NoScript and like it; Matthew hates it.  Extra protection against script-based attacks.

Actually, I've changed my mind on this little add-on!  When I commented about it a while back, I was still running SeaMonkey, an all-in-one browser/e-mail "suite" with many of the same components as Firefox.  The NoScript did not work very well for me in SeaMonkey.  But I've since switched entirely to Firefox/Thunderbird, and NoScript works well.

Like you, I find that Firefox is as smooth as could be expected (again, I'm running Linux, just to clarify).  Just as I believe strongly in the open-source community (such as SMF, which this forum us based on) I also feel strongly about the merits of Firefox over Internet Explorer.

With that said, any forum that wants to have lots of members needs to be accessible and fully functional in Internet Explorer.  That's my attitude here as well.

Matthew

 

[Dan Clark]

I'm using XP.  Not going to Vista until there is a reason to do so.  I'm not going to take the speed hit just to get "pretty".

Dan.

 

[Dan Clark]

Quick update...

First, I found that Cleartype smoothing was turned off.  I believe that IE7 has some form of font smoothing regardless of your system setup.  Firefox does not appear to have this. 

When I turned of Cleartype, the fonts in FF2 seem to be as smooth as IE7.  Still not quite as clear, but very close.  (I'm not sure why IE7 fonts appear to be a bit clearer.)

JRB,

Unless IE7 has a setting I'm not aware of, the + and - in FF2 and in IE7 perform different functions.  In FF2, + and - is the same as increasing the font size in IE7.  The font's size increases and decreases.  In IE7, + and - zooms the window.  The entire window simply gets bigger and smaller. 

Either of these can be a plus or minus.  For normal web page reading, you want the text bigger but not the window.  When the window zooms in, it disappears off of the screen.  OTOH, if looking at a picture on a high res monitor, you may want to zoom in to see the pic bigger.

Overall, I like Firefox's approach better. I think I just switched to FF.

Dan.

 

[Ned]

Overall, I like Firefox's approach better. I think I just switched to FF.

Ka-ching!

BTW, you can enlarge the font in FF by holding down the Ctrl key and spinning the mouse wheel.  Away from your palm makes text smaller, toward your palm makes it bigger.

Ned

 

[semenza]

Hi,

  Matthew it looks like the post background color alternates now? But it is so sutle it is hard to tell.
  BTW I think the quote shading is right on.

Seth

 

[jonny round boy]

Matthew,

I like Andrew's logo that is on the test site at the moment (the white background with the large Domino image, in case it's changed again by the time someone reads this!).

The only thing about that though, is that the whole site looks very monochrome - there's very little colour. At least the current site has a blue theme. I even changed my avatar so it blended in better!!!! Guess I'll have to find another one! ;D

 

[Ned]

Matthew,

I like Andrew's logo that is on the test site at the moment (the white background with the large Domino image, in case it's changed again by the time someone reads this!).

The only thing about that though, is that the whole site looks very monochrome - there's very little colour. At least the current site has a blue theme. I even changed my avatar so it blended in better!!!! Guess I'll have to find another one! ;D

How about we just:

• Keep the current production (default) theme, modfying the palette to change the bluish to greenish.
• Use Andrew's series of logos, and rotate among them on a daily basis.  (If it's Tuesday, this must be Rotex.  )
• Call it a good job and move on.

Ned

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Ned,
The default theme has too much going on in the upper regions, which is why I switched to the new design, which is so much cleaner in that area.  The top of the default theme always felt to me like a computerized layer cake!  The logo area especially does not allow for as much unique identity for the forum.

The style of the new design just allows so much more personality.  We can keep discussing color and graphical elements, getting the look closer to what we want.  Let's keep discussing the details, and then we can stand back and look at the new site, making a final judgment.

Matthew

 

[Fred West]

Matthew, I agree with some others that the new header design is nice but sterile. I loved the green on black look and it truly drew my eye to the forum. As a newbie I believe that my reaction would be WOW I need to check this out. First impressions truly do count for a lot. Fred

 

[Overtime]

Matthew,

I like Andrew's logo that is on the test site at the moment (the white background with the large Domino image, in case it's changed again by the time someone reads this!).

The only thing about that though, is that the whole site looks very monochrome - there's very little colour. At least the current site has a blue theme. I even changed my avatar so it blended in better!!!! Guess I'll have to find another one! ;D

How about we just:

• Keep the current production (default) theme, modifying the palette to change the bluish to greenish.
• Use Andrew's series of logos, and rotate among them on a daily basis.  (If it's Tuesday, this must be Rotex.    )
• Call it a good job and move on.

Ned

I'm with Ned as This "defalt" was my favorite of all that has been presented thus far,
But if it is too complicated then move on. No need to add extra work to what should be smooth and pleasing for both the users and the IT department. And besides there have been lots of great formats. ;D

 

[Matthew Schenker]

How about we just:

• Keep the current production (default) theme, modfying the palette to change the bluish to greenish.
• Use Andrew's series of logos, and rotate among them on a daily basis.  (If it's Tuesday, this must be Rotex.  )
• Call it a good job and move on.

