# New Site Look?



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Did we just convert to the sigma site?


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

I used my old bookmark for the old site and the sigma version came up.
So it seems like it might be.


----------



## thoron (Jul 24, 2010)

The new look is horrid, I usually try to find some thing good about the way a site looks, but this time I absolutely hate it. I though we could switch templates but for now it looks like we're stuck with this monstrocity.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

I sure as HELL hope we can get the option of seeing it like before....

*Hey Dragoneer:*

New look SUCKS.


----------



## Clairissa (Jul 24, 2010)

Ugly and stretched... Old look option please =(


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

The sigma test site was better than this was.
Hope look can be changed a little.


----------



## Delta (Jul 24, 2010)

The site layout is bad, and everyone involved in making it look the way it does should feel bad.

I demand an apology from the staff, this is like being truffle shuffled by a flat chested fat girl.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Winds said:


> The site layout is bad, and everyone involved in making it look the way it does should feel bad.
> 
> I demand an apology from the staff, this is like being truffle shuffled by a flat chested fat girl.


 
THIS.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

And for people like me with small computer screens, it looks squished.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

unseenskies said:


> And for people like me with small computer screens, it looks squished.


 
My screen is a horrible 15"


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Jul 24, 2010)

The arrangement is mesed up..

Also, the site is running slow again, slow backups?


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm just disappointed with the change. Why mess with something that works?


----------



## kaeota (Jul 24, 2010)

While I can tolerate some of it, the whole browse, submit, search etc REALLY screws the layout up. **Just refreshed my page, and it looks better; though I'm still another voice for an option to use the old layout. It was NICE, why change it?

EDIT: It's also worth noting that I'm on a 22" widescreen, or a 32" TV; so while I can't speak for all the people who complain about squished screens.


----------



## Aden (Jul 24, 2010)

Why are people calling it "the new layout" as if it's a final thing


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

It might not be 'the new layout', but people don't like change. It's just a fact.


----------



## thoron (Jul 24, 2010)

I you have a wide screen it has too much open empty unused space, so the new layout is just akward.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

Aden said:


> Why are people calling it "the new layout" as if it's a final thing


 
Maybe, can wait to see what happens.
Maybe they just wanted to get the new server transfer over with first.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

Well, hopefully they'll change back. Who knows?


----------



## CinoxFellpyre (Jul 24, 2010)

Not the new layout.

A (failed) test layout.


----------



## the_Roop (Jul 24, 2010)

wooooow, people need to really chill out
and btw, are there no more ads? (that ill give a sadface to)
-EDIT- nvrmd, f5d and ads came back =^.^=


----------



## Bad-demona (Jul 24, 2010)

I like it. I just dont like having people know when I am on. Having stalkers sucks.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

I just used refresh button.
It looks a lot more like the sigma beta site now.

this is better that what I first seen,

Edit: this I can handle. Thought it was that horrible text list with no pics on top at first.

I have used the sigma a bit too so maybe I'm used to it a little?


----------



## reian (Jul 24, 2010)

*blinks* i'm about to be hated...

I kind of like this new look on my 12" laptop screen...haven't tried anything bigger yet though


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

thoron said:


> I you have a wide screen it has too much open empty unused space, so the new layout is just akward.


 
This is exactly my problem. I have a 19" 16:10 ratio screen.

But even if you have a 4:3 screen, the layout is still crap.

=>.>=


----------



## Smelge (Jul 24, 2010)

Serious question.

The dropdown menus. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't load, and I get the list options as bulletpoints down the left side of the screen. Known issue?


----------



## Willow (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm not really a fan of the layout of user pages. 

One thing I did notice that's a step up from the old look is that there's a place now for notes.


----------



## thoron (Jul 24, 2010)

As a whole it is the new layout heres the message on the front page:
We've relocated our server from Tiamat to Novastorm, and pushed the changes from Sigma live. There's still a few things to do, and we're working on that that right now!

Thank you everybody for your patience. It took longer than we had anticipated, but it will prove worth it over time!

NOTE!

If you're not seeing the layout correctly please do a refresh on the page (CTRL-F5) if you need to.


----------



## carcar (Jul 24, 2010)

I sort of like it... it doesn't matter to me, new look, old look, whatever... the only thing I noticed is that now it will show "Carcar is online" (by using a light-bulb to indicate that the user is online) ... you should make an option where you can make yourself appear offline, or not show that light-bulb at all... my honest opinion really.


----------



## kaeota (Jul 24, 2010)

On larger screens it looks ungainly, nothing seems to be in it's correct place, but it isn't cluttered like people were saying it is for smaller screens.


----------



## Treppan (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm very picky about UIs and layouts.

I liked the old design, it was functional, and didn't require any browser-side scripting to function.  I like being able to just reach for a link, and click it, instead of mousing over what category I think it's going to be in, possibly checking several.  Not to mention, mouseover dropdown menus have never been completely reliable, especially on multiple browsers.

I appreciate that someone probably took a web design course at DeVry and wanted to show off, but could we have something more functional and not hideous back?  The design course obviously didn't mention composition, as your eye falls on a mess of borders in the middle of the screen with the new userpage layout, and there's a lot of unused, dead whitespace at the top of the screen that just feels really awkward.  The designer obviously missed the lessons about cross-browser compatibility, and making things look good on multiple resolutions, aspect ratios, and monitor sizes.

Also, why is everyone's online status showing?  Why is this on by default, and why is there apparently not an option to disable this?  Is there _any _good that can come from this feature?

Of course, this is probably, like I said, someone showing off some kind of design and layout skillz, and fetishizing some features they thought were super nifty.  Fuck yes, we NEED some scripted drop-down menus, yo.  Also, let's add online status shit so bitches can be all stalkin' and shit.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

I'd just rather have the old layout back, because this looks so messed up on my computer monitor. ._.


----------



## reian (Jul 24, 2010)

I don't like how the ads pop up between submissions and comments...*wrinkles nose* Either above or below...don't disrupt the flow...Other than that it is fine I think...


----------



## thoron (Jul 24, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> This is exactly my problem. I have a 19" 16:10 ratio screen.
> 
> But even if you have a 4:3 screen, the layout is still crap.
> 
> =>.>=


 
Mine is a 8in. x 13in. laptop and it looks bad I can only imagine how it looks on yours.


----------



## carcar (Jul 24, 2010)

Treppan said:


> I'm very picky about UIs and layouts.
> 
> I liked the old design, it was functional, and didn't require any browser-side scripting to function.  I like being able to just reach for a link, and click it, instead of mousing over what category I think it's going to be in, possibly checking several.  Not to mention, mouseover dropdown menus have never been completely reliable, especially on multiple browsers.
> 
> ...


 


Yeah, I just mentioned that too.  (About the online status) I thought that was pretty lame... now people can see when you're online and such.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Treppan said:


> I'm very picky about UIs and layouts.
> 
> I liked the old design, it was functional, and didn't require any browser-side scripting to function.  I like being able to just reach for a link, and click it, instead of mousing over what category I think it's going to be in, possibly checking several.  Not to mention, mouseover dropdown menus have never been completely reliable, especially on multiple browsers.
> 
> ...


 
*THIS*. GODS *THIS*. A MILLION TIMES *THIS*.

I miss my "This button..."


----------



## Tikara (Jul 24, 2010)

Hoping as well there'll be an option for the original site layout. FA is the only site I didn't block ads on because they were off to the side and barely getting in the way of the art. But now oh god ads at the top stretching out the pages and _between the art and comments_. Please don't do what deviantART has done and place ads within our art and comments. :<


----------



## Treppan (Jul 24, 2010)

Fuck, I'm not even seeing the ads, and I don't know why.  Don't have any blocking scripts that I'm aware of, the must just not be loading.

If you guys want more money, don't throw ads in the user's face.  Give us a good reason to buy premium accounts or something (and that doesn't mean fuck everyone over who doesn't have one) in addition to small, out-of-the-way community-paid ads.

Edit:  Nevermind, there they are.  Ugh.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

thoron said:


> As a whole it is the new layout heres the message on the front page:
> We've relocated our server from Tiamat to Novastorm, and pushed the changes from Sigma live. There's still a few things to do, and we're working on that that right now!
> 
> Thank you everybody for your patience. It took longer than we had anticipated, but it will prove worth it over time!
> ...


 
This need to be done. Got better after I did this.
May not be perfect, it is a lot better in my opnion after refresh is used.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

It still looks nasty to me. I'd just like the old layout back.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 24, 2010)

I dont need to know if someone is online to ask them a question, I can always leave a damn note >[


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> This need to be done. Got better after I did this.
> May not be perfect, it is a lot better in my opnion after refresh is used.


 
Did that before the front page message.

Still doing it.

Not much better.

Still looks like crap.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Jul 24, 2010)

Just tossing out my opinion, I honestly don't mind the layout change. Sure, there's a huge amount of whitespace at the top (I'm running at 1680x1050), but I rarely look at the top. Maybe once a day to check my notifications or so, but other than that... The ads between submission and comments? Well, I rarely read comments, plus I've gotten used to other sites doing the same thing anyway.

Anyway, my CDN$0.02.


----------



## Tirith (Jul 24, 2010)

Yeah...I'll be honest, I really don't like the new layout. It's far more complicated to navigate, and the panel on the top of the screen forces me to scroll down to see what's going on below it.

I've never complained about the aesthetics of the site before...but in this case, I would like to ask if there could be an option to use the old site layout. The new layout is cluttered, and placed very awkwardly, in my opinion.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

I did like the adds at the left side better.
The change isn't really a major difference to me.

Still has some of the same feel to me.
Just its new and like said earlier, people hate change.
I think I can get used to it with out much trouble.


----------



## Shireton (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm really not a fan of the new layout, I liked the old one a lot more, it'd be fine if we could choose to use the old one instead. This one looks stretched out to me, and I simply don't like it very much. And I'm not sure about the point of the My FA button in the corner, it does the exact same thing as clicking on your name right above it. And I'm curious if 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 is supposed to look so dark, I'm really not liking that.


----------



## Fenrari (Jul 24, 2010)

I'll concur that I dislike the new look. Yus I realize its beneficial to the sponsors who put up their ads... but it feels too stretched out for my likings.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

Administrator note just came up saying there fixing something with the control panel.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

Yeah, none of the buttons in the control panel worked. But I'd rather them put the old layout back instead of fix the new one.


----------



## wildrider (Jul 24, 2010)

I don't mind the new layout really, though the drop down for the stuff on the banner is see through, so you can't really read anything through them due to the ads behind them lol Other that, I haven't seen much to complain about.


----------



## thoron (Jul 24, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> I did like the adds at the left side better.
> The change isn't really a major difference to me.
> 
> Still has some of the same feel to me.
> ...



One thing I don't like is that on a mubmission page the adds are between the art work and the comment. There something really conceited about that like "look at the adds then the comment on your work" also "look at the adds before you make comment on this piece of work" is what thier saying.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

unseenskies said:


> Yeah, none of the buttons in the control panel worked. But I'd rather them put the old layout back instead of fix the new one.



