# Discussion Thread for (preliminary?) New UI



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

Hey Guys,

I'm (officially) starting work on coding up the pages for the new UI, and figured I'd start a thread for commentary. First, some rules:

1. Good criticism is fine. Bad criticism is not. Examples:


> The layout suxxxxxx! -- Bad Criticizer





> I think the icons in the submission comments should be slightly larger; it's hard to see the details of the avatars. -- Good Criticizer



2. Keep it UI related and friendly. We all know that some people feel that codebase should be put before the UI. I understand that, but please keep it in another thread.

3. I'll update this post with questions I currently have for users. If you'd be so kind as to answer these questions in your reply, I'd be eternally grateful.

4. Please know that these are all preliminary designs and may be modified from how they appear here before placement on the site. Suggestions made here are _not_ guaranteed to be implemented.



Anyway, on to the page links:


Userpage - http://74.96.123.64/FALayout/userpage_public.php

This is currently unmodified from the version linked by Dragoneer earlier. Oh, and the image chooser is broken because I changed the paths slightly, and haven't updated the file.



Submission View Page - http://74.96.123.64/FALayout/submission_public.php

Couple of things on this page are nonfunctional at the moment, including the "view at full size" magic.

Onto the questions...


Instead of having "half-view" and "full-view", I was thinking of having "half-view", "full-view" and "cinema-view" (or another name), wherein cinema-view expands and centers the image, and darkens the rest of the page, like the lightbox javascript plugin. Thoughts?
Thoughts on using icons instead of text for submission info?
Thoughts on how the comments are displayed?

Anyway, thanks for your time and input!


*Remember*, YOU can help shape the face of the new FurAffinity!
Hopefully ; )


--Alex


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2011)

"Cinema View" (e.g. Lightbox) is useful, especially for people running on netbooks or smaller screens.


----------



## Konda (Jan 19, 2011)

_*"Thoughts on using icons instead of text for submission info?"*_
I am guessing you are referring to the icons next to submission date, category, views/favorites, resolution, etc Generally, I don't like icons because I feel you have to put text next to them anyway, so you know what the icons mean in the first place. (but it can suffice to make the text appear when you move the cursor over the icon) However, in a context like this, the data next to the icons (such as category, no. of views, etc) makes it self-explanatory (e.g. 700x950 obviously means resolution, and so forth) so here it's fine.

*"Thoughts on how the comments are displayed?"*
Fine with me. Well, less room for long comments. Is there a reason they don't reach the end of the page?
I see that Mochi's reply reaches farther, so I am guessing that it's done this way so comments appear uniform.
either way I don't really mind.

What I don't get is where the submission's description is to the right of the submission itself. So what happens if you click full-view on the submission?

*"Instead of having "half-view" and "full-view", I was thinking of having  "half-view", "full-view" and "cinema-view" (or another name), wherein  cinema-view expands and centers the image, and darkens the rest of the  page, like the lightbox javascript plugin. Thoughts?"*
I can already right click the image and then "View Image" to fit the page. Unless cinema view will be higher quality or something? Personally I'm not really sure what the advantage is. (Not that I oppose its inclusion or anything)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 19, 2011)

First, I don't seem able to get your links to load; they're both 404ing on me. As such, I can't really comment on the icons/comments questions, as I can't see what they're referring to. Konda's replies sound sensible enough to me without having seen the sample submission page. I _can_ speak about the concept of view sizes, drawing on my current experiences with the gallery.

*Instead of having "half-view" and "full-view", I was thinking of having "half-view", "full-view" and "cinema-view" (or another name), wherein cinema-view expands and centers the image, and darkens the rest of the page, like the lightbox javascript plugin. Thoughts?*
On one hand, I'm not terribly keen on Lightbox. Lightbox-ish plus a comment field, in that case, possibly, I'd say. Provided the cinema view adjusts to screen size, it does have the advantage of not forcing the user to scroll sideways like a maniac if someone has uploaded huge files. 
----------------------------------------
On a different note, a few things (using Dragoneer's posted userpage as a reference since that's the one I can reach) I'm not too keen on or have questions about in the new design:

* Too many colors. Seriously. Why is there a desaturated blue _and_ a desaturated green _and_ an orange? What do "watch" and "submit" have in common, leading to them both being shown in green while most of the other buttons are blue? I can see the orange for headers/active tab text, as a tie-in to the logo, I guess. The blue... maybe, if only because the orange could get eye-stabby in that great amounts. I can't see the green filling any function, and I find it distracting (as my brain is desperately trying to find a category that could be symbolized by it), and if it has no function, those buttons might as well at _least_ be blue as well.

* Placement of the art above the user info, I'm really not very keen on. There's a tab for user info, a tab for gallery, a tab for journals, a tab for favorites. Why does the gallery get the prime screen real-estate on the _user info_ page? I can sort of see the argument behind not putting a lengthy bio at the top of the page (I don't personally agree, but I can see how people would find it annoying when some users like to write a novel in their bios), but I think at the very least the quick-n-easy user/character info should get the prime spot on the user info page. A possible solution would be to cap the displayed length of the bio (with a "read more" expand link or similar) and place the profile ID or a featured submission to the right of it, where the gallery thumbnails are now. 

* I'd like to see ad placement in the sample pages ASAP; ad spots _really_ should not come in as an afterthought. I also have to pre-emptively object if all ad spots are planned to go in the footer. FA strives to have community-relevant ads, so why should the ads be hidden away at the foot of the page?

* What does the "visit page" button do? 

* Where do you plan to put all the other menu options? Scaling down a menu to the essentials isn't _bad_, per se, but some of the menu options (e.g. the staff page) really ought to be readily available. I do ask that you _please_ not use the current drop-down menu system; the CSS-based dropdowns on FA don't work in IE8 with compatibility mode off, and at least the sample page gets misaligned graphics and other similar problems in IE8 with compatibility mode _on_. This _could_ just be a matter of something as simple as reordering some tags, I've not looked closely enough at the code to say, but I think this is still worth mentioning.


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

Oops, we lost power, hence the samples went down. Should be back up and viewable now.

Also, reading through the posts right now to glean info from them. These are *exactly* the kind of posts I was looking for, thanks you guys! <3


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

Konda said:


> _*"Thoughts on using icons instead of text for submission info?"*_
> I am guessing you are referring to the icons next to submission date, category, views/favorites, resolution, etc Generally, I don't like icons because I feel you have to put text next to them anyway, so you know what the icons mean in the first place. (but it can suffice to make the text appear when you move the cursor over the icon) However, in a context like this, the data next to the icons (such as category, no. of views, etc) makes it self-explanatory (e.g. 700x950 obviously means resolution, and so forth) so here it's fine.



Okay, cool. That was my thinking on the issue as well, but we'll see how others feel.


Konda said:


> *"Thoughts on how the comments are displayed?"*
> Fine with me. Well, less room for long comments. Is there a reason they don't reach the end of the page?
> I see that Mochi's reply reaches farther, so I am guessing that it's done this way so comments appear uniform.
> either way I don't really mind.


The idea behind the less-wide comment boxes is to decrease the line-length. In my opinion, more shorter lines is more readable than few long ones. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean about Mochi's reply.



Konda said:


> What I don't get is where the submission's description is to the right of the submission itself. So what happens if you click full-view on the submission?


