|
|
#21
03-20-2007, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
Even without avatars, a response with one line of content takes up a ton of real estate, heightwise.
From my rough estimate, any post that is less than 10 lines is the same height, probably due to the stacking of the poster's information in the far left of the box [and the addition of the mostly useless, IMO, 'online'/'offline' feature]. I wonder if the boxes will grow even larger when there are avatars. Seems like a pretty bad use of visual space and will mean tons more scrolling to see a lot of posts that are not very long. I would take a look at the pixel height of the box per post for a single line of text with avatar in the current UI and the new one and see if you really want posts with one line of content to take up so much room. Maybe consider making the width of the box with the poster's information a bit wider so there is less wrapping or get rid of the graphic next to "Offline". You don't want a whole screen to be taken up by 2 or 3 people saying one word each. KJS Edit to replace width with height where i screwed them up in OP. 
|
|
#22
03-20-2007, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
The archive uses whatever was in the archives in terms of user names, etc. It does not have quick quote because you are not allowed to reply in the archives (they are read only) except for the temporary forum.
|
|
#25
03-20-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
I just want to weigh in and say I think this looks fantastic. A definite and vast improvement over the current software design.
|
|
#26
03-20-2007, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
looks good
being able to click someones name and get a menu to pm, see profile, or show posts is a nice feature.
|
|
#27
03-20-2007, 07:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
I was reading this thread in the archives and towards the end (Lazy Meatball's post) there are links to threads that clearly exist within the archive time frame, but they're Groupee and use this format. What am I missing here, are they just all not archived yet?
Just curious more than anything. Also please note in this upgrade that "g" and "q" are more distinct in the username field. Although I don't expect that to stop people from referring to me as tug, tup, tuj, etc.
|
|
#28
03-20-2007, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
Meh, it's nice that you are updating but I enjoy my current viewing preference. The only thing I don't like is that is doesn't highlight the forums I click on more often (I use infopop2 I think)
|
|
#29
03-20-2007, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Take a Look at 2+2\'s Future Design
[ QUOTE ]
I was reading this thread in the archives and towards the end (Lazy Meatball's post) there are links to threads that clearly exist within the archive time frame, but they're Groupee and use this format. What am I missing here, are they just all not archived yet? Just curious more than anything. Also please note in this upgrade that "g" and "q" are more distinct in the username field. Although I don't expect that to stop people from referring to me as tug, tup, tuj, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Direct links to "archiveserver" are still going to "archiveserver", rather than "newarchives".
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