 I don't really hate the new ones.
I do agree the old ones were less a hassle to use.
Its manageable just takes more work for us lazy people to deal with.


----------



## Makoko (Jul 24, 2010)

Lol you can use the old site here still. I don't even really know if it works, since it's the FA beta. Doesn't look like it does.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Makoko said:


> Lol you can use the old site here still. I don't even really know if it works, since it's the FA beta. Doesn't look like it does.


 
Well that's interesting.... It shows info like right before the server switch....


----------



## Alstor (Jul 24, 2010)

I just don't get why you guys could have given feedback when sigma was up. :/


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

thoron said:


> One thing I don't like is that on a mubmission page the adds are between the art work and the comment. There something really conceited about that like "look at the adds then the comment on your work" also "look at the adds before you make comment on this piece of work" is what thier saying.


 
I just took a look now and see what you mean. 
That is a bit annoying.
Hope they don't do pop up adds next.

Hope with the more advertisement placment there at least getting paid more for them.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

I'll probably use the beta site if they don't change it back. >_>


----------



## thebeast76 (Jul 24, 2010)

NEW SITE LAYOUT:


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Alstor said:


> I just don't get why you guys could have given feedback when sigma was up. :/


 
I did. My feedback was to let us have the option to have the old layout.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2010)

The only reason it "looks stretched" is because there used to be ads on that left side creating a 200+ pixel gutter that was used by nothing else. I personally love having the extra space to view more submissions on my submissions inbox, or be able to view full view images without having to scroll as often. Also, the navigation links aren't Javascript-driven, and don't actually use scripting.

Also, from digging a little, it seems that this URL *actually* works for the old design.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 24, 2010)

Here is a update on the site looks
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1579782/


----------



## Treppan (Jul 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Also, the navigation links aren't Javascript-driven, and don't actually use scripting.


 You mean we're loading this 141kb file every pageload for no reason?
http://www.furaffinity.net/js/prototype.1.6.1.js
And somehow the Community and Support dropdowns are magically...dropping down?


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2010)

Treppan said:


> You mean we're loading this 141kb file every pageload for no reason?
> http://www.furaffinity.net/js/prototype.1.6.1.js
> And somehow the Community and Support dropdowns are magically...dropping down?


 
Seems like. I think Prototype might be used for the mouseover JS for getting previews on submissions, because when I disabled scripting, the menu still worked. Could have been a glitch, but I'm pretty sure it's a CSS menu.

EDIT: Confirmed. Yeah, turned JS off in Firefox, which hadn't loaded the mainpage yet, and tried it. It's a CSS menu. No JS involved.

As for downloading a bunch of unnecessary stuff, I posted a while ago about ways to improve that, but Yak just basically said "Thanks for playing" and ignored it.  Mind you, he was pretty polite about it.


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 24, 2010)

Looks pretty good. 

Expcept for the ads. 

Shrink Or Slide to the side.


----------



## Treppan (Jul 24, 2010)

Also, great job declaring XHTML 1.0 Transitional (first line of page source) and then... 

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...e=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.1


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2010)

Roxxas said:


> Expcept for the ads.
> 
> Shrink Or Slide to the side.



They were there before. They were on the side, squishing the entire site layout. You seriously didn't notice them?


----------



## Treppan (Jul 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> You seriously didn't notice them?


 I'm sure they noticed them before, they just weren't offensive at the time.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2010)

Treppan said:


> I'm sure they noticed them before, they just weren't offensive at the time.


 
They're less offensive *now*. They're taking up less screen real estate by not completely demolishing the layout.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2010)

EDIT: Hooray for forum double-post.


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

Seems to me that they're demolishing the site layout NOW, when they weren't before.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 24, 2010)

unseenskies said:


> Seems to me that they're demolishing the site layout NOW, when they weren't before.


 
In what way, really?


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

Well, at least for me, the ad placement is actually intruding on my screen, overlapping buttons and such.

If it looks fine to you, then more power to you, but on my side it just looks so... bleh.


----------



## Aden (Jul 24, 2010)

Artwork is finally centered on my screen <3


----------



## unseenskies (Jul 24, 2010)

Oh, and when I'm looking through the submissions list, it's like it goes super widescreen and all of the submissions end up in two giant horizontal rows.

Kind of annoying to me. ._.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> The only reason it "looks stretched" is because there used to be ads on that left side creating a 200+ pixel gutter that was used by nothing else. I personally love having the extra space to view more submissions on my submissions inbox, or be able to view full view images without having to scroll as often. Also, the navigation links aren't Javascript-driven, and don't actually use scripting.


 
I never had adds. Never. Still don't, as a matter of fact, because I'm that awesome. But before, I didn't have stretching. Now I do. And I don't like it one bit.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> I never had adds. Never. Still don't, as a matter of fact, because I'm that awesome. But before, I didn't have stretching. Now I do. And I don't like it one bit.


 
The space was still occupied whether the ads were shown or not, because it was contained by a fixed-width block-level element which also included a few nav links. Now, it's "stretched" because that space is no longer occupied. The layout isn't totally finished yet, and they say they have some more changes to make; I'm sure that the cosmetics will be tweaked up nicelyadequately, but in the meantime, enjoy not having to scroll horizontally on your widescreen monitor to see full size images.


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> In what way, really?


 
When the adds were on the side it brought everthing closer to the center of screen, and that was great. Now everthing is going to one side or the other. It's destracting to the eye. When adds were on the side the submission and favorites boxs were closer to the center of the screen and thats where they belong, now thier stretched and not centered. Thats why I like the adds on the side, its easier on my eyes.


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> They were there before. They were on the side, squishing the entire site layout. You seriously didn't notice them?



lesse ads then were small and off to the side of the page. now there much bigger and smack dab in the middle. 
of course I noticed them they just wernt in the way before.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Roxxas said:


> lesse ads then were small and off to the side of the page. now there much bigger and smack dab in the middle.
> of course I noticed them they just wernt in the way before.


 
They aren't bigger than they used to be, actually, they just look that way because you're not used to seeing them there, especially not all in a row. As for being smack dab in the middle of the page, maybe that's not the best place for them, but really, where are you going to put them? The footer?



thoron said:


> When the adds were on the side it brought everthing closer to the center of screen, and that was great. Now everthing is going to one side or the other. It's destracting to the eye. When adds were on the side the submission and favorites boxs were closer to the center of the screen and thats where they belong, now thier stretched and not centered. Thats why I like the adds on the side, its easier on my eyes.


 
Well, as for centering the page, I think maybe the News section could do with being truncated as well, perhaps a horizontal-column scrollable div (or maybe not even) or something unobtrusive after the submissions, and have more (bigger?) submissions thumbnails populating the mainpage. That should fit more in line with the way the page seems to be going as far as design goes. As a plus, the News section wouldn't dwarf the submissions column any more! Well, it doesn't now that there's more submissions on the page than there used to be, but there could be even more news AND submissions!


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

How about on the side, I still noticed them but page was easier on the eye.


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 25, 2010)

split em off to each side or shrink and put em 4square under controll panal.


----------



## SFox (Jul 25, 2010)

I only have two issues with this.
First, I don't like having the whole control panel menu at the top of my new submissions list. If I needed the control panel I'd go to the control panel page.
Second, Fender's user page stretches far offscreen even on my 1440x900 widescreen monitor.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> in the meantime, enjoy not having to scroll horizontally on your widescreen monitor to see full size images.


 
It was never a problem before the change, so I really don't know what you're talking about....


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

somberfox said:


> I only have two issues with this.
> First, I don't like having the whole control panel menu at the top of my new submissions list. If I needed the control panel I'd go to the control panel page.


I think that's a stop-gap for the moment since there were issues with the control panel when the switch was thrown; It wasn't there like that when it first went live.



> Second, Fender's user page stretches far offscreen even on my 1440 width resolution.


 
That's because of Shadow4ever14's Vuvuzela "VVVVVVVVVVVV..." comment.



redfoxnudetoons said:


> It was never a problem before the change, so I really don't know what you're talking about....



OK, let's just put it this way: Less wasted space is better. I don't know about you, but I don't browse with my browser maximized all the time, so I have my browser window sized to 1200x800, which should be more than adequate for any webpage, and yet with the ads, I have to scroll horizontally by a huge margin (literally! Right next to a huge margin!) just to get it centered on-screen. Clearly I'll still have about 100px of scrolling to do with my browser width+scrollbar/borders, but it's a lot less than 300+. If you want the old layout, go to http://gamma.furaffinity.net/


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Jul 25, 2010)

Is this really the future look for FA?
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1580019/


----------



## Shireton (Jul 25, 2010)

thoron said:


> How about on the side, I still noticed them but page was easier on the eye.


Yeah, I thought they fit quite a lot better on the side, and you get the added benefit of not having everything stretched all over, you really can't go wrong there.


----------



## Aden (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> That's because of Shadow4ever14's Vuvuzela "VVVVVVVVVVVV..." comment.


 
Speaking of, shouldn't page-breaking like that be an easy-fix?


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 25, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> Is this really the future look for FA?
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1580019/



BRAIN BLEACH! I NEED BRAIN BLEACH!!!


----------



## Kingman (Jul 25, 2010)

Yeah I'm going to throw my hat into this ring, please let us go back to the old setup this setup is crappy! Come on, why can't they ASK us if we want this things?


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Stargazer Bleu said:


> Is this really the future look for FA?
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1580019/



I really hope so. Along with being shiny, it's also pretty easy to read and the eye is drawn precisely where it needs to be. Though honestly, I won't hold my breath for it.  On that note, it's wholly possible to get the layout elements of that kind of design down to very easy to digest filesizes.


----------



## TehSean (Jul 25, 2010)

Wow that was a really well thought out post loaded with positive emotion.

I REALLY HOPE I CAN DISABLE THIS BASTARD LOVECHILD OF WIN7 AERO AND STEAM LIKE THEY HAD ILLEGITIMATE BABIES.

Win 95 interface is perfectly fine.


----------



## Fenrari (Jul 25, 2010)

Can we have an option to go back to the old-school look?


----------



## Mew2 (Jul 25, 2010)

Only thing I don't like is the control panel right there in the middle of my inbox. It's really annoying.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Kingman said:


> Yeah I'm going to throw my hat into this ring, please let us go back to the old setup this setup is crappy! Come on, why can't they ASK us if we want this things?


 


Fenrari said:


> Can we have an option to go back to the old-school look?


 
http://gamma.furaffinity.net/ works.


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> http://gamma.furaffinity.net/ works.



Not if you try look at recent submissions in your submission page.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 25, 2010)

Wow, even Youtube could have done better than this. (Not really)

I am disappoint.


----------



## kaeota (Jul 25, 2010)

My full opinion, as I posted in that journal (but honestly, who reads what other people in a journal say?):

Look, I'll be honest, I don't use FA as a social site. This may be why, but I STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F STIGMA IS(was?).