I was thinking about having the image expand to fill the upper area (and effectively "cover up" the submission description). The other thing I was thinking instead is that transitioning to full-view switches from the two column layout (image|description) into a stacked 1 column layout (like how the pages look in full view on the mainsite now)



Konda said:


> *"Instead of having "half-view" and "full-view", I was thinking of having  "half-view", "full-view" and "cinema-view" (or another name), wherein  cinema-view expands and centers the image, and darkens the rest of the  page, like the lightbox javascript plugin. Thoughts?"*
> I can already right click the image and then "View Image" to fit the page. Unless cinema view will be higher quality or something? Personally I'm not really sure what the advantage is. (Not that I oppose its inclusion or anything)



There's not really a huge advantage, this was just an idea more along the lines of experience improvement. I like being able to fill my browser window with the full image.



quoting_mungo said:


> First, I don't seem able to get your links to load; they're both 404ing on me. As such, I can't really comment on the icons/comments questions, as I can't see what they're referring to. Konda's replies sound sensible enough to me without having seen the sample submission page. I _can_ speak about the concept of view sizes, drawing on my current experiences with the gallery.
> 
> *Instead of having "half-view" and "full-view", I was thinking of having "half-view", "full-view" and "cinema-view" (or another name), wherein cinema-view expands and centers the image, and darkens the rest of the page, like the lightbox javascript plugin. Thoughts?*
> On one hand, I'm not terribly keen on Lightbox. Lightbox-ish plus a comment field, in that case, possibly, I'd say. Provided the cinema view adjusts to screen size, it does have the advantage of not forcing the user to scroll sideways like a maniac if someone has uploaded huge files.
> ...


 Noted. I kinda like having the blue and green, but I do see what you're saying as far as it forcing stuff to be grouped. Let's see what more consensus yields.


quoting_mungo said:


> * Placement of the art above the user info, I'm really not very keen on. There's a tab for user info, a tab for gallery, a tab for journals, a tab for favorites. Why does the gallery get the prime screen real-estate on the _user info_ page? I can sort of see the argument behind not putting a lengthy bio at the top of the page (I don't personally agree, but I can see how people would find it annoying when some users like to write a novel in their bios), but I think at the very least the quick-n-easy user/character info should get the prime spot on the user info page. A possible solution would be to cap the displayed length of the bio (with a "read more" expand link or similar) and place the profile ID or a featured submission to the right of it, where the gallery thumbnails are now.


I agree with this. I plan to make changes to the userpage, I just haven't gotten to modifying it yet.



quoting_mungo said:


> * I'd like to see ad placement in the sample pages ASAP; ad spots _really_ should not come in as an afterthought. I also have to pre-emptively object if all ad spots are planned to go in the footer. FA strives to have community-relevant ads, so why should the ads be hidden away at the foot of the page?


I'll talk to Dragoneer about what he'd like to do with ads.



quoting_mungo said:


> * What does the "visit page" button do?


I have no idea of it's intended purpose, I'll probably remove it or something. Again, this is just the original template page.


quoting_mungo said:


> * Where do you plan to put all the other menu options? Scaling down a menu to the essentials isn't _bad_, per se, but some of the menu options (e.g. the staff page) really ought to be readily available. I do ask that you _please_ not use the current drop-down menu system; the CSS-based dropdowns on FA don't work in IE8 with compatibility mode off, and at least the sample page gets misaligned graphics and other similar problems in IE8 with compatibility mode _on_. This _could_ just be a matter of something as simple as reordering some tags, I've not looked closely enough at the code to say, but I think this is still worth mentioning.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of the current menu system either. As far as what will be included on the menu, this'll be something that will have to be discussed.


Thanks again for your helpful posts, guys!


----------



## Smelge (Jan 19, 2011)

As long as a cinema view doesn't require plugins or any crap like that. Nothing is more irritating than trying to use a site, and having to install a plugin.


----------



## Hinoarashi (Jan 19, 2011)

There's a major thing that stands out to me. I feel as if though there should be more contrast between the page's background and text. It's a little rough for me to read it at a glance.

The text could be just a little more lighter. I don't know a good way to put it, but light grey on grey opposed to a _lighter_ grey on a grey background.


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

Smelge said:


> As long as a cinema view doesn't require plugins or any crap like that. Nothing is more irritating than trying to use a site, and having to install a plugin.


 
Definitely. I hate plugins. >:|


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 19, 2011)

Hinoarashi said:


> There's a major thing that stands out to me. I feel as if though there should be more contrast between the page's background and text. It's a little rough for me to read it at a glance.
> 
> The text could be just a little more lighter. I don't know a good way to put it, but light grey on grey opposed to a _lighter_ grey on a grey background.


 I agree. Lighter text would be great, especially in the comments and journal sections where the background is even lighter.

Also, I notice that Trouble Tickets don't seem to be readily accessible. I'd suggest making those maybe one-click away (say, a link at the bottom with the Submission Guidelines, TOS, and AUP links) or enabling an easy-to-use "Report Submission", "Report Comment", and "Report Journal" function. *Edit:* Disregard that, I'm blind apparently.

I like the narrower comments. With the current version, sometimes if an image is too wide, it stretches the page, thus stretching the comments, and it's a pain having to scroll sideways. Will there be automatic linebreaks to prevent people from breaking the page with a long stream of spaceless text?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 19, 2011)

Some thoughts on the submission page, then:

Really not sure what to think about having the submission info/description to the side of the piece. I will say it would be a shame to lose the ability to automatically load things in full-view, though, so I don't think full-view should cover up the description. I think having the description underneath is probably the safer bet, for the sake of logistics and screen balance. If the description box stays to the side of the actual image, I'd say don't have the lighter grey hit the edge of the "content area" but format it more like the journal on the sample userpage.

The little icons, I can take or leave. I don't hate them, but compare their saturation to the other color elements on the page; they draw the eye a bit too much and would probably blend in better a bit more muted. Also, the relatively long line "General Furry Art - Tame" makes the icons on the left-hand side of the submission info kind of detached from their content. Something I'd suggest trying is make the first column right-aligned, with the icons on the right, then the vertical ruler, then the second column (which has more uniform content width) left-aligned, with the content on the left. It looks good in my head, at least. (Also, I'm sure you've thought of this, but obviously the little icons need mouseover/alt text with the text of the header they're replacing.)

As for the comments, a few changes I think would make them flow better:
* Slightly less space between icon and comment (as-is, the comment is approximately as close to the comment below as it is to the icon associated with it)
* Make the top edge of the icon align with the top edge of the username, instead of making the icon vertically centered compared to the username text. Since the comment is below the username text, I have a feeling this would improve coherency. The vertical alignment works on the shouts because there's a graphical element lining up with the top of the icon; not so much here.
* I totally agree with limiting the width of comment boxes to not get ridiculously long lines. The drawback is that it makes the comment section look a bit imbalanced when comments don't go very deep. I'd say let the comments thread the way they do there, but try to center the total of it in the layout box where possible. Especially Nam's icon touching the edge of the layout makes it feel off-kilter. I might also decrease the curving of the comment boxes' corners a tad, just enough that one-line comments don't get completely rounded sides. 

Also: Yay report button. About time.


----------



## SkieFire (Jan 19, 2011)

I'd trim some space between the fave/watch/download/report links and the stuff below. The same with the transition between the quick gallery and the profile info, there is just too much unused space there.

Personally I would swap the Journal and page shouts locations over. Journals should take precedence over other users adding stuff to peoples pages.