I'm with Ned as This "defalt" was my favorite of all that has been presented thus far,
But if it is too complicated then move on. No need to add extra work to what should be smooth and pleasing for both the users and the IT department. And besides there have been lots of great formats. ;D

Everyone,
OK, let me say that behind this whole effort is something bigger than just changing superficial visuals. I was going to bring this up later, but I think I need to put it out there now...

Besides the visual ugliness of the default format (SMF), there are several other limitations I am trying to address here.  I've been listening to members and taking note of which  features, and the kind of functionality and ease people want.  Several of these features simply aren't available with the core software we're now using.  This whole discussion is a way to ease us into a point where we can test and compare two very different core formats and then make a major move.  My approach is to introduce the concept through test forums, where we can debate the details for a while long before the actual changes are implemented.  All the design questions coming up here are helping me see what people want.

All of us agree that when we moved to this new format a year ago, it was a vast improvement from the original.  But in the past year, I have learned a lot about what makes a real forum work, and I am looking for the best match for our needs.  Major changes should not happen on a whim, and that is why I am taking such pains to discuss it before anything happens.

Just stick with the discussion, and keep telling me what you want to have in your forum.  This will all become clearer as we move ahead.

Matthew

 

[Matthew Schenker]

Everyone,
I should have added in my last post that SMF is about to release a major upgrade (V. 2.0), with numerous new features.  As much as possible, I'm trying to coincide the proposed re-design with that upgrade, as I also look at other options for us.  It's all about making the forum experience smooth and easy.

I'm probably putting too much under-the-hood information here!  Usually, I keep this stuff quiet, but this is the one discussion where I feel it's appropriate.

Stay in touch,
Matthew

 

[Fred West]

Matthew, I disagree. I think your introduction of the "under the hood" information has been vital and stimulating. I very much applaud you for doing so and thank you as well. Fred

 

[semenza]

Matthew wrote-"I also did a couple of other small tweaks.  can youi see what they are?"

    I see that the thin line is now a thicker thin line.  Looks good! I like it better. Maybe it should be thicker across the top too, and seperate the logo and/or other stuff with the real thin line?

Seth

 

[Matthew Schenker]

    I see that the thin line is now a thicker thin line.  Looks good! I like it better. Maybe it should be thicker across the top too, and seperate the logo and/or other stuff with the real thin line?

Glad you like it.  I'm continuing to make small changes, and I am always interested to hear member reactions.
Keep checking the test site!
Thanks,
Matthew

 

[Matthew Schenker]

A progress note on the re-design effort...

I just changed the "Reply," "Notify," "Mark unread," "Send this topic," "Print" and similar text to buttons.  This makes them stand out much better.

This morning, I'm editing the buttons so they match the forum's general color scheme.

Matthew

 

[Ned]

A progress note on the re-design effort...

I just changed the "Reply," "Notify," "Mark unread," "Send this topic," "Print" and similar text to buttons.  This makes them stand out much better.

This morning, I'm editing the buttons so they match the forum's general color scheme.

Matthew

The button text is almost unreadable on my screen.  It looks even smaller than the menu bar text, which is right at the limit, IMO.

In the current production version, buttons (like Post, Preview, Spell Check) react to being hovered over, along with links and the menu bar (Home, Help, etc.)

In the test version, the behavior is similar, except that these latest buttons (Reply, Notify, etc.) don't react.  Can't tell they're live.

Ned

 

[Matthew Schenker]

The button text is almost unreadable on my screen.  It looks even smaller than the menu bar text, which is right at the limit, IMO.

I can try to work on that.  Is everyone else experiencing the same issue with the buttons?

In the current production version, buttons (like Post, Preview, Spell Check) react to being hovered over, along with links and the menu bar (Home, Help, etc.)

In the test version, the behavior is similar, except that these latest buttons (Reply, Notify, etc.) don't react.  Can't tell they're live.

Doesn't your mouse pointer change from an arrow to the hand (or whatever the pointer is in your theme)?

Matthew

 

[Ned]

In the current production version, buttons (like Post, Preview, Spell Check) react to being hovered over, along with links and the menu bar (Home, Help, etc.)

In the test version, the behavior is similar, except that these latest buttons (Reply, Notify, etc.) don't react.  Can't tell they're live.

Doesn't your mouse pointer change from an arrow to the hand (or whatever the pointer is in your theme)?

Matthew

You're right, I now see the pointer does change.  So I need to change my claim from "Can't tell they're live." to "Didn't notice that they were live, because all other hotspots on the screen change both the pointer and color.  Obviously I'm depending on the color change to tell me.

Ned

 

[Daviddubya]

The button text is almost unreadable on my screen.  It looks even smaller than the menu bar text, which is right at the limit, IMO.

I can try to work on that.  Is everyone else experiencing the same issue with the buttons?

...Matthew

I doubt it would surprise you if I said I think the font size is too small on most of the new forum design.  There - I said it again!  Smile and thanks.