That said, these are my opinions:
1)I understand the add placement (I don't LIKE it, but I UNDERSTAND it). So I can't argue too much there.
2)What in the seven hells made you think showing when people were online and not giving us an option to disable that would be a good idea?
3)Where's my option to use the old layout (with the new add placement)?

I'm not scared of the change, I've seen lots of good changes to this site and others in the past that I've agreed with despite being in the minority simply because I asses a change before judging it. So please trust me when I say I'm not scared of it, I ACTUALLY DON'T LIKE IT. Not compared to the lovely site we had before, at very least.

Kae.



EDIT: THANK YOU FOR THE GAMMA LINK! Here's hoping it stays working, as I fully intend to use it.


----------



## Kingman (Jul 25, 2010)

thoron said:


> Not if you try look at recent submissions in your submission page.




^ this. Plus the PLANNED new look is just to darn flashy, and DA like.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> OK, let's just put it this way: Less wasted space is better.



Which is why the old site layout was better.



> I don't know about you, but I don't browse with my browser maximized all the time, so I have my browser window sized to 1200x800, which should be more than adequate for any webpage, and yet with the ads, I have to scroll horizontally by a huge margin (literally! Right next to a huge margin!) just to get it centered on-screen.



I do surf with my browser maximized, and my screen res is only 1440 x 900, not much bigger than your 1200 x 800 window.

And again, I have never had a problem with the adds causing me to horizontally scroll *ever*, even windowed to 1200 x 800.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

thoron said:


> Not if you try look at recent submissions in your submission page.


 
Just tried it. Works for me. Think you're thinking of beta, because that link got tossed around, too.


----------



## SFox (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> That's because of Shadow4ever14's Vuvuzela "VVVVVVVVVVVV..." comment.


 
Ohh I see.



> I really hope so. Along with being shiny, it's also pretty easy to read and the eye is drawn precisely where it needs to be. Though honestly, I won't hold my breath for it.  On that note, it's wholly possible to get the layout elements of that kind of design down to very easy to digest filesizes.



Me too, since I'm a big fan of the new Steam UI and since that looks so similar, the design in that pic sits real well with me.


----------



## oppdelta (Jul 25, 2010)

I've just noticed....


It's the alphabet!

alpha.furaffinity.net (The new site UI to be!)
beta.furaffinity.net
ceta.furaffinity.net
delta.furaffinity.net
foxtrot.furaffinity.net
gamma.furaffinity.net
hotel..furaffinity.net

etc...

What is up with that? ^^;


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't like DA, not any more any way, its probably color.


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

No I followed your link.


----------



## Kingman (Jul 25, 2010)

oppdelta said:


> I've just noticed....
> 
> 
> It's the alphabet!
> ...



That's aircraft code? o.0 N4SEX?  <----inside joke.


----------



## oppdelta (Jul 25, 2010)

Kingman said:


> That's aircraft code? o.0 N4SEX?  <----inside joke.



Phonetic code.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

oppdelta said:


> alpha.furaffinity.net (The new site UI to be!)
> beta.furaffinity.net
> ceta.furaffinity.net
> delta.furaffinity.net
> ...


You got phonetics in my Greek! D:



> What is up with that? ^^;


Codenames. 



> No I followed your link.


Dunno, dude, but it all works for me. Looks a little wonky since the ads are broken, but it works and it's the old layout.


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 25, 2010)

wow thats a quite a lot of versions of a correctly set uup classic FA.

gee I wonder why they keep popping up...


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Roxxas said:


> wow thats a quite a lot of versions of a correctly set uup classic FA.
> 
> gee I wonder why they keep popping up...


 
They don't all work, actually. Only gamma really works right now (beta "works", but is a snapshot of the pre-new UI database; Most everything else either requires a password or just directs to the actual (new) FA mainpage), and really, testbed copies of a site's code are an intelligent way of doing experimental updates and so on for many reasons, not the least of which being if you screw something up, you don't blow the main site away and get furries butthurt because FA is javascript-raining penises or something.


----------



## DragonLover17 (Jul 25, 2010)

I dont like the new stuff I want it changed back to what it was.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

DragonLover17 said:


> I dont like the new stuff I want it changed back to what it was.


 
How thoughtful. On that note, try http://gamma.furaffinity.net/ - I've only linked it like half a dozen times now.


----------



## oppdelta (Jul 25, 2010)

DragonLover17 said:


> I dont like the new stuff I want it changed back to what it was.



If you've read the previous posts and saw the journals form 'neer..This is a temp setup whilst they finish off the new layout
 .

Go look at Dragoneers latest journal. The new UI


----------



## Delta (Jul 25, 2010)

What I dont understand is why they didn't finish the new layout completely and then update the site, instead of implement the fucked up WIP


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 25, 2010)

Winds said:


> What I dont understand is why they didn't finish the new layout completely and then update the site, instead of implement the fucked up WIP


 It looks like they took the old UI and stuck a metal rod in it.
You can't even consider this a WIP, let alone an "improvement"

As for an answer to your query, there is no understanding it. It's complete and utter ignorance.


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 25, 2010)

i can see why elvis shot the PC as well as that there TV..


----------



## Firehazard (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm wondering why they thought the site need an "online" indicator. This isn't an instant messaging client; you can't _do_ anything with this information; you just see "Oh hey so-and-so is online.... and I care because....?"

Also the new ad placement will probably be a lot more palatable once the general height-wasting clutter is cleared away.


----------



## KalystoWolf (Jul 25, 2010)

my tablet pc is 10 or less and opens the site normally.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 25, 2010)

I know there's been a lot of hate here, but I'm not even sure if this is what it's meant to look like?

http://i32.tinypic.com/nwhopi.jpg ?

I'm on a wide screen, and it looks really messed up - I can understand WIP, but this looks like drawingboard/brainstorm moreso than WIP (Like: hey, what do you think of this? Well put it in, lets see how it is -and bam, there we go!)


----------



## SkippOtter (Jul 25, 2010)

Firehazard said:


> I'm wondering why they thought the site need an "online" indicator. This isn't an instant messaging client; you can't _do_ anything with this information; you just see "Oh hey so-and-so is online.... and I care because....?"


 I think it's because there are already several users implementing various "hacks" to show online status, mainly using avatars and profile ID's that they update when they are online/offline.  Users doing that are eating up more bandwidth and CPU than having the built-in indicator.


In general though, the new layout is good. People are complaining about empty space, but this is an art gallery.  Before it was too crammed to fit half the images when viewing on a 1024x786, and wasn't really much better on larger screens.  It's got some issues with continuity and appearance, but that's for the next update.  Which y'all are gonna b**** about as well.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

I just realized what's missing from this layout.... the _#sizer max-width_ command to prevent massive stretching.


----------



## Treppan (Jul 25, 2010)

thoron said:


> When the adds were on the side it brought everthing closer to the center of screen, and that was great. Now everthing is going to one side or the other. It's destracting to the eye. When adds were on the side the submission and favorites boxs were closer to the center of the screen and thats where they belong, now thier stretched and not centered. Thats why I like the adds on the side, its easier on my eyes.


 
This.  I don't think most of the people complaining understand WHY the layouts are bothering them, so it's not being voiced very well, but it's this, and I understood it immediately.  It's a matter of composition.

Beyond the header and footer of a page, we naturally look to the center of our screen for content, and follow containers or lines from there until we find it.  Then we wander to the sides for more content.  We also usually train ourselves to go to one side for more content, and one side for manipulation.  On FA's setups, we've always had a left-ish container that extends beyond the center of the page, which catches our eyes and draws them over there.  To the left of that, was settings, to the right, more content in the form of journals, contact information, and shouts.  Any of these elements could be switched around, and eventually people would get used to it, though it would bother them at first.

However, right now we're stuck with our eyes falling on a dead border between blocks of content when they center themselves.. and they're not drawn anywhere, leaving us confused.  This isn't a conscious, cognitive process, but it's what's happening.  It would make all the difference in the world if the Gallery and Favorites boxes were extended to take up about 3/5 of the screen, instead of half.. which would be taking advantage of the screen real-estate freed up by the eliminated left sidebar, and fix a lot of the "wrongness" people are feeling.

The header is another issue, as well as the ad placement... but that's another story.  I think this simple fix would be a huge start on the userpage layout.  Similar ideas could be applied in a lot of other areas.  This is an art site, c'mon, show some knowledge of composition.  ... Though, don't get too artsy-fartsy and throw out usability.  The preview of the upcoming design looks a little too much like it's going to have the problems Bing and the current Google Image Search are having.


----------



## gliengul (Jul 25, 2010)

Aden said:


> Speaking of, shouldn't page-breaking like that be an easy-fix?


 
yes, CSS has several handy "maximum size" elements. They are rather mandatory in comments pages IMHO....


----------



## Yaoi_vixen_boi (Jul 25, 2010)

Hey Dragoneer:
I agree with the majority opinion on the fact that the new layout is horrible.
There's WAY too much open space in the center of the page.
I don't know who you hired-if anyone-to redesign FA but you need to fire them.
If it was YOU that redesigned the site, you need to fire yourself, or actually THINK about hiring someone who knows about designing a website.

I own a couple websites of my own including a guild website for WoW, a corporation website for EVE and a clan website for FPS games on steam.
All three frequently claim top scores in website ratings.

Take this with a grain of salt though.  I realize that the new site is a work in progress but you should also take three things to heart.

Too much open space between menus.
Too many options at one time, that's why the original worked so much better because everything was categorized, not just "You want an options menu?  Ok, here's 30 something choices."
Finally, no one likes to go DOWN to click on things unless it's content.
All the options and menu commands at the bottom of the pages go against the natural function of the human brain to look up for information.
Scrolling down for content is ok but scrolling down PAST content leads your brain to think you're coming to the end of the site (page, whatever) and that means contact lists, site information, corporation links, sitemaps...... people are looking for their messages, journals, and submissions, not an e-mail address to tell you how much they hate the new layout.

One last thing.
Clicking on journals/submissions/comments then having to load a page, then SCROLLING for it because there's almost an entire screen of blank in between content and links is ridiculous.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Your suggestions aren't really going to be taken into consideration, since the new layout is already in the works - This is an interim. Take a look over here, which has been linked I don't know how many times already.

But yes, max-width would be a boon.

One thing I'd like to know, though, would be how well-optimized the new layout will be. Given the persistent state of (lack of) optimization on the current FA mainpage, I'm a little concerned that the additional graphical elements will also be ill-optimized for the web. Sure, it's only a problem until it's all cached, but it's still a problem all the same. If nobody's put any thought into that, I'd be happy to offer some help with it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 25, 2010)

Oh yes, I forgot how terrible it's _going_ to look. <3


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Oh yes, I forgot how terrible it's _going_ to look. <3


 
Mmhm. And yet, give it a couple months after launch, you won't be bitching any more. No one will; People bitch for the sake of bitching.


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Mmhm. And yet, give it a couple months after launch, you won't be bitching any more. No one will; People bitch for the sake of bitching.


 
We bitch because we true don't like it, however there aren't many options out there in terms of decent websites so we just adjust.