How is the user info going to be handled for blank fields? Right now the site allows a huge amount of linking to other pages and general information, so what happens if everything is left blank/everything is filled in? Icons to link to other websites would be neat (so say use the favicons of other art sites/journals etc instead of text links)


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

dodgerwolf said:


> I agree. Lighter text would be great, especially in the comments and journal sections where the background is even lighter.
> 
> Also, I notice that Trouble Tickets don't seem to be readily accessible. I'd suggest making those maybe one-click away (say, a link at the bottom with the Submission Guidelines, TOS, and AUP links) or enabling an easy-to-use "Report Submission", "Report Comment", and "Report Journal" function. *Edit:* Disregard that, I'm blind apparently.
> 
> I like the narrower comments. With the current version, sometimes if an image is too wide, it stretches the page, thus stretching the comments, and it's a pain having to scroll sideways. Will there be automatic linebreaks to prevent people from breaking the page with a long stream of spaceless text?


 Adjusted some of the font colors to increase contrast. What do you think?


----------



## Zydala (Jan 19, 2011)

I think the lighter text looks nicer :]

maybe instead of a lightbox feature we could just have a 'download' feature? I kind of like it when image sites let me just open the picture by itself in a tab so I can use it for reference (with stock photos) and not worry about the rest of the page or accidentally exiting out of it by clicking outside the box etc

EDIT: WAIT you already have a download link nevermind derp derp


----------



## Smelge (Jan 19, 2011)

Actually, talking of this stuff. Could we possibly have the option to upload a transparent watermark, and when we upload stuff, have the option to insert the watermark?


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

quoting_mungo said:


> Some thoughts on the submission page, then:
> 
> Really not sure what to think about having the submission info/description to the side of the piece. I will say it would be a shame to lose the ability to automatically load things in full-view, though, so I don't think full-view should cover up the description. I think having the description underneath is probably the safer bet, for the sake of logistics and screen balance. If the description box stays to the side of the actual image, I'd say don't have the lighter grey hit the edge of the "content area" but format it more like the journal on the sample userpage.


 Okay. I'll continue to think about what would work best here.



quoting_mungo said:


> The little icons, I can take or leave. I don't hate them, but compare their saturation to the other color elements on the page; they draw the eye a bit too much and would probably blend in better a bit more muted. Also, the relatively long line "General Furry Art - Tame" makes the icons on the left-hand side of the submission info kind of detached from their content. Something I'd suggest trying is make the first column right-aligned, with the icons on the right, then the vertical ruler, then the second column (which has more uniform content width) left-aligned, with the content on the left. It looks good in my head, at least. (Also, I'm sure you've thought of this, but obviously the little icons need mouseover/alt text with the text of the header they're replacing.)


Changed how the icons are, and also added mouseover text.



quoting_mungo said:


> As for the comments, a few changes I think would make them flow better:
> * Slightly less space between icon and comment (as-is, the comment is approximately as close to the comment below as it is to the icon associated with it)
> * Make the top edge of the icon align with the top edge of the username, instead of making the icon vertically centered compared to the username text. Since the comment is below the username text, I have a feeling this would improve coherency. The vertical alignment works on the shouts because there's a graphical element lining up with the top of the icon; not so much here.
> * I totally agree with limiting the width of comment boxes to not get ridiculously long lines. The drawback is that it makes the comment section look a bit imbalanced when comments don't go very deep. I'd say let the comments thread the way they do there, but try to center the total of it in the layout box where possible. Especially Nam's icon touching the edge of the layout makes it feel off-kilter. I might also decrease the curving of the comment boxes' corners a tad, just enough that one-line comments don't get completely rounded sides.


Changed a bunch of stuff here. What do you think?


quoting_mungo said:


> Also: Yay report button. About time.


Definitely!


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Actually, talking of this stuff. Could we possibly have the option to upload a transparent watermark, and when we upload stuff, have the option to insert the watermark?


 That would be awesome! You'd have to talk to the yak about that, though, as that's more of a coding side modification than a UI side one.


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 19, 2011)

ab2525 said:


> Changed how the icons are, and also added mouseover text.


Ooh, I like the layout of the icons and submission information much better this way! Looks much more uniform. And the lighter text is easier on the eyes. Yes, looking good so far!


----------



## ab2525 (Jan 19, 2011)

dodgerwolf said:


> Ooh, I like the layout of the icons and submission information much better this way! Looks much more uniform. And the lighter text is easier on the eyes. Yes, looking good so far!


 Excellent, glad you like it!


----------



## Werewolfhero (Jan 19, 2011)

Thoughts on the user page - In the picture thumbnails area, the "gallery" "favorites"and "visit page" buttons/links underneath the thumbnails could be edited out since they already exist above the thumbnails.

other than that the layout looks fine.

Will the new one retain the "Stats" like the current one has? Just wondering cause I've liked that feature.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 19, 2011)

Could I request a change to the banner showing on the test page? It's a horrible one. Use a nice one that doesn't repulse people. Like this one: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5005527/

No, but seriously, update it to the current banner or something. If I recall, the fat bunnies one got a shitload of people moaning about it, and it's not nice to drag that one back up again.


----------



## Accountability (Jan 19, 2011)

Going off the Submission page, but several of these apply for the others...

-Layout is too narrow. Seriously? 925px across? My screen resolution is twice that. Pages should be fluid. Wasn't the whole reason FA has fluid pages *NOW* because they were "preparing" us for the new UI?
-For a static page there is too much blank space. I don't know why FA has a fetish for blank space but it's something that should be avoided when it's used like it is.
-Why is the upload date styled as a button? Why is this information repeated within the header? Remove the button version. 
-The comment count information also repeats too. 
-If anything should be formatted as a button, it should be +Fav and Download. Watch (should be changed to "Watch this user") and Report can stay where they are.
--The Icons associated with comments need to be made bigger and stylized somehow. Maybe a drop shadow, or an outline. Date/time need to be added, obviously. I'd suggest making it part of the name line; "[name] left this comment at [date]" and "[name] left this comment at [date] in reply to [name]". 
--"Post comment" should be aligned to the right of the textbox (when added) for a more logical flow.

Userpage specific:
-I feel like profile info, user info, and character info would look so much better in their own little boxes.

That's all I can come up with for now.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 19, 2011)

quoting_mungo said:


> Really not sure what to think about having the submission info/description to the side of the piece. I will say it would be a shame to lose the ability to automatically load things in full-view, though, so I don't think full-view should cover up the description. I think having the description underneath is probably the safer bet, for the sake of logistics and screen balance. If the description box stays to the side of the actual image, I'd say don't have the lighter grey hit the edge of the "content area" but format it more like the journal on the sample userpage.


 
This is more or less my immediate reaction (other than I actually really like the way the userpage looks!). Of course, I'm coming from a writers' perspective; certainly, having a full-screen text story rendered in a column with another column to the side containing the description wouldn't look terribly good. Keep the description at the bottom of the submission (or, perhaps, move it to the top!).


----------



## thoron (Jan 19, 2011)

I just hope the offical release looks better then this in IE, http://d.facdn.net/art/thoron/1295495280.thoron_new_ui.jpg aside from that it looks okay.
I also hope that its been tested on all the common browsers so it doesn't become a repeat of SoFurry's launch.
I will be honest though, I do like the current UI so I hope there's an option to switch back.


----------



## onta (Jan 20, 2011)

A while ago I had modified the official release of the new look.

I made some revisions (you will see them on the right).

I have also captured all feedback and comments based on the modifications in questions with almost a hundred replies I could safely say that any comments that come up often are a good direction on things. 

My real concerns where allowing the content more room since FA IS a content site and removing redundant and pointless info like telling me who I am and showing me an icon when space like that can be better used for other things.

Dragoneer has seen this before and felt it had some good comments (before he asked me to take it down to due to TOS lol)

Layout edit can be found here.
http://hardblush.com/index.jpg


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 20, 2011)

ab2525 said:


> Changed how the icons are, and also added mouseover text.


Much better. I still say the first column should have the text right-aligned, though. I loves me my symmetry. 



> Changed a bunch of stuff here. What do you think?


Much better! Kudos for listening and tweaking so fast!



			
				thoron said:
			
		

> I just hope the offical release looks better then this in IE, http://d.facdn.net/art/thoron/129549...ron_new_ui.jpg aside from that it looks okay.


I'll note in passing that the copy 'Neer uploaded worked fine in IE, so I presume that it will eventually be tweaked for all browsers. Because, yeah, a repeat of the SF launch would be terribly failsome. (Especially the part where _staff_ told me to switch browsers...)


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 20, 2011)

Accountability said:


> -Layout is too narrow. Seriously? 925px across? My screen resolution is twice that. Pages should be fluid. Wasn't the whole reason FA has fluid pages *NOW* because they were "preparing" us for the new UI?


 I agree. Now, it looks great on my little netbook, but the netbook isn't my primary FA-browsing computer. There's a lot of dead space on my main laptop which makes it seem really wasted. My laptop is 1280px wide, and I think most people have a resolution that's at least that.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2011)

dodgerwolf said:


> I agree. Now, it looks great on my little netbook, but the netbook isn't my primary FA-browsing computer. There's a lot of dead space on my main laptop which makes it seem really wasted. My laptop is 1280px wide, and I think most people have a resolution that's at least that.


 The final version will be fluid. we're designing it for the lowest resolution first, then will enable a fluid version for the final.


----------



## Werewolfhero (Jan 20, 2011)

The onta version is good too but still you don't need two Gallery and two Favorites links on the same page, let alone just inches apart from eachother.


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> The final version will be fluid. we're designing it for the lowest resolution first, then will enable a fluid version for the final.


 Ah, well all right! Carry on then.

Speaking of, is there going to be an open beta for this new UI, 'Neer?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2011)

dodgerwolf said:


> Speaking of, is there going to be an open beta for this new UI, 'Neer?


 Not yet. Everything will go into open beta by mid-late May.


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Not yet. Everything will go into open beta by mid-late May.


 Awesome! Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> The final version will be fluid. we're designing it for the lowest resolution first, then will enable a fluid version for the final.


This doesn't make any sense and is not how web design works.  Converting fixed to fluid is a nontrivial operation.




quoting_mungo said:


> I'll note in passing that the copy 'Neer uploaded worked fine in IE, so I presume that it will eventually be tweaked for all browsers. Because, yeah, a repeat of the SF launch would be terribly failsome. (Especially the part where _staff_ told me to switch browsers...)


I don't go out of my way to break IE, but I don't go out of my way to fix it either.  "Tweak" here (a word that incites my rage when used by non-developers to refer to development) often means "spend eight hours trying to find a hack that navigates around a series of twenty undocumented and ill-understood bugs in a nine-year-old browser".

If you're using IE, switch browsers.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2011)

Eevee said:


> This doesn't make any sense and is not how web design works.  Converting fixed to fluid is a nontrivial operation.


 Not trivial, but not impossible to offer versions of both.


----------



## Pi (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Not trivial, but not impossible to offer versions of both.


Do you know what would be better than sitting here excusing why doing the nontrivial and broken thing is somehow right for this one case?

Doing the _right thing_. You know, like you keep SAYING you want to, but never actually end up DOING?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2011)

Pi said:


> Do you know what would be better than sitting here excusing why doing the nontrivial and broken thing is somehow right for this one case?
> 
> Doing the _right thing_. You know, like you keep SAYING you want to, but never actually end up DOING?


 We will be doing the right thing. We will not release the UI until it's revised, polished and done how it should be, and how it should be the first time.


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 20, 2011)

Eevee said:


> I don't go out of my way to break IE, but I don't go out of my way to fix it either.  "Tweak" here (a word that incites my rage when used by non-developers to refer to development) often means "spend eight hours trying to find a hack that navigates around a series of twenty undocumented and ill-understood bugs in a nine-year-old browser".
> 
> If you're using IE, switch browsers.


Thank you. I didn't want to be the one to be all, "OMG y u no use Firefox/Chrome!?" Seriously, use a different browser that doesn't make everything look like garbage.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Not trivial, but not impossible to offer versions of both.


Doing both is (a) a colossal waste of time/resources and (b) contradictory to what I quoted you as saying.

Why do you do this?  Why do you have to contrive to always appear right?  You claim to want to change, you claim to want to improve, you claim to value input, and yet you continue to pull micro-stunts like this.  I genuinely do not understand.

Nothing will ever change until you can admit to being wrong.  As a habit, not a PR move.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2011)

dodgerwolf said:


> Thank you. I didn't want to be the one to be all, "OMG y u no use Firefox/Chrome!?" Seriously, use a different browser that doesn't make everything look like garbage.


 Basically, IE9 should fix all of this (realistically) but it will be coded in the final version to work in IE7/8 (unlike the current version of the site now.


----------



## Pi (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> We will be doing the right thing. We will not release the UI until it's revised, polished and done how it should be, and how it should be the first time.


 
????????

I don't give a damn about your release schedule or the amount of polish you apply, Sean. It was _just_ pointed out to you that converting a fixed layout to a fluid layout is nontrivial, ie wrong. Doing it this way is _not the right thing_.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 20, 2011)

Wow, some people will find anything to bicker about. It's all I can say. It'll be nice when the new layout goes into effect. :3


----------



## Pi (Jan 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Wow, some people will find anything to bicker about. It's all I can say. It'll be nice when the new layout goes into effect. :3


 
It'll be _nice_ when the broken-by-design, hastily-converted-from-fixed-to-fluid layout goes into effect? Are you being deliberately apathetic and obtuse?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 20, 2011)

Pi said:


> It'll be _nice_ when the broken-by-design, hastily-converted-from-fixed-to-fluid layout goes into effect? Are you being deliberately apathetic and obtuse?


 
It will be nice to see a new layout on FA. Stop being such a puss.

EDIT: I just looked at the comment thing. Would it be possible to put the comment thing at the top of the list of comments instead of all the way at the bottom? Seems a little easier to not have to scroll down to the bottom to post a comment. It's trivial as you can scroll down but still an observation.


----------



## Pi (Jan 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> It will be nice to see a new layout on FA. Stop being such a puss.


 
I'm not being a puss, dude. I'm calling Dragoneer out for saying "i want to do this right" and then ignoring people when they say "hey what you're doing is emphatically not right".

If you're going to tell me that I'm a puss, i'm going to tell  you to quit sucking up and to quit focusing on appearances.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Wow, some people will find anything to bicker about.


Things do not improve without criticismâ€”which is why this thread was created, anyway.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 20, 2011)

Pi said:


> I'm not being a puss, dude. I'm calling Dragoneer out for saying "i want to do this right" and then ignoring people when they say "hey what you're doing is emphatically not right".
> 
> If you're going to tell me that I'm a puss, i'm going to tell  you to quit sucking up and to quit focusing on appearances.