----------



## doberman_pinscher (Jul 25, 2010)

seriously (and i dont know if this has been addressed) is it really necessary, to run banner ads, in peoples subissions, between the picture, and the comments? it's one you guys got wrong. very wrong. why not just animate banners, and run them across the submissions, then we HAVE to see them, regardless. it seems like whoring, to me. you guys are above that kinda thing, right?


----------



## kaeota (Jul 25, 2010)

Okay, 1) thanks for the link Rune, somehow managed to miss all the other times it was apparently linked. 2) The new design looks promising; IF IT'S IMPLEMENTED CORRECTLY. I can't stress that enough; I avoid DA as much as I can because I hate how they've set up their menu's! This looks like it may fall to the same issues DA has. IF, by some fluke, they manage to set it all up well; a few months of inconvenience to get there... well, I won't say I'm happy that they decided to throw their 'stepping stones' live, but I can live with it. 

But yea, thanks for the link; p*ssed off-ness decreased massively when I saw it.

EDIT: The ad thing... it's annoying. It seriously throws off the flow; but no, FA is not above selling itself out to make money (no offence, I realise how massive server costs are).


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

thoron said:


> We bitch because we true don't like it, however there aren't many options out there in terms of decent websites so we just adjust.


 
Yeah, but the thing is, if you take a look at the FA mainpage right now, you'll see that they're still working on it, and there's been a lot of tweaks done to it since the switch was thrown. Everyone's up in arms over things that they're *fixing*, like I said they would, because they *aren't done yet*. Rather than keeping the site down for the entire duration of the tweaking session (which would have resulted in *far* more bitching), they're doing it more or less live. It's clear they weren't entirely ready to do it yet, but this was probably the best opportunity they would have gotten to do it, since the server would have had to go down anyway.

Long story short is this: I have 742 people on my watch list, and out of those, I've seen maybe 10 journals complaining about the layout and equally as many complimenting it. And here, I see probably like a dozen people complaining. Really, it sounds an awful lot like people are jumping the gun and kicking and screaming for no good reason. If you don't like the new layout, go over to http://gamma.furaffinity.net/ while you wait. If you don't like the new UI that they're working on, well, there's always SoFurry or some other site. The major reason this update looks as "bad" as it does is because the current FA template is a pretty basic, pretty messy template. It's in no way elegant, and it's ancient in terms of design standards. Trying to do anything with it results in that coming out of the woodwork, and more and more work is required to rein it in the further along the line you go. The page is riddled with tables and other fixed items that can't easily be designed around, and it needs to go. This is a step in the right direction to at least somewhat modernize the site, and frankly, I like where they took it, and where they're taking it.


----------



## Moddex (Jul 25, 2010)

This version is like puberty. Ugly, emotionally charged, a little unorganized, but will blossom into a fine fine (insert post-adolescent thingy here).


----------



## Objection (Jul 25, 2010)

i like this new version way better. i like how ads and crud are no longer running down the side of the page and how the whole thing is really streamlined.

the top of the page isn't very aesthetically appealing, however it's not a hindrance to me so.

good job!?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 25, 2010)

Ad placement is horrendous, which I'm pretty sure I've mentioned before. If you _really_ need to place the ads horizontally, put them at the top-top of the page (yes, above the site banner), where they'll be a lot easier to mentally filter out. I know the site isn't going to go back to sidebar ads (check the ad guidelines on the wiki; new ad format is wider than the current ads), but I really wish it would, because they were nice and unobtrusive there. The navigation also ought to be offset, possibly by giving it the same darker background as e.g. the journal subject lines get, as right now it consists of a few words hovering around in space. (Adding insult to injury, the dropdowns only work correctly in IE8 in compatibility mode. I'd really rather not be forced to use a browser that crashes my computer just because someone decided dropdowns were the new black when there's so much whitespace up there anyway.) That might also to some extent get rid of the puzzling whitespace all over the header.

The ads between submissions and comments are even worse (though at least the header area looks a lot better on submissions, without the whitespace introduced by the ads), as they break up page flow.

I'm seriously concerned regarding ad placement on the future site (which I don't like, either, and never have, because it's ridiculously "shiny" and "slick" and I loathe that aestethic and always have); the sample has a single ad in the footer, which I can't help but think will reduce clickthroughs as people will have to scroll _past_ the content before they'll see the ad(s). That's not a good compromise between the advertisers' needs and the viewers'. (What's the current average clickthrough rates on footer ads vs sidebar ads?)


----------



## Taralack (Jul 25, 2010)

Strangely enough, I'm not seeing any ads at all. I guess Adblock does wonders sometimes.


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

One thing I curious about is when did the whoe making website more horizontal instead of vertical bullsh*t start. My eyes have never hurt before even after hours of looking around FA, yet for some reason for the first time my eyes are straining. When I looked through the commentson Dragoneers journal he said that part of the reason for making this change was to get us used to the horzontal version as opposed to the older more vertical version that tents to be easier on the eyes. Why do they think that some how a more horazontal version is better?


----------



## KalystoWolf (Jul 25, 2010)

How are people getting stretched  pages? My desktop has a widescreen &  my tablet pc  has a normal screen, both of them show FA properly 0.o


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 25, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Strangely enough, I'm not seeing any ads at all. I guess Adblock does wonders sometimes.


I actually _want_ to see the ads, though, since they're a lot more relevant than most sites' ads, and I've actually found some neat stuff through them now and again. Basing site design on the assumption that most people use adblockers would be a pretty silly move.


----------



## thoron (Jul 25, 2010)

KalystoWolf said:


> How are people getting stretched  pages? My desktop has a widescreen &  my tablet pc  has a normal screen, both of them show FA properly 0.o



There talking about thing like the submission and favorites box there now wider, and theres a lot more empty unused space.


----------



## Yaoi_vixen_boi (Jul 25, 2010)

Moddex said:


> This version is like puberty. Ugly, emotionally charged, a little unorganized, but will blossom into a fine fine (insert post-adolescent thingy here).


 
Lolz.
Yeah, a bit upset over the site but rather than read over 9000 (read: 200 plus) messages, I decided to post my opinion, since this seems to be where everyone's doing it outside of their journals.

I did look at the "new" version that 'Neer posted on his journal and I think it looks fantastic.
I was upset that the site began to regress back into badly scripted java 1.0 1993 webpages done by a high schooler who'd taken a month of after school web design.

But if it ends up like what Dragoneer posted then I will be more than happy, and even offer the web designer a cookie for his hard work.


----------



## Taralack (Jul 25, 2010)

quoting_mungo said:


> I actually _want_ to see the ads, though, since they're a lot more relevant than most sites' ads, and I've actually found some neat stuff through them now and again. Basing site design on the assumption that most people use adblockers would be a pretty silly move.


 
You could go into Adblock's settings and unblock FA then I guess. I don't know exactly how to, but I'm sure one of the other kind folks in this thread does.


----------



## Daniel Kay (Jul 25, 2010)

OK the Ad placement really is horrible, at the side they where there but not as annoying, like that they're just sandwiched in. And the site layout just doesn't look right anymore, honestly to me it looks like a attempt to make it a "slim style" website which I find awful at best.


----------



## Yeno (Jul 25, 2010)

New layout is nothing but obnoxious.

If you make a layout change, always leave the old layout to be changed back to as a possibility for those who don't get along with it.


----------



## Aden (Jul 25, 2010)

Yaoi_vixen_boi said:


> I don't know who you hired-if anyone-to redesign FA but you need to fire them.



Implying the coders aren't doing this for free on their own time



Yeno said:


> If you make a layout change, always leave the old layout to be changed back to as a possibility for those who don't get along with it.


 
If dA did that I'd still be using version 3


----------



## krisCrash (Jul 25, 2010)

I am having trouble reading some text columns, as they are about 1800 pixels wide. Since the action scripts that allow replying on the same page didn't seem to be running either, as well as seeing several font inconsistencies, I figured those things would change so I'm not worried :B capped column width would be nice for some things.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> New look SUCKS.


 *Hey, redfoxnudetoons*

Shut the fuck up.


----------



## Lunedragon (Jul 25, 2010)

Hmm, i wont state a final opinion about the new layout.

but why is there so much air/empty space everywhere?

Let's not forget what websites key elements are, one of them is to be functional to the point it's a breeze to browse through it, and this layout is considered less of a breeze to browse through than the old one.

Why change something, that isn't broken?

However. To my understanding will we have new functionality in the near future, like adding folders for example, but why must -something that didn't need to be changed- be changed. Why not have the old layout(if possible) and just add new contents to it.

I dislike the following:

- Control panel that pops up in the center of the page when viewing new submissions
....why not have it on the side like the old layout? I could see it *clearly* before, so why put it where I or we least want it to be. In the way. Why have the font size so big?

- The ads on the main page.
....Why not place them on the left side of the site? We'll see them there anyway right?
the less scrolling the better :3

- The site no longer looks compact
....and that's probably what annoys me the most.

What I like about it: 

+ The added links top right of the site. (My journal) (Notes) ( Control panel)

+ Newest submissions shows up by default. 

+ More submissions on the same page. (Main page)
....but it still looks unattractively stretched out.

+ The site looks great on my android phone

So my conclusion is that i wish to have the old layout back, but added with new things like folders. To me, that would be so much less of a hassle. Do mind that I approve of changes, changes are great but when the changes are for the worse, it's when i start raising my voice. Never the less, thank you, the team, for trying to work things out for us.

Resolution: 1366x768
Browser: Mozilla Firefox
Add Ons: Adblocker plus


----------



## Ai-Dake-Ga (Jul 25, 2010)

Control Panel;  *ATROCIOUS.


*Seriously, all that shit at the top, the entire Control Panel Menu, fucking get rid of it.  It was so much cleaner and organized when it was ON THE SIDE.  Fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Aden (Jul 25, 2010)

I just remembered something about the old (and current) site that bugged the hell out of me but I never remembered to bring it up. Might as well now since stuff is actually getting chaned.

Why in the hell does the site have to spoon-feed us crappy estimated times? No, 35 minutes ago does not equal "an hour ago", and heaven forbid you want some precision if one of your submissions is over a year old. What's so bad about just having a date and time?


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 25, 2010)

Aden said:


> I just remembered something about the old (and current) site that bugged the hell out of me but I never remembered to bring it up. Might as well now since stuff is actually getting chaned.
> 
> Why in the hell does the site have to spoon-feed us crappy estimated times? No, 35 minutes ago does not equal "an hour ago", and heaven forbid you want some precision if one of your submissions is over a year old. What's so bad about just having a date and time?


 
If you click on it doesn't it change into the actual time? I think you can set it to do that by default too.

http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/


----------



## Aden (Jul 25, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> If you click on it doesn't it change into the actual time? I think you can set it to do that by default too.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/


 
Whoa, is that option new :O
I don't remember it
thanks


----------



## Mazz (Jul 25, 2010)

Eww... seriously it doesn't look good. 

However the rest of the art sites on the internet look worse. So it's like the least smelly rat cage on rodent cleaning day. It still sucks but less than the others.