 
Oh bless your little cotton socks. You think you are everyone. It's okay people make that mistake time to time. But...isn't this thread supposed to be about constructive criticism for the thing? I can't quite agree what you are doing here is constructive.



Eevee said:


> Things do not improve without criticismâ€”which is why this thread was created, anyway.


 
senseless bickering =/= constructive criticism.


----------



## Pi (Jan 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh bless your little cotton socks. You think you are everyone. It's okay people make that mistake time to time. But...isn't this thread supposed to be about constructive criticism for the thing? I can't quite agree what you are doing here is constructive.


 
I'm kind of tired of having to repeat this, but there is a six-year history here of people involved with the site making grandiose claims of wanting to do the right thing, or in fact things at all. There is also a six-year history of multiple people making criticism and having it ignored or responded to with the exact kind of smug, appearance-focused, proudly-ignorant attitude that you are displaying.

The fact that I'm delivering criticism is not, as you seem to think, indicative of a problem on my end. I can't agree that your remarks (really, calling me a puss was uncalled for) belong anywhere near this thread.


----------



## Accountability (Jan 20, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh bless your little cotton socks. You think you are everyone. It's okay people make that mistake time to time. But...isn't this thread supposed to be about constructive criticism for the thing? I can't quite agree what you are doing here is constructive.  senseless bickering =/= constructive criticism.


  Let me explain how this thread has gone on so far:  AB2525 posts and asks for feedback. People give feedback. Dragoneer responds to feedback. Some people question that feedback. HI GUYS I'M TRPDWARF STOP COMPLAINING THE NEW UI IS GREAT YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF WHINERS.  Do you see where the problem started?  Aaaaaanyyywayyyy... I don't quite understand why the fixed stylesheet is being worked on *first*. The fluid style would be used much more, so it makes sense to design everything with the fluid stylesheet, and then later tighten things up for the fixed stylesheet. It also makes a huge difference when asking for feedback...


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2011)

Accountability said:


> Let me explain how this thread has gone on so far:  AB2525 posts and asks for feedback. People give feedback. Dragoneer responds to feedback. Some people question that feedback. HI GUYS I'M TRPDWARF STOP COMPLAINING THE NEW UI IS GREAT YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF WHINERS.  Do you see where the problem started?  Aaaaaanyyywayyyy... I don't quite understand why the fixed stylesheet is being worked on *first*. The fluid style would be used much more, so it makes sense to design everything with the fluid stylesheet, and then later tighten things up for the fixed stylesheet. It also makes a huge difference when asking for feedback...


 And Pi has value points, too. Part of the reason I want to potentially keep a fixed layout is for iPad/tablet support (modified UI for that). But the default and real UI will be a fluid design, similar to how it is now. Only not so... bad.


----------



## Pi (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> And Pi has value points, too.


Holy christ, did you just admit this in public? Next you'll say that I might have some "good points" as regards your site's security!


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 20, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> And Pi has value points, too. Part of the reason I want to potentially keep a fixed layout is for iPad/tablet support (modified UI for that). But the default and real UI will be a fluid design, similar to how it is now. Only not so... bad.


 
Can't you start with a fluid layout for users of computers (how most people use FA) and then add a separate stylesheet for tablets?  Why would the default UI be fixed at any point if it's going to have to be converted anyway?  that does add unnecessary work, especially when tablets/mobile devices would need restructuring anyway.  The main priority should be traditional computer use, then for "nice to have," mobile devices, then tablets.  There are many more smartphones than tablets, and I'd assume the same applies for the furry population.  And that's, again, not even addressing that this is an interfacelift- there's still a lot to do with the underlying code.  Security, efficiency..  Stuff people won't notice once it's fixed, but they do notice it when it breaks.  Is it just easier to make the site look fresh and new when the underlying code is still broken, since that's what people will notice?  I'm trying to figure out these priorities.

p.s. lol at trpdwarf


----------



## Rossyfox (Jan 20, 2011)

Can't you just design a fluid layout, then fix it to a certain size by encasing the whole thing in one fixed width element? I don't understand why the fixed design would be the place to start, then.


----------



## thoron (Jan 21, 2011)

Eevee said:


> I don't go out of my way to break IE, but I don't go out of my way to fix it either.  "Tweak" here (a word that incites my rage when used by non-developers to refer to development) often means "spend eight hours trying to find a hack that navigates around a series of twenty undocumented and ill-understood bugs in a nine-year-old browser".
> 
> If you're using IE, switch browsers.



I guess I should have specified that when I said IE, I was refering to IE7 and up.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 21, 2011)

thoron said:


> I guess I should have specified that when I said IE, I was refering to IE7 and up.


IE7 is still quite broken.  Perhaps worse, as it's broken in ways that haven't been thoroughly researched.

IE8 is rather less broken, but still infuriatingly stagnant.


----------



## Kiszka (Jan 22, 2011)

I totally figured out what the 'Visit Page' button is supposed to be. It's what takes you to the artwork page of the piece you are previewing on the user's profile.


----------



## Kiszka (Jan 22, 2011)

thoron said:


> I just hope the offical release looks better then this in IE, http://d.facdn.net/art/thoron/1295495280.thoron_new_ui.jpg aside from that it looks okay.
> I also hope that its been tested on all the common browsers so it doesn't become a repeat of SoFurry's launch.
> I will be honest though, I do like the current UI so I hope there's an option to switch back.


 
ditch internet exploder. NAO


----------



## Werewolfhero (Jan 22, 2011)

would suggest Palemoon (a firefox mod) doesn't have the memory leak issues that the real firefox has.

And personally glad that they're taking their time to get the new design right the first time so my message box wont be filled with rants about how bad the new ui works, (although theres probably gonna be just as many who will dislike the change). Also guessing its taking awhile so that the new features can be added into the layout such as folder support. So all those complaining about the release date, just take your ADHD meds and give them time to do their job.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 22, 2011)

Werewolfhero said:


> would suggest Palemoon (a firefox mod) doesn't have the memory leak issues that the real firefox has.
> 
> And personally glad that they're taking their time to get the new design right the first time so my message box wont be filled with rants about how bad the new ui works, (although theres probably gonna be just as many who will dislike the change). Also guessing its taking awhile so that the new features can be added into the layout such as folder support. So all those complaining about the release date, just take your ADHD meds and *give them time to do their job.*


 
I dunno, they've had six years and glaring, known security problems go unfixed.  And finally, the action that is taken after FA was attacked several times in December...  ...Is to make it look pretty?  Not only that, but declare "we have people on it" but refuse to say who they are (leading many to reasonably believe this is completely false, going by the administration's history,) while outright turning down people who want to help now because the site, as it stands, has serious problems that aren't being fixed in the meantime.

This isn't about them "doing their best" it's a pattern of failure and bad priorities that hurt the entire userbase, and it really is all the people people like you that let this happen.  Stop arguing from a position of "I like FA, therefore FA is good, therefore any criticism is that of haters and trolls and people who want to see FA fail" when in many cases they are trying to avoid *exactly that*.  Outside of Arcturus and a few others, these people didn't start working on their site until they completely exhausted any possibility of helping FA, and only started working once they were seriously insulted for trying to be of assistance.  And even then, people like Pi can't not still make an effort because FA is so large and affects so many people.

Meanwhile the staff of FA are acting like Bilbo Baggins toward Gandalf's attempts to help.  Sean Piche, do not take them for some conjurers of cheap tricks! They are not trying to rob you. They are trying to help you.

:V

again I must point out that painting a house is nice to do but you should probably fix the broken windows and unhinged doors first


----------



## Pi (Jan 22, 2011)

â€”


----------



## Gunge (Jan 22, 2011)

Heeey you guys changed it! I like it a lot more than the first time  The design as in the colours and font sizes are far better.
I love how there's a character info spot, but is it optional? I know a lot of people with multiple characters, there could be an option of having more than one (but having a limit of three maybe). 
Also I think the order or the whole gallery=journal thing going on in the current FA. It's really, really good if you skip over to someone's page to say something, 'cause you know how they're feeling right off the dot. For example, if their dog died, it's pretty bad if you didn't notice in the journal and run over singing love songs and saying how much you love their art 
What I want to know, is what happens when you click 'gallery', 'journal', etc., and 'visit page'? The gallery seems to be already there, and the journal, and the whole thing is the page...? I guess they just go to the whole page showing all the gallery. By the way, I really like how we can change how much fits on a page at the moment. I like the defaults. But, one interesting thing to try might be scroll buttons to go to the next page of gallery/forwards/last/first/etc., from the user page. But hey it might be kinda useless unless you're trying to quickly find something specific in there... I don't know but I do love having the ability to have the half-views without going to the individual submission page. 
One thing I REALLY want next time,  is the ability to search and browse at the same time. I love both functions we have as they are, but I'd also lvoe to be able to narrow down my categories of 'weasel' by searching 'Harley', or narrow down 'transformation' with 'paint'. The ' - tame' ' - mature' bits at the ends of the list categories irritate me, too xP
I also see you've taken off the 'notes' button at the top of the page. I actually found that really helpful.  I was also thinking lately, it'd be good if we could search through our notes. Eg: We sent notes to Symmie a while back, but I down't remember about them... I'll search user:symmie, oh there we go found them. 
I'd be thrilled if some of these were looked at


----------



## Accountability (Jan 22, 2011)

Kiszka said:


> Disagree, disagree, disagree.
> ...Disagree.


 
Hi there!

Would you care to explain why? Are you some kind of expert designer? Or are you just trying to look like a kool kid for disagreeing with someone who has a history of not sucking the collective dick of FA? I'm guessing it's the latter.


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 22, 2011)

I have to agree that it's better to make the layout fluid from the start.  Changing a fixed layout to fluid without breaking appearance and usability is as trivial as changing an old-style Volkswagen Beetle to use a Subaru engine: doable and a huge improvement in the end, but time consuming, resource intensive, and unnecessary if it can be started during the design phase.

Regarding the mock-up at http://74.96.123.64/FALayout/userpage_public.php, the triplet of links on the thumbnails (gallery, favorites, visit page) serve no meaningful purpose, duplicating better-placed links nearby, and get in the way while doing that nothing.



Kiszka said:


> ditch internet exploder. NAO


 
While I personally agree with this statement, it has little relevance to the topic at hand.  Web sites must remain at the very least presentable and functional in IE until IE's marketshare drops below Safari's.


----------



## Kiszka (Jan 23, 2011)

Accountability said:


> Hi there!
> 
> Would you care to explain why? Are you some kind of expert designer? Or are you just trying to look like a kool kid for disagreeing with someone who has a history of not sucking the collective dick of FA? I'm guessing it's the latter.





Accountability said:


> -Layout is too narrow. Seriously? 925px across? My screen resolution is twice that. Pages should be fluid. Wasn't the whole reason FA has fluid pages *NOW* because they were "preparing" us for the new UI?


I don't think the layout is too narrow. I have a super widescreen laptop, and I actually find it nicer when websites have a layout that Doesnt stretch with my screen size. It makes it so much easier to read everything. When it comes to forums, I actually tend to purposely take the tab out of my browser and size it down to make navigating more fluid.


Accountability said:


> -For a static page there is too much blank space. I don't know why FA has a fetish for blank space but it's something that should be avoided when it's used like it is.


The blank space is used tastefully. Layouts are as much what you do with space-fillers as what you do with the space itself.


Accountability said:


> -Why is the upload date styled as a button? Why is this information repeated within the header? Remove the button version.


I can bet you anything, its so you can search art that was posted on that date. Don't remove it.


Accountability said:


> -If anything should be formatted as a button, it should be +Fav and Download. Watch (should be changed to "Watch this user") and Report can stay where they are.


I like Fav, Watch, Download and Report exactly as they are. Unless you have the IQ of a guinea pig, I can assure you that everyone knows what Watch means. (Also the reason they did it that way was for consistency. One word for each link)


Accountability said:


> --"Post comment" should be aligned to the right of the textbox (when added) for a more logical flow.


Putting Post Comment on the other side would look weird. So no.

Also, the reason I replied to you is that you were being a douche.


----------



## Konda (Jan 23, 2011)

It could make sense for "Watch" to be next to user's name/icon, rather than next to "fave" and "download".



Kiszka said:


> I can bet you anything, its so you can search art that was posted on that date.



What would be the point of doing that..

edit: In that case why aren't "Male" and "General Furry Art- Tame" buttons
or dimensions, so you can find other submissions that are 762x956
or submissions which have exactly 15 comments


----------



## Accountability (Jan 23, 2011)

Kiszka said:


> I don't think the layout is too narrow. I have a super widescreen laptop, and I actually find it nicer when websites have a layout that Doesnt stretch with my screen size. It makes it so much easier to read everything. When it comes to forums, I actually tend to purposely take the tab out of my browser and size it down to make navigating more fluid.
> 
> The blank space is used tastefully. Layouts are as much what you do with space-fillers as what you do with the space itself.



Specifically on the submission page, there is a massive amount of blank space around the submission itself. My browser window is roughly the same height as this entire area, and roughly 25% of the space is blank, not including the sides. The submission should be scaled up to fit this area better. The submission that's there could roughly be scaled 150%  and there'd still be room to spare.



> I can bet you anything, its so you can search art that was posted on that date. Don't remove it.


That would be the most ridiculous feature on FurAffinity. Give me one good reason you'd need to be able to pull up all the submissions from a given date.



> I like Fav, Watch, Download and Report exactly as they are. Unless you have the IQ of a guinea pig, I can assure you that everyone knows what Watch means. (Also the reason they did it that way was for consistency. One word for each link)


And there will always be the person who has an IQ lower than a guinea pig that will wonder what it means. It's out of context with the rest of the links. Favorite (this submission), Watch (this user), Download (this submission), Report (this submission): One of these things is not like the other...



> Putting Post Comment on the other side would look weird. So no.

















I'm sorry, but the rest of the internet disagrees.



> Also, the reason I replied to you is that you were being a douche.


I was doing exactly what the OP asked for, and several users agreed with my points. How is that being "a douche"? Or was I just supposed to post "Hey that's great guys FA is fantastic you all do a wonderful job there is nothing wrong with this at all thanks Dragoneer!"?


----------



## DragonTalon (Jan 24, 2011)

I also vote for make it fluid like FA is now.  One of my favorite things about FA is the fluid displays for submissions and galleries.  

The first thing I did when I saw the new layout was cringe because 2/3 of my display was blank space.

I very much agree, design it fluid and THEN worry about making a special page for people on their iPhone.  Most people will be using computers, so the effort should go there.  I don't want to have to suffer with some bug or limitation just to make browsing on my phone (which is ALWAYS going to suck) be a bit better.  No matter how you 'fix' it later, if it's not desicned to be fluid from the start it's going to suffer and miss out on design features it could have had.