----------



## Eske (Jul 25, 2010)

I like it.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Carenath said:


> *Hey, redfoxnudetoons*
> 
> Shut the fuck up.


 
Then fix the fucking coding.

*#sizer max-width* is your friend.

Use it and get the fuck over yourself. You're a staff member, and you are supposed to ACT like one.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jul 25, 2010)

ITT: Hatred of anything new.

Also, I with my nearly-square monitor laugh in the face of widescreen trends. 

My one suggestion is to have a bare link for the forum up near the top. I like having the links there, but my hands are lazy and don't like having to mouse-over for the link I use most on FA. (Admittedly: at least it's not a second click! That would be worse.)

My major concern is that the stretching might make text files difficult to read. We writers thought we had just figured out everything, and here it went and changed. So yes, a max width feature for submissions (I saw a picture that was so enormous I only got maybe an eighth of it on my screen at once) would be nice.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> My one suggestion is to have a bare link for the forum up near the top. I like having the links there, but my hands are lazy and don't like having to mouse-over for the link I use most on FA. (Admittedly: at least it's not a second click! That would be worse.)
> 
> My major concern is that the stretching might make text files difficult to read. We writers thought we had just figured out everything, and here it went and changed. So yes, a max width feature for submissions (I saw a picture that was so enormous I only got maybe an eighth of it on my screen at once) would be nice.


 
If there was a max width, maybe the look of the new layout wouldn't look so bad. But right now, everything stretches too much and it's pretty bad. Plus, it's like they WANT us to block the adds, with how bad placement is in the new layout.

=>.>=


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

krisCrash said:


> I am having trouble reading some text columns, as they are about 1800 pixels wide.


 
Why, exactly, are you browsing FA with your browser maximized on a monitor capable of resolutions in excess of 1800 pixels in width? FA looked atrocious in those conditions before. The only difference was about 200 pixels in width being lopped off by the navbar/ads to the left hand side, and now there's even about 100px worth of padding on either side to make up for it.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

You people whine way too much. Why don't you at least wait til the upgrading is done before you open your big, cock-stretched mouths before you start whining like a bunch of babies. And if you don't like the new look when it's done: *THERE WILL BE AN OPTION IN THE CONTROL PANEL THAT WILL LET YOU USE THE OLD UI.*

@redfoxnudetoons: Those wont be the final ad placements. Because the new UI isn't fully implemented yet there are bound to be some bugs like this.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> *THERE WILL BE AN OPTION IN THE CONTROL PANEL THAT WILL LET YOU USE THE OLD UI.*


 
Source?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> *THERE WILL BE AN OPTION IN THE CONTROL PANEL THAT WILL LET YOU USE THE OLD UI.*


 


Runefox said:


> Source?


 
I am wondering the same thing, Nall. Where did you get that information? from FA staff, or just random person number 42?


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons, you seem to complain about every aspect of the site: it's speed, it's administrative staffing, its rules, its look... You seem to despise FA and everything having to do with it and everyONE having any say in how its run or looks. So if you hate everything about FA so much, then why are you here?


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Source?


 
Give me a few minutes and I'll get the quote from the other thread.

http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...p-DA-!-WTF!!?p=1853463&viewfull=1#post1853463



redfoxnudetoons said:


> I am wondering the same thing, Nall. Where did you get that information? from FA staff, or just random person number 42?


Yak said it himself. Now stop whining, little boy.


----------



## Delta (Jul 25, 2010)

Am I the only one who still thinks is retarded that they don't just finish the layout completely and then implement it all at once, instead of doing it in pieces for the "I told you so" factor when its complete?


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jul 25, 2010)

That's not why they're doing this. 

There are other behind the scenes changes going on with the new implemented layout as well. Along with that, this smooths the transition to the new UI....instead of going from "Old then BAM DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT". Think of it as stepping us up to it. It has NOTHING to do with any "I told you so" factor.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

Here is the site using the OLD old layout. Use that if you're being pissy.

http://gamma.furaffinity.net/


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Witchiebunny said:


> redfoxnudetoons, you seem to complain about every aspect of the site: it's speed, it's administrative staffing, its rules, its look... You seem to despise FA and everything having to do with it and everyONE having any say in how its run or looks. So if you hate everything about FA so much, then why are you here?



Let's see... 

* With the speed issue, they just fixed that. And the only times I have mentioned the speed being an issue was when it _WAS_ an issue, but then, so was just about everyone else....
* I only have a problem with _some_ FA staff abusing their power or not acting like proper staff. Like telling me to "fuck off."
* The only rules I complain about are the ones that are being enforced on some, while not on others. But that's more of a staff problem of some staff not acting appropriately. Personally, I don't find too much wrong with the rules, and have stated as much several times.
* I have already stated that if they implemented a stretch limit by using the command I have provided in their CSS file, the site would look much better.

* I have never said that I despise FA. I've said that about DA and SA, but not FA.

So, I don't know what you're problem is, but you have wrong information there.

Also, I thought user input was considered to be important? You know, getting user input to make things better?



Nall said:


> Give me a few minutes and I'll get the quote from the other thread.
> 
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...p-DA-!-WTF!!?p=1853463&viewfull=1#post1853463



Nice to know. 



> Now stop whining, little boy.


 
Now that was a bit uncalled for..... =>.>=

Besides, I'm not whining, I'm offering ways for the site to improve.

That's called *GASP!*

*CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM*.

Yes, I know many a fur are afraid of it, but it is necessary at times.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Now that was a bit uncalled for..... =>.>=
> 
> Besides, I'm not whining, I'm offering ways for the site to improve.
> 
> ...


You are whining.



redfoxnudetoons said:


> I sure as HELL hope we can get the option of seeing it like before....
> 
> *Hey Dragoneer:*
> 
> New look SUCKS.


Yes, that's *CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM*.


----------



## 2ndVenus (Jul 25, 2010)

I was happy with ADS by the side heck iv even been buying collars from collar factory from being referred through FA, and pages were in full view when loaded, now that this patch has placed ADS at the top, i have to scroll down on every fricken page just to see whats actually there on it. ADS first, then scroll down to see FurAffinity? Yes i have a problem with this.

I removed the ads thankfully with Adblock Plus plugin on firefox, to see if i could drag the pages back up so that i can actually view them instantaneously. Refreshing the page and clearing cache did not allow the stylesheet to bring up the page, now i have a huge gap before i can actually see what is there.

Im running the desktop at 1440 x 900. If i have to increase the resolution further or zoom out then thats absolutely ludicrous, because that is plenty amount of space to fit a bus ladies and gentlemen. 






How much of this page is empty space? 60%?


Yup, im going to http://gamma.furaffinity.net/ from now on.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> Yes, that's *CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM*.



That wasn't, no. I was busy looking up the correct CSS command through all my note from my web design class to get the correct command, (because the last time I did CSS files was a bit over 2 years ago,) which I provided here:



redfoxnudetoons said:


> I just realized what's missing from this layout.... the _#sizer max-width_ command to prevent massive stretching.



Every post after that is expanding upon the fact that a max width size to prevent overstretching the site would be an ideal solution to make the site look better.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

@2ndVenus: Those wont be the final ad placements. The UI is not completely done yet (the full thing is scheduled for a late August-early September release) and as such there are bound to be some bugs with misplaced ads among other things. Please be patient, as I am sure they are working on it.

In the mean time, feel free to use: http://gamma.furaffinity.net/
It is a working version of one of the old layouts (before the note system was updated).


----------



## Yeno (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> You people whine way too much. Why don't you at least wait til the upgrading is done before you open your big, cock-stretched mouths before you start whining like a bunch of babies.



You cuss way too much.



> And if you don't like the new look when it's done: *THERE WILL BE AN OPTION IN THE CONTROL PANEL THAT WILL LET YOU USE THE OLD UI.*


 
Then I'm not going to complain any further.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> That wasn't, no. I was busy looking up the correct CSS command through all my note from my web design class to get the correct command, (because the last time I did CSS files was a bit over 2 years ago,) which I provided here:
> 
> 
> 
> Every post after that is expanding upon the fact that a max width size to prevent overstretching the site would be an ideal solution to make the site look better.


That would only fix the problem with the people who are actually having that issue (I'm not). I tested it out by downloading a copy of a page and changing the CSS around and what it ended up doing was breaking the page divisions so everything was even more wonky than it already is.


Yeno said:


> You cuss way too much.


One word is cussing "too much"?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Yeno said:


> You cuss way too much.



I agree. This isn't the R&R board, the profanity isn't necessary....

=>.>=



Nall said:


> That would only fix the problem with the people who are actually having that issue (I'm not). I tested it out by downloading a copy of a page and changing the CSS around and what it ended up doing was breaking the page divisions so everything was even more wonky than it already is.


 
No, when applied properly, it would prevent mass stretching, nothing more. But you must know how to USE it with the site coding. And seeing as you didn't write the coding, I don't think you are best suited to implement the coding.

That would be best left to the software team, or just Yak.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> No, when applied properly, it would prevent mass stretching, nothing more. But you must know how to USE it with the site coding. And seeing as you didn't write the coding, I don't think you are best suited to implement the coding.
> 
> That would be best left to the software team, or just Yak.


In this case, no. I've looked over the CSS for a few of the pages and it would require rewriting almost half the coding just to implement that. I don't know who wrote the CSS (I'm assuming yak) but it's pretty messed up. I'm assuming they are waiting for the new UI to fix it.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall: Not really, it would be this:


```
body { max-width: 1200px; }
```

That would clamp the entire page down to a maximum width.


----------



## Yeno (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> One word is cussing "too much"?


 
While only one word was profane, the whole undertone of your post was way too overly aggressive. Yea, some people have said moronic shit in response to this thread, but you don't have to go even beyond that; it doesn't really help anyone to throw around stupid insults at everyone, especially because some posts were constructive and/or pointed out bugs.

If you already call people "babies", then at least act like a grown-up yourself.


----------



## 2ndVenus (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> @2ndVenus: Those wont be the final ad placements. The UI is not completely done yet (the full thing is scheduled for a late August-early September release) and as such there are bound to be some bugs with misplaced ads among other things. Please be patient, as I am sure they are working on it.



Its NEVER complete...oh boy if i had a Â£ for everytime i heard that they were 'working on something', and they have done next to nothing but add 'Private Message pointless functions' in the previous 5 years but remove things because of hackage, my confidence and patience is up. This is a downgrade than upgrade in my opinion. Im not waiting for another 5 years with the belief that more ads and less features will make me feel more sparkly and happy.
The old FA besides the commission page backdoor hack, shouldnt have been messed with, dont fix what's not broken.

As for the ads, im fine with them by the side, either side, but at the TOP of the page, the FIRST thing you see? Man, big loss of Kudos points on FA for me. You know what other websites feature ads at the top of the page? drug scam and creditcard detail collecting porn scam sites do. And i know FA isnt like that, but to me ads at the TOP increases the feeling that whatever site im currently on, im about to get a virus, pop-op or be hassled by an annoying noise, or its going to be a piece o crap that im going to have to Adblock because its in my way of the thing that to most people is what matters, THE SITE THEYRE TRYING TO ACCESS. 