Also.. is multi-gallery/favorites support going to be in the new ui?  I VERY much would love to separate out my gallery into multiple sections.

Looks good though.  Everyone will have their issues, but overall it looks clean.

(My issue is of course, fluid layout please!)


----------



## Rossyfox (Jan 24, 2011)

Mobile views often work best when there is more to them than just a fixed width anyway.


----------



## Silberry (Jan 24, 2011)

TakeWalker said:


> ... to the side containing the description wouldn't look terribly good. Keep the description at the bottom of the submission...



I have to agree with this. Descriptions on either side of the image really does not look aesthetically pleasing. I personally prefer descriptions below images so you can look at the image, read what the user has to say, and then have the comment box right below it. The problem with having the submission description above the piece is that people are more likely to skip what you have to say, look at what you submitted, and then write a comment without bothering to scroll back up and read your description. (Also, if you write a lot in descriptions, the page doesn't look so good anymore if the description is on top. XD)

Also, I agree with whoever it was that suggested that there should be a comment box above the mass of comments, and also a comment box below the mass of comments. Some users just receive a whole crapton of comments that you have to scroll past in order to write something. Also, by having a comment box immediately below the description enables the user to comment on something that was said in the description above without, again, having to scroll back up and down. Definitely not a high priority, but a suggestion nonetheless.


----------



## Sanyi (Jan 24, 2011)

I haven't really read over the contents of the thread yet, just kind of glanced over it.

1) Lighten the text. I've tried viewing it on several different monitors, and could only read it without giving myself a headache on one of them. The whole gray, on gray, on gray thing is really tough on the eyes.

2) I don't like how the image and the description/buttons are side-by-side. This will make viewing the image in full-view a royal pain in the butt. If you're going to be making it so that the image is on top of the description/buttons when in Full view as it is on the main site *now* than please disregard this.

3) On the submissions page there is too much dead space in the comments. I would suggest using the full width and tightening up on the space between comments.

4) Instead of scrolling the entire page to read through the comments, why not make a scrollable area with a maximum height of 500-600px (ish?) and then put the "add a comment" stuff underneath said area? That way the people who don't want to read through what could be 1000+ (*cough*Fisk*cough*) comments can just skip right down to the reply without having to scroll through a ton of stuff.

5) Where are you going to fit tags on the submission page?

6) I'm not a fan of how the "Posted/Theme/Favorites/etc" area is so up in your face. When I click an image the first thing I want to see is the image itself, and who done it.

7) Like #6 I'm not a fan of how the "you have XXXXX messages" bar is up in your face. Could you move it so it's like how it is on the main site now? It would really save some space and move it to an out of the way place where it is still easily accessible.

8) Remove the "Visit Page" button and just make it so that when you scroll over the word you want (eg. Gallery) it switches to that view, and if you click on the link it actually sends you to that page.

9) Instead of using word links like we always have for things like "Add to Favorites" (also: shortening it to just "Fave" made me go "wtf?") and all that jazz, why don't we just change it up to small buttons (20x20px?). It would really help space on space, especially if you moved said buttons (related to #2)



That's all I got for now. I'll look over it again later.


----------



## Frank-Raccoon (Jan 24, 2011)

ab2525 said:


> Instead of having "half-view" and "full-view", I was thinking of having "half-view", "full-view" and "cinema-view" (or another name), wherein cinema-view expands and centers the image, and darkens the rest of the page, like the lightbox javascript plugin. Thoughts?
> Thoughts on using icons instead of text for submission info?
> Thoughts on how the comments are displayed?
> 
> --Alex



1. Hmm, the cinema view sounds like a real nice idea. On the subject of picture size and stuff... I'm shamelessly taking this idea from deviantart, would there be a way to implement once in cinema mode or something to look through the rest of their gallery like a slide show? 'Cept here we wouldn't have to pay for it. =P

2. I think they look pretty good! It had me confused for a second, but it didn't take long at all to figure out what each one was.

3. Hm, looks fine to me. Will it still stretch the page if someone posts a a long line of characters that doesn't have any spaces?


----------



## Werewolfhero (Jan 25, 2011)

> 3. Hm, looks fine to me. Will it still stretch the page if someone posts a a long line of characters that doesn't have any spaces?



Hope that can be addressed as well, its annoying when people do that.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 25, 2011)

Kiszka said:


> I totally figured out what the 'Visit Page' button is supposed to be. It's what takes you to the artwork page of the piece you are previewing on the user's profile.


 
Oh is that what it is? I was staring at that wondering what the hell it was and feeling stupid.

What's wrong with just clicking it?

Edit: Thanks for changing the banner in the test page, it's much nicer now. That fat bunny one is horrifying.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 25, 2011)

Will we be able to customize anything in the profile such as font size and such like myspace or is it one template and thats it? 
I also feel like there should be a box for the profile user ID picture above the shout box. I keep looking at the page and feel like it is just too word and text heavy.
Maybe a calender could be added somewhere?
I feel it would benefit a lot of artist who want to post when commissions will be done without having to edit a wall of text like some have to do on FA. Also FA could post announcements to the calender that is preset to all of them to note people when the site will be down or an upcoming fur con.


----------



## Konda (Jan 25, 2011)

Sanyi said:


> 4) Instead of scrolling the entire page to read through the comments, why not make a scrollable area with a maximum height of 500-600px (ish?) and then put the "add a comment" stuff underneath said area? That way the people who don't want to read through what could be 1000+ (*cough*Fisk*cough*) comments can just skip right down to the reply without having to scroll through a ton of stuff.


what? noo That will be clunky and claustrophobic and just make it more difficult overall to navigate and read the comments and make the page clunky. Also 500-600? That seems very small. I will politely disagree with this suggestion. I like having all comments on a single page, but there could always be a different solution, such as multiple pages of comments. (maybe 100 comments per page, or be able to choose how many comments per page.) Or just display the most recent comments, and be able to click "see all comments" which would bring up a separate window. (separate window so there's no need to reload the submission each page, nor have to navigate away from the submission)  If the scrollable area idea is used, maybe have the option to make it higher than 500-600. (ideally it should be as big as possible while still fitting in your window so it can be somewhat like viewing the comments normally.)


----------



## Sanyi (Jan 25, 2011)

Konda said:


> what? noo That will be clunky and claustrophobic and just make it more difficult overall to navigate and read the comments and make the page clunky. Also 500-600? That seems very small. I will politely disagree with this suggestion. I like having all comments on a single page, but there could always be a different solution, such as multiple pages of comments. (maybe 100 comments per page, or be able to choose how many comments per page.) Or just display the most recent comments, and be able to click "see all comments" which would bring up a separate window. (separate window so there's no need to reload the submission each page, nor have to navigate away from the submission)  If the scrollable area idea is used, maybe have the option to make it higher than 500-600. (ideally it should be as big as possible while still fitting in your window so it can be somewhat like viewing the comments normally.)


I was just throwing out a guess as to the size of suggested area.

Also, how would it make it "clunky?" All you would see is a scroll bar that, if done right, would blend in with the page itself (if it was visible at all). Or you would be able to scroll through using your mouse wheel.


Multiple pages of comments work as well, or a button that says "show more comments" (that does kind of like what facebook does). Say, 50 comments, then you could see 50 more, then 50 more, etc?


----------



## Konda (Jan 25, 2011)

Sanyi said:


> I was just throwing out a guess as to the size of suggested area.
> 
> Also, how would it make it "clunky?" All you would see is a scroll bar that, if done right, would blend in with the page itself (if it was visible at all). Or you would be able to scroll through using your mouse wheel.