In short:
*Ads are cool, when theyre not splattered right at the front of every page, get what i mean? We remove them because theyre anoying, or leave them be if theyre less anoying, and perhaps even interesting. FA crossed my line of comfort with the current ad placement. *

Thats my 2 pence, later


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Nall: Not really, it would be this:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


Doing that on my computer and all I ended up doing was breaking the page divisions. Besides, doing it that way wouldn't make a difference unless you used a 1200px width resolution (I'm using 1024x768 right now because have a crappy monitor)


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Nall: Not really, it would be this:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



*facepalm*

I totally forgot about that command..... That's an even simpler way of doing it....

But I wouldn't use that on the whole body, only specific table cells.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

Nall said:


> Doing that on my computer and all I ended up doing was breaking the page divisions. Besides, doing it that way wouldn't make a difference unless you used a 1200px width resolution (I'm using 1024x768 right now because have a crappy monitor)


 
It wouldn't make a difference for you, but people with widescreen displays (1440x900 and above) are the ones complaining, and for me, it's absolutely fine on my 1200px-width browser window. So, I just randomly decided that's the way it should go. Capping it to anything below 1024 would definitely make it break, because really, nobody uses less than 1024x768 these days - Nobody important, anyway.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> It wouldn't make a difference for you, but people with widescreen displays (1440x900 and above) are the ones complaining, and for me, it's absolutely fine on my 1200px-width browser window. So, I just randomly decided that's the way it should go. Capping it to anything below 1024 would definitely make it break, because really, nobody uses less than 1024x768 these days - Nobody important, anyway.


 
Yup. With a 1440x900 display, the site breaks. Setting the site to limit to 1200 would keep it from breaking. 


The site doesn't look look too bad on my DSi.... Except to the crappy add placement.

(PS. Never surf the web on a DSi.... It takes FOREVER to load a single page. =>.>= )


----------



## Carenath (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Then fix the fucking coding.
> 
> *#sizer max-width* is your friend.
> 
> Use it and get the fuck over yourself. You're a staff member, and you are supposed to ACT like one.


 I don't work on the web templates, and I like the current template it looks better spread to fit my bigger display (1920x1200).
I apologise for my outburst, because I know I was out of line, but nothing I've said negates your incessantly abusive behavior on the forums and towards staff. The thing is, we are still human at the end of the day, and I'm big enough to apologise when I am wrong. 



redfoxnudetoons said:


> Also, I thought user input was considered to be important? You know, getting user input to make things better?
> Besides, I'm not whining, I'm offering ways for the site to improve.


It's all in the delivery, as they say, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I don't work on the web *templates*,


 Ahh, so that's why it was coming up funny when I screwed with the CSS. I didn't think you would actually use templates on FA.



Runefox said:


> It wouldn't make a difference for you, but people with widescreen displays (1440x900 and above) are the ones complaining, and for me, it's absolutely fine on my 1200px-width browser window. So, I just randomly decided that's the way it should go. Capping it to anything below 1024 would definitely make it break, because really, nobody uses less than 1024x768 these days - *Nobody important, anyway.*


Wow, condescending much? I can think of a few people who still use 800x600. Are you saying that they are less important people because they *choose* to use an "out of the norm" resolution?

and some people using 1024x768 resolution are having this problem as well.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't think the presence or absence of templates has anything to do with the reason it doesn't work for you.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 25, 2010)

Carenath said:


> but nothing I've said negates your incessantly abusive behavior on the forums and towards staff.



I was not being abusive, I was stating an opinion. I was not bashing anyone. I only mouth off to staff when they are wrong, or being abusive/evasive.

Saying "new look sucks!" does not constitute "incessantly abusive behavior."

The only "incessantly abusive behavior" I have seen is the way certain staff handle criticism, of which 'Neer is not one of those on the short list.



> It's all in the delivery, as they say, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.



Yeah, well I don't sugar-coat anything. I'm blunt. I get to the point.


----------



## Smelge (Jul 25, 2010)

Could I actually interject a little something here? I don't mind the new layout, there's a few things in there that are quite cool that are either new or I've never noticed before. However, the opacity of the dropdown menus needs altered. With the standard coloured background, the drop-downs aren't opaque enough to easily see the options. Shouldn't be a tough fix, but it'll make it a lot easier to see.


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 25, 2010)

2ndVenus said:


> I was happy with ADS by the side heck iv even been buying collars from collar factory from being referred through FA, and pages were in full view when loaded, now that this patch has placed ADS at the top, i have to scroll down on every fricken page just to see whats actually there on it. ADS first, then scroll down to see FurAffinity? Yes i have a problem with this.
> 
> I removed the ads thankfully with Adblock Plus plugin on firefox, to see if i could drag the pages back up so that i can actually view them instantaneously. Refreshing the page and clearing cache did not allow the stylesheet to bring up the page, now i have a huge gap before i can actually see what is there.
> 
> ...


 
how about
div#ads{ display: none !important;}


----------



## Nall (Jul 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I don't think the presence or absence of templates has anything to do with the reason it doesn't work for you.


 Actually, it does, depending on how they are using them. If they had coded each page individually, it would have been a different story. But now that I know they were using templates I figured out why the page divisions were breaking and how to fix it too. Either way though, the max width function isn't the most effective way of doing it.


----------



## ShadowEon (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't really like the new look. The changes where just plain unnecessary and made the site look more messy and less simple. Overall the layout seems stretched as well.

The ads are now at the top of the page,forcing us to look at them more than if they where just at the side. The drop down menu could be trouble if the site is slow or the computer is slow. It might look more "updated" but I liked when they just could simply be clicked at the side.

Control Panel just looks like a big mess.

So ya know....we can change things that no one was really even suggesting should be changed but we can't fix things that NEED to be fixed like the commission page?

And I still don't even know if people can register for accounts now a days. Smooth Fur Affinity, real smooth.


----------



## Mazz (Jul 25, 2010)

Yeno said:


> Then I'm not going to complain any further.



That's where I'm at. If we get the option to use the old layout then that's good enough for me.


----------



## Roxxas (Jul 25, 2010)

move the ads.


----------



## Delta (Jul 25, 2010)

Witchiebunny said:


> That's not why they're doing this.
> 
> There are other behind the scenes changes going on with the new implemented layout as well. Along with that, this smooths the transition to the new UI....instead of going from "Old then BAM DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT". Think of it as stepping us up to it. It has NOTHING to do with any "I told you so" factor.


 
What are these shadow changes? What do they effect? 
Also, it doesn't smooth out anything. It just makes FA look like a five year old had his way with the layout.
The proposed new look is awesome, I could stand to have it blasted at me all at once. It would be no more harmful than a facebook update.
This is just butt-fuck retarded. It looks horrible, people are bawwing and will continue to do so until the new layout is complete and its 30x LESS functional that old layout.

I will believe there's no motive to gain the behavioral high ground, when I DONT see journals or comments saying "See? We told you it would look good." after this nightmare is all said and done.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 25, 2010)

In *what way* is the new layout *less* functional than before? Just because you don't like the ad placement? That doesn't make it less functional, it just makes it less pretty. The actual changes *have* added functionality (being able to access Notes quickly is a major plus), and haven't actually removed any. If you're going to complain, at least mention what, exactly, it is you're complaining about.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 25, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> I was not being abusive, I was stating an opinion. I was not bashing anyone. *I only mouth off to staff when they are wrong, or being abusive/evasive.
> *
> Yeah, well I don't sugar-coat anything. I'm blunt. I get to the point.


 I've watched the content of your posts in plenty of other threads on the forums, I didn't come down in the last shower you know.
I like people who are blunt, and, to the point, because I value honesty. However you're not blunt, you're needlessly abrasive and antagonistic.

On another note, those submitting constructive feedback about the site's layout, your feedback is appreciated. For what it's worth, the current layout (at the time of posting) looks great for me on my 24" display. The content takes up the full with of the monitor and I don't have the wasted space to the left with a tiny control panel box and pixel-gutter.


----------



## Cervidanti (Jul 25, 2010)

Yknow, maybe if they didn't want people bitching when it's not done yet, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE UPDATED IT DESPITE IT NOT BEING DONE YET.

How hard is that? Don't put up the fucking new look until it's done yet, then people won't get pissed about how shoddy and unfinished it looks!






Speaking of, this is just the most abysmal design choice I've seen in a LONG time.


----------



## Ratte (Jul 25, 2010)

The layout will take some getting used to, much like the layout of the forums earlier this summer.

Having ads right below the artist comments part of submission is mildly irritating, but what's been implemented is nothing to shit your pants over.

I'm still anticipating the new UI.  It looks very nice and I think it would make a solid UI for the site.  What we have now is temporary and it's better to do a gradual change than a sudden one and having the forums raped with pointless questions, imo.

TL;DR the layout is temporary and it looks fine.


----------



## Smelge (Jul 25, 2010)

Why can people not just get the fuck over it?

Yeah, it's changed but who gives a shit? It's not like they've suddenly banned gay art or something. It's aesthetic. And just because you're too fucking lazy to figure out that some controls have moved a little to the side doesn't mean you have to whine incessantly about it. Grow up and adapt, like a normal human being. Complain if there's a legitimate issue, other than "Cuz I dUnt Like It", but otherwise shut your flapping gob and let them get on with whatever they're doing.

Bunch of fucking whiners.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 25, 2010)

Muscle memory is a bitch to change. (Going on 4 years of the same, then change D: makes me a sad panda, but somewhere it was said that there's going to be a 'revert back to the way people want it' option 8D)


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 25, 2010)

Cervidanti said:


> Yknow, maybe if they didn't want people bitching when it's not done yet, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE UPDATED IT DESPITE IT NOT BEING DONE YET.
> 
> How hard is that? Don't put up the fucking new look until it's done yet, then people won't get pissed about how shoddy and unfinished it looks!
> 
> ...








This is what the UI looks like, not yours. What your seeing is your browser not caching the old one. Force a refresh, and have it pull updated files.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 25, 2010)

1185 new messages. Sucks to be you.


----------



## Kayze (Jul 25, 2010)

The issue is that the new look is not really different. Some different placement, but the only good change is the links under the banner, as it makes it more accessible than it was before. But the notes system, etc, is still messy. Would be nice to have a real update and not just moving some stuff around. The control panel could have a better link structure, more management, more consistent editing features, notes could be in a drop down to display numbers of messages, auto-remove 'new message' quota after each being 'read', save additional ad/donation/etc money to reopen commission features (it's not too expensive to hire a developer to do that), etc.

There's a lot that could change and be better, this is just a slight rearrangement, quite sad face.


Dragoneer said:


> This  is what the UI looks like, not yours. What your seeing is your browser  not caching the old one. Force a refresh, and have it pull updated  files.


 It looks like issues with CSS for that person. They should do the forced refresh, clear their cache, etc.

The ad placement is better though, for advertisers need and while not being a chore for the end user to scroll.


----------



## 2ndVenus (Jul 26, 2010)

Roxxas said:


> move the ads.


 
I wonder how many ppl i can get to requote this.

And to the above post, yes, we DO need to scroll. A lot of us browse user pages, not glare at the front page, and to see any sign of page content such as gallery or artist information we DO have to scroll.


----------



## Yeno (Jul 26, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Why can people not just get the fuck over it?
> 
> Yeah, it's changed but who gives a shit? It's not like they've suddenly banned gay art or something. It's aesthetic. And just because you're too fucking lazy to figure out that some controls have moved a little to the side doesn't mean you have to whine incessantly about it. Grow up and adapt, like a normal human being. Complain if there's a legitimate issue, other than "Cuz I dUnt Like It", but otherwise shut your flapping gob and let them get on with whatever they're doing.
> 
> Bunch of fucking whiners.


 
Is throwing out insults like a tourette syndrom victim some otter thing?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 26, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Why can people not just get the fuck over it?
> 
> Yeah, it's changed but who gives a shit? It's not like they've suddenly banned gay art or something. It's aesthetic. And just because you're too fucking lazy to figure out that some controls have moved a little to the side doesn't mean you have to whine incessantly about it. Grow up and adapt, like a normal human being. Complain if there's a legitimate issue, other than "Cuz I dUnt Like It", but otherwise shut your flapping gob and let them get on with whatever they're doing.
> 
> Bunch of fucking whiners.





Yeno said:


> Is throwing out insults like a tourette syndrom victim some otter thing?


 
And Carenath says *I'm* the one being _"needlessly abrasive and antagonistic,"_ with _"incessantly abusive behavior."_

=>.>=


----------



## Smelge (Jul 26, 2010)

Some of you seem to have this huge problem with change. Why give constructive criticism when you can just outright declare you hate it? Cos that's going to fix things?

And the difference between me being abrasive and you buggers being abrasive is that I'm not directing it at specific people. I'm generalising. You lot are intent on demonising the admin for having the _nerve_ to update or alter the site. Their site. You don't like it? Fine? The only thing you're doing is bugging people who are unpaid for their work.

So shut up and put up.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 26, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Some of you seem to have this huge problem with change. Why give constructive criticism when you can just outright declare you hate it? Cos that's going to fix things?
> 
> And the difference between me being abrasive and you buggers being abrasive is that I'm not directing it at specific people. I'm generalising. You lot are intent on demonising the admin for having the _nerve_ to update or alter the site. Their site. You don't like it? Fine? The only thing you're doing is bugging people who are unpaid for their work.
> 
> So shut up and put up.


 
I already stated that it would look fine if they fix the stretch problem. that's not demonizing anyone. I don't care that the site's been changed. I care that the site layout coding is faulty.


----------



## Yeno (Jul 26, 2010)

I have no problem with change in site design, as long as it's not "in your face", and allows the possibility of reverting back. Which it will do. So I'm not complaining anymore. Most other people are stating problems with page stretching or ad placement, which are sound complaints towards the admin.

So why the foul mouth?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 26, 2010)

Yeno said:


> I have no problem with change in site design, as long as it's not "in your face", and allows the possibility of reverting back. Which it will do. So I'm not complaining anymore. Most other people are stating problems with page stretching or ad placement, which are sound complaints towards the admin.
> 
> So why the foul mouth?


 
Indeed. Add placement and page stretching are very valid complaints.


----------



## Nall (Jul 26, 2010)

How many people do you think we have working on this upgrade? As far as I know, yak, and yak alone is doing the majority of it *BY HIMSELF* in his *SPARE TIME*. If he spent all his time dealing with every little complaint people had about the site as it is now, the new UI would *NEVER* be done. When the new UI is completeled and released (or at least the majority of it anyways) these problems will not exist... though I suspect you'll find something else to whine about by then.

As said by Smegle:


Smelge said:


> So shut up and put up.


 
EDIT// and if the ads piss you off so much, write a greasemonkey script that makes the division "ads" dissapear. I'd do it myself, but Greasemonkey interferes with some of my other addons.

I'll even throw in the CSS for you:
CSS for blocking ads:

```
#ads {height:0px; display:none;}
```
 
and if you want to fix the "stretching":

```
body {max-width:XXXpx;}
```
XXX = whatever resolution you want to set it at.

If I wasn't feeling so lazy, I would actually rewrite the entire CSS... but I am.


----------



## AishaDracoGryphy (Jul 26, 2010)

has anyone considered that the ui changes are only part of the revamp?

the new site layout is not even online yet, your judging a book by it's cover, all the ui is is just a cover. Chill out.


----------



## Nall (Jul 26, 2010)

AishaDracoGryphy said:


> has anyone considered that the ui changes are only part of the revamp?


You wouldn't even ask this question if you had bothered to read more than the first few posts in this thread.

We know this.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 26, 2010)

Nall said:


> I'd do it myself, but Greasemonkey interferes with some of my other addons.


 
Congrats, you just defeated your argument. This is the reason why I didn't just create a script for myself. Greasemonkey interferes with some of my addons as well.

Oh, and the code you are giving has already been suggested before, for the site coders to stick into the CSS sheets.

=>.>=


----------



## Nall (Jul 26, 2010)

You're the one having that problem, not me. If you really wanted it fixed you wouldn't care if it interfered with your addons or not. There are reasons why they can't add those codes, as you have been told. The reason FA is still standing after so long is *because of the ads*. They could move them, yes, but that would probably make more trouble for them somewhere along the road. The reason they can't use the max-width is because there are a ton of different resolutions being used on FA. What do you expect them to do? Make a copy of the site with custom CSS for every single resolution? No, just... no.

If it really bothers you so much, use the gamma site or create a greasemonkey script. Those are your only solutions until the new UI is completed.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 26, 2010)

Nall said:


> The reason they can't use the max-width is because there are a ton of different resolutions being used on FA.


 
And yet it has already been stated as before that a 1200px max on specific cells would not break anyone's system.

=>.>=


----------



## Nall (Jul 26, 2010)

So someone who uses a 1600xWhatever resolution has to deal with 400px of  white space because YOU think 1200px is best? Uhhh... no. I use HD 1080 (1920x1080) on my other computer... I generally only use that one for movies and gaming, but from time to time I do browse the internet on it (I'm actually using it right now, because I'm playing GW; or rather waiting for the rest of my party to get here). 620px of white space? hmmm... No.


----------



## Aden (Jul 26, 2010)

Nall said:


> So someone who uses a 1600xWhatever resolution has to deal with 400px of  white space because YOU think 1200px is best? Uhhh... no. I use HD 1080 (1920x1080) on my other computer... I generally only use that one for movies and gaming, but from time to time I do browse the internet on it (I'm actually using it right now, because I'm playing GW; or rather waiting for the rest of my party to get here). 620px of white space? hmmm... No.


 
The image dimension limit on FA is 1200px. Why do you need it to be larger?


----------



## Willow (Jul 26, 2010)

Aden said:


> The image dimension limit on FA is 1200px. Why do you need it to be larger?


 I would say because of giving people wallpapers on FA, but then again, you could just resize and distribute.


----------



## Nall (Jul 26, 2010)

Aden said:


> The image dimension limit on FA is 1200px. Why do you need it to be larger?


You wouldn't, but that wouldn't change that fact that there would be hundreds of pixels of white space. White space always looks trashy and I wouldn't lower my resolution for the sake of a single site. I don't know anybody who would.


----------



## imnohbody (Jul 26, 2010)

Apologies if this has already been commented on and I missed it (wouldn't be the first time  ), but while I realize the current UI isn't permanent, is there any way the Control Panel menu on the submission/journal/etc notice pages can be moved elsewhere, instead of on top where they force users on lower vertical resolutions (mine is set to 1440x900 because it's hard for me to read higher resolutions) to page down to get to what they actually want to see?

It's not a huge problem, I'll grant you (inb4"OH NOES, I hafta hit the PgDn key one time!"  ), but it is a tad on the bothersome side.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 26, 2010)

Nall said:


> So someone who uses a 1600xWhatever resolution has to deal with 400px of  white space because YOU think 1200px is best? Uhhh... no. I use HD 1080 (1920x1080) on my other computer... I generally only use that one for movies and gaming, but from time to time I do browse the internet on it (I'm actually using it right now, because I'm playing GW; or rather waiting for the rest of my party to get here). 620px of white space? hmmm... No.


 


Nall said:


> You wouldn't, but that wouldn't change that fact that there would be hundreds of pixels of white space. White space always looks trashy and I wouldn't lower my resolution for the sake of a single site. I don't know anybody who would.


 
Notice I said the 1200 limit on *SPECIFIC CELLS*.

This would not cause white space, as the whole website body would still cover the entire browser window, but certain cells would not become stretched.

I repeat:

THERE WOULD BE *NO* WHITE SPACE.


----------



## thoron (Jul 26, 2010)

Okay even I've gotten used to the new layout, this has become useless bickering that isn't even entertaining.


----------



## Shireton (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> How many people do you think we have working on this upgrade? As far as I know, yak, and yak alone is doing the majority of it *BY HIMSELF* in his *SPARE TIME*. If he spent all his time dealing with every little complaint people had about the site as it is now, the new UI would *NEVER* be done. When the new UI is completeled and released (or at least the majority of it anyways) these problems will not exist... though I suspect you'll find something else to whine about by then.
> 
> As said by Smegle:
> 
> ...


 
How does a greasemonkey script do anything for people who don't use Firefox?


----------



## Firehazard (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> So someone who uses a 1600xWhatever resolution has to deal with 400px of  white space because YOU think 1200px is best? Uhhh... no. I use HD 1080 (1920x1080) on my other computer... I generally only use that one for movies and gaming, but from time to time I do browse the internet on it (I'm actually using it right now, because I'm playing GW; or rather waiting for the rest of my party to get here). 620px of white space? hmmm... No.


 
Nall, not to suggest FurAffinity isn't one of the few sites that could stand to be designed to stretch, but don't the vast majority of websites out there clamp to a 1000px-or-so-wide space anyway? And most of the ones that don't, like forums, probably should, because really wide columns of text are hard to read. Generally speaking, you're expected to use that space to have more than one thing on the screen at once. Maximizing is a thing of the past except for "workspace" apps like Photoshop, and watching movies.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> You wouldn't, but that wouldn't change that fact that there would be hundreds of pixels of white space. *White space always looks trashy* and I wouldn't lower my resolution for the sake of a single site. I don't know anybody who would.


 
I find it funny and ironic that you can say this with a straight face, considering you also admit the ads are a necessity. The ads, with the current placement, cause whitespace. The ads cause a _lot_ of whitespace. I did a couple of mockups the other day suggesting alternate ad placements which avoid this problem:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/quoting_mungo/temp/faheadermockup.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/quoting_mungo/temp/faheadermockup2.png
(That's ignoring the issue of eye strain from reading long lines; lines in mainsite comment threads are currently almost twice as long as one maximum I saw proposed, and _more_ than twice the length of the traditionally-accepted maximum.) 