 Well with two scroll bars, we'd frequently move the one we didn't mean to or have to click inside/outside the comments to activate the correct scroll bar. And stuff like: moving the entire page up/down on accident due to reaching the end of the comments.


Sanyi said:


> Multiple pages of comments work as well, or  a button that says "show more comments" (that does kind of like what  facebook does). Say, 50 comments, then you could see 50 more, then 50  more, etc?


Sounds good to me!


----------



## Sanyi (Jan 26, 2011)

Konda said:


> Well with two scroll bars, we'd frequently move the one we didn't mean to or have to click inside/outside the comments to activate the correct scroll bar. And stuff like: moving the entire page up/down on accident due to reaching the end of the comments.


Can't say I've had that problem when I've come across it in other sites, but to each his/her own I guess!


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jan 26, 2011)

I have to agree with Konda regarding the possibility of an internal scrollbar for the comments area; that kind of thing never seems to interact entirely nicely with mouse wheels, much less keyboard scrolling. Splitting comments up into pages when there's a lot of them isn't a bad idea, provided comment threading gets fixed and the pagination preserves threads (I know LJ's comment pagination does this, rather than have a hard limit on exactly how many comments will be displayed on a page).

Honestly, though, at least some of the concerns people have with pages that show a bazillion comments seem like they'd be alleviated by displaying a comment box above and below the comments on submissions that have comemnts.


----------



## Dodger Greywing (Jan 26, 2011)

quoting_mungo said:


> I have to agree with Konda regarding the possibility of an internal scrollbar for the comments area; that kind of thing never seems to interact entirely nicely with mouse wheels, much less keyboard scrolling. Splitting comments up into pages when there's a lot of them isn't a bad idea, provided comment threading gets fixed and the pagination preserves threads (I know LJ's comment pagination does this, rather than have a hard limit on exactly how many comments will be displayed on a page).


LJ's comment system is a good example; it has it's issues, but by and large I really love the system. An example of what NOT to do is whatever the fuck deviantART is doing. All that money they have and they can't even make a coherent comment system that keeps threads together. Oops, we could only fit the first two comments of this thread on the first page, guess it'll just repeat itself on the next page! That's stupid and I hate it.


----------



## DragonTalon (Jan 28, 2011)

I agree with Kinda as well.  No extra scrollbars.  

No "Load 100 more comments" button either please?

If you want a concrete example of why it's a bad idea, I often check for new messages by clicking on a page and hitting the END key.  I don't want to have to scroll down to some window, making sure it isn't too high or too low and then click around to select it so I can scroll to the bottom.  Then click more to go to the top of the PAGE to select my notes or something because now the focus is in that little window.  Ugh.  Separate scrolling areas are always a PITA.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 28, 2011)

A higher-contrast option would be greatly appreciated. I love dark/black backgrounds (as versus white/bright), but a higher contrast colour would need to be used - I can't hardly read anything on either page. Aside from text-colour, I do like all the colours except orange. Not a fan of orange, and when you have such soft colours like the green and blue on there - Then BAM, orange. It draws your eyes from the content, which (short of sparkle stuff) is typically softer in tone. 

Between the Avatar and the info on the right side is a large gap that could probably be filled by expanding the name across it. Possibly enlarging the two "watch" and "send note" buttons as well to fill the gap - Maybe migrate the "journal" over there too, or fill in commision info there. So you end up having a utility left-hand-side, and an art/picture/gallery centered right hand side. 

As far as functionality, as long as it stays simple like FA currently is - And avoids the crappy flash/html shit that DA, Flickr, SoFurry and stuff have going on, I know I'd be happy. 

I'm not a fan of change, and this really doesn't change my mind, or make me like it more...But it's probably one of the _least_ offensive-to-my-visual sensitivities (mostly because I can't read it xD) of a large overhaul. 

The display page of an actual piece should leave all that info _under_ rather than on the side. It would benefit smaller windows, smaller computers, smart phones, and all that - Plus it would remain consistent with FA. Too much change to visual and muscle memory (as seen on Youtube, Facebook, Second Life, etc.) draws lots of 
negativity :c and I know I hate negativity and large changes.

As far as commentry goes. Love the current FA-style, even though it can kinda get retarded by extending out too far with indentation. 

There should be a changeable amount of comments visible - Don't just leave it up to the "View more comments". Say like 10, 30, 50, 100 - You can set these in your preferences, and they will stick to wherever you log in. I prefer changing pages (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) rather than "load more" by a lot.


----------



## DragonTalon (Jan 29, 2011)

Speaking of page styles... one thing that really bugs me is the "worst of both words" combination of page styles.

Each user picks what style they want, and then designs their page around it.  Which means if you are not using the same style they are, the page looks like crap or is unreadable with white text on bright backgrounds.  I'd say at least a third of the pages I visit are unreadable currently.


----------



## Konda (Feb 20, 2011)

How about the option to make gallery thumbnails be not thumbnails but the actual submission file itself, just in non-full-view size.
But, naturally, the tradeoff would be having fewer number of pics be displayed per page. (as low as 4 submissions per page, but I guess it could be as high as 12, or higher)

Clicking the pic would either open the submission page, or open the full-size pic in cinema view.
Or there could be an option to do either. (either in the gallery itself, or in site settings)

Failing that, though, bigger thumbnails/preview sizes is always a plus.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 20, 2011)

Konda said:


> How about the option to make gallery thumbnails be not thumbnails but the actual submission file itself, just in non-full-view size.
> But, naturally, the tradeoff would be having fewer number of pics be displayed per page. (as low as 4 submissions per page, but I guess it could be as high as 12, or higher)
> 
> Clicking the pic would either open the submission page, or open the full-size pic in cinema view.
> ...


 
Because some people are still on slow connections.

It might work if the FA system took the submission, generated the thumbnail if one wasn't submitted, and generate a second thumb of about 300x300, so if you mouseover an interesting looking thumbnail, it expands a fair bit, so you can see if the submission is worth viewing.


----------



## Sanyi (Feb 20, 2011)

Just wondering how this is coming along. I can't seem to get the pages to load anymore, so I'm somewhat curious.


----------



## Ratte (Feb 20, 2011)

Sanyi said:


> Just wondering how this is coming along. I can't seem to get the pages to load anymore, so I'm somewhat curious.


 
Glad I'm not the only one experiencing this issue.  I do recall the on UI thread but that's pretty old.  I want to see what's in store.


----------



## Konda (Feb 21, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Because some people are still on slow connections.



It would be a setting.

(Much like how currently we can set galleries to display up to 60 thumbs at once. And how we can choose to see full-view submissions by default.)


----------



## Sanyi (Mar 24, 2011)

*necro'd*
Just reread some of the thread and apparently the open beta will be mid-late May... ish?  Sad fishstick is sad.
Again, I ask (nicely): could we please get some kind of update on this? This is an update I've been waiting on since... well, a long time and I'm rather impatient about it. :3 
Does the May-ish beta date still stand? Earlier? Later?
What kind of new bling-bling (*shudders* did I actually just say that?) will be added other than what was already mentioned?


Also: this is a "big update!!1111!!!!!!!!!1!" so... why hasn't this been stickied? :3


----------



## kayfox (Mar 26, 2011)

I think they lost the designer that was doing this, but Im not sure since he does not seem to be around much.


----------