Not everyone runs Firefox, so Greasemonkey can't fix everything. That's beside the fact that hiding the ads hurts advertisers and thus in the long run possibly hurts FA. Ad placement that encourages people to use AdBlock (also not available for all browsers!) or custom stylesheets to get rid of obnoxiously placed ads is therefore a problem. 

It has also not been confirmed by the administration whether the "old layout" they'll allow people to switch back to after they release Slick'n'Shiny is the one currently on the gamma site or the current one; consider the fact that Dragoneer has repeatedly said/implied that changes to the backend were part of what motivated the current switch. 

As a sidenote, the current layout has a problem the "gamma" layout doesn't/didn't. It's not disability friendly, as all navigation links cannot be selected by tabbing through them. I went to check on gamma, and the navigation there actually works without a mouse, at least on the main page. 

Also, to the people basically saying "stop complaining, everything will work out in the end" or some variation thereof: if issues with the layout aren't raised now, they'll be met with snide "well, why didn't you say anything before?" comments by the staff when/if they say _anything_ about the layout some time down the line. This is already happening; I've seen way more "this layout was on the sigma site for some time, did you speak up _then_?" type comments than I'm comfortable with, since the changeover of layouts. Nevermind it wasn't made clear that the sigma layout would be carried over as an intermediary until Slick'n'Shiny could be finished and launched.


----------



## Ratte (Jul 27, 2010)

Aden said:


> The image dimension limit on FA is 1200px. Why do you need it to be larger?


 
1280, actually.  That's still fucking enormous.

EDIT: I can't get gamma to work.  wtf.


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Notice I said the 1200 limit on *SPECIFIC CELLS*.
> This would not cause white space, as the whole website body would still cover the entire browser window, but certain cells would not become stretched.
> I repeat:
> THERE WOULD BE *NO* WHITE SPACE.


*facedesk* This is like talking to a brick wall... 

Did you even look at the source code for any of the pages? Most of the coding is done so things are placed one on top of the other. You clamp a "max-width" only on specific parts of the pages and... guess what? On higher resolutions this will cause some parts of the page to cover the entire page while some of it wont. So instead of a single bar of white space, you would have random blocks of white space. I don't know about you, but I'd rather look at a bar of it rather than something that looks like a guy with his teeth punched out.

Max-width is a function that should only be used WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY.


Shireton said:


> How does a greasemonkey script do anything for people who don't use Firefox?


Find some other addon to use then? I don't care. I'm not the one being a baby over a little graphical malfunction.


Firehazard said:


> Nall, not to suggest FurAffinity isn't one of the few sites that could stand to be designed to stretch, but don't the vast majority of websites out there clamp to a 1000px-or-so-wide space anyway? And most of the ones that don't, like forums, probably should, because really wide columns of text are hard to read. Generally speaking, you're expected to use that space to have more than one thing on the screen at once. Maximizing is a thing of the past except for "workspace" apps like Photoshop, and watching movies.


I've only worked with one page that has a maximum width, and only then because the site design required it. The header image could only stretch so much before it started to look wonky. I wanted to change it, but the guy I was working with wanted it that way.


quoting_mungo said:


> I find it funny and ironic that you can say this with a straight face, considering you also admit the ads are a necessity. The ads, with the current placement, cause whitespace. The ads cause a _lot_ of whitespace. I did a couple of mockups the other day suggesting alternate ad placements which avoid this problem:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/quoting_mungo/temp/faheadermockup.png
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v98/quoting_mungo/temp/faheadermockup2.png
> (That's ignoring the issue of eye strain from reading long lines; lines in mainsite comment threads are currently almost twice as long as one maximum I saw proposed, and _more_ than twice the length of the traditionally-accepted maximum.)


The ad placement is neccessary for when the new UI is finished, in case you've failed to read anything I have been saying. If they changed it NOW, they would need to change it AGAIN when the new layout is released. This just makes it a big pain in the ass for everyone. The difference between the white space that the ads create, and the white space that adding a max-width to the page would create is that the white space is SPREAD OUT, so it's less noticable.


quoting_mungo said:


> Not everyone runs Firefox, so Greasemonkey can't fix everything. That's beside the fact that hiding the ads hurts advertisers and thus in the long run possibly hurts FA. Ad placement that encourages people to use AdBlock (also not available for all browsers!) or custom stylesheets to get rid of obnoxiously placed ads is therefore a problem.


If you don't run firefox, I'm sure there are addons for your browser that run in a similar capacity. I use both IE as well, and I don't have a problem finding such user-made addons.


quoting_mungo said:


> It has also not been confirmed by the administration whether the "old layout" they'll allow people to switch back to after they release Slick'n'Shiny is the one currently on the gamma site or the current one; consider the fact that Dragoneer has repeatedly said/implied that changes to the backend were part of what motivated the current switch.


Go ask Yak then, not Dragoneer. Yak is the one doing most of the work, so he'll the one that will have answers to that question. Oh, wait... Yak already stated in a pervious thread that the old layout will be selectable in the control panel. It's perfectly logical that they would need to make huge changes to the "back end" before they could move on to the "front end". People just need to learn to be patient and wait for it.


Ratte said:


> EDIT: I can't get gamma to work. wtf.


They disabled it sometime last night  Oh well.



Anyways, I'm done wasting my time arguing with *you people*. Take it up with Dragoneer or Yak if you have any complaints, but don't come crying when you get slapped with a "snide comment" or two.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> Did you even look at the source code for any of the pages? Most of the coding is done so things are placed one on top of the other. You clamp a "max-width" only on specific parts of the pages and... guess what? On higher resolutions this will cause some parts of the page to cover the entire page while some of it wont. So instead of a single bar of white space, you would have random blocks of white space. I don't know about you, but I'd rather look at a bar of it rather than something that looks like a guy with his teeth punched out.



Not if done correctly. =>.>=



> Max-width is a function that should only be used WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY.



And it is neccessary to prevent the site going wonky.



> Find some other addon to use then? I don't care. I'm not the one being a baby over a little graphical malfunction.



No, you're just being a baby over the fact that some people have suggestions to make the site better.



> Anyways, I'm done wasting my time arguing with *you people*. Take it up with Dragoneer or Yak if you have any complaints, but don't come crying when you get slapped with a "snide comment" or two.


 
Or, we could post our concerns here, to get feedback from staff and bounce ideas back and forth between users who actually _contribute_, rather than bitch at people telling them that they're being babies.

And Carenath says _I'm_ the one who's being "needlessly abrasive and antagonistic."


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Not if done correctly. =>.>=
> 
> And it is neccessary to prevent the site going wonky.
> 
> ...


It's going to be a vertical site design. "Doing it correctly" would require you to do it to the whole page.

The site isn't wonky. It's just not done yet, but you can't seem to understand that with that.

Yes... the suggestion will *totally* make the site "better" when it's not even done yet. You do realise that any changes made NOW will be completely reversed when the new UI is finished, yes? Long story short: there is no point in wasting the time rewriting the CSS just to cater to the needs of what is, essentially, a handful of users who are having this problem (a problem, I hasten to add, that isn't a big deal in the long run).

I'm calling you a baby because you are _being_ a baby.

You know what you remind me of? One of those kids who throws a screaming fit because his _mommy_ wont let him have ice cream before he finishes his supper.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> You know what you remind me of? One of those kids who throws a screaming fit because his _mommy_ wont let him have ice cream before he finishes his supper.


 
Hey, Carenath? you paying attention? *THIS* is what being "needlessly abrasive and antagonistic" is.

=>.>=


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

and... oh golly! I'm doing it on purpose too! Whatever shall you *do*?!

Can't handle the truth, red?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> and... oh golly! I'm doing it on purpose too! Whatever shall you *do*?!
> 
> Can't handle the truth, red?


 
Just making a point to Carenath, who gave a backhanded apology for behavior unbecoming of a staff member...

As for your "truth", Adding a few lines of coding to the site would hardly put to much strain on the coders.

This "temporary" look will more likely than not be here longer than you think, Nall, as things tend to get done VERY slowly around here.

Sticking in a temporary fix is not an unreasonable request.


----------



## Aden (Jul 27, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Just making a point to Carenath, who gave a backhanded apology for behavior unbecoming of a staff member...\


 
baww


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Aden said:


> baww


 
No, just calling it as I see it.


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

I actually thought he phrased it perfectly the first time.
My advice to you: take his advice. If you do, I think someone around here might actually start to like you.

Inb4 "that was needlessly abrasive and antagonistic"



Aden said:


> baww


I miss the "THIS" button.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> I think someone around here might actually start to like you.


 
Any why should I care about others "liking" me?

If I wanted people to "like" me, I'd spend most my time on crappy places like myspace/facebook or whatever social gathering site is popular at the moment....

Oh, yeah. That's right. I don't give a damn about social networking, or making friends in _forums_.

I make friends with REAL people in the REAL world. Not some online identity that may or may not be fake. (inb4 "JE" drama)

=>.>=


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm sorry, I forgot. You like being a friendless hermit. My bad. Will you ever forgive me for my presumptions?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> I'm sorry, I forgot. You like being a friendless hermit. My bad. Will you ever forgive me for my presumptions?


 
I make friends in real life, not online. If come across friends online, that's another story.

Sorry, call me old fashioned, but I prefer REAL people to internet rabble.


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

You make friends in real life with the amount of time you spend online? Could have fooled me.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> You make friends in real life with the amount of time you spend online? Could have fooled me.



You just showed me that you don't know a thing.

Just because my computer is almost always on, doesn't mean I'm at it. As a matter of fact, I the only reason why I keep my browser open is because it takes forever to reload the 40 tabs I keep open.

I'm actually online for fun about 3 hours a day. the rest of the time, I'm working on other things, or actually do things with friends.

Just because the forums says I'm on, doesn't mean I'm actually on.

=>.>=


----------



## Nall (Jul 27, 2010)

The date and time when I search your posts says otherwise. What do you do? Make a post, go out for an hour, come back and make another post and then go out for another hour? Some life you got there.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jul 27, 2010)

Nall said:


> Some life you got there.



Same could be said about you, picking at my personal schedule....

=>.>=

Can't be hanging out with friends ever day, you know... Most people have work, school (be it high school or _College_), etc...

Not to mention the fact that where I live is still suffering from horrible weather; high temp and high humidity does not mix, and the worst days have me stuck inside because of my asthma.....

=>.>=

Right now, I'm just killing some time.

Honestly, your responses are quite amusing, as you seem to have a need to put down others. It's almost like you suffer from some sort of inferiority complex in which you feel better about yourself by putting others down. 

But that's off topic.

The site's coding, while claimed to be "temporary," could be fixed for a short term solution quite quickly and painlessly. 

Don't forget: 
The "commission info" tab on the user page has been "temporarily" down for a LONG time.
The ability to register via normal means has also been "temporarily" down for a LONG time.

Starting to see a pattern there?

A quick fix of a problem is preferable to waiting for them to get it finished.

After all, there is a running gag that the Ferox coding will be done at the same time Duke Nukem Forever comes out.....


----------

