# New Inbox Layout



## Caution_Cat (Nov 15, 2007)

The way the new inbox layout is very confusing- the centered messages without divided boxes make it all look clumped together and unprofessional.

It also looks more like a pile of meaningless words than an actual inbox, and forces me away from browsing my messages.

What provoked this layout? The old one was simple, easy, and organized.


EDIT:
Seems you edited the inbox- it still looks horrid though.
The buttons for "select all" shouldn't be above the category. That's backwards.

There was nothing wrong with the old layout.
It's like a scab, LEAVE IT ALONE!


----------



## underwear-ninja (Nov 15, 2007)

I really do have to agree with you there. Plus the large text is also very obnoxious and again, distracting from the messages themselves.

I really hope the layout changes back to the one we had like.... a few hours ago (at time of post)


----------



## Caution_Cat (Nov 15, 2007)

Yeah, I hope so too. FA is starting to look like FAP, and FAP sucks. :l


----------



## quentinwolf (Nov 15, 2007)

I'm going to have to agree, It looks very unprofessional.  The Comment/Shouts/Favorites/Journal area looks awful.  You can't just scroll down to the correct area to see where new stuff is, because it all looks the same, and all the buttons just scattered between them to seperate the sections is horrible.

AT THE VERY LEAST don't use the 'center' tag, align it to the left side, and add a few bars to separate the different sections.

One now can't just glance down in a straight line to see the artist/user names that have commented, shouted, posted journal entries, your eyes have to go side to side while scanning down, which is not only a bit more work, but also more time consuming when one is trying to just pick out certain bits.

Just changing the align option on the line just after ' Pages generate here! (end the header at this line...) ' to 'Left' makes it worlds better.  Though the buttons are still irritating.

Come on, don't mash it all in one big pile like this,  If its not broke, Don't fix it.   One should only fix it to Improve..  Not make it worse.


----------



## DragonKid (Nov 15, 2007)

Apparently the people who changed it have never heard of "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" before.  This just makes the layout ugly and annoying. They should be worrying about more important things like getting the search back up and running.


----------



## Catsnightmare (Nov 15, 2007)

I have too agree with the "if it ain't broke" principle.  It looks fugly and I want it back the way it was before.  Spend the time getting the search back up before futzing around with something that already works good and fine.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 15, 2007)

Looking into this. Bear with us, please. :3


----------



## Eidolon (Nov 15, 2007)

Thank you! I thought the older style was great. Without any separating lines everything looks more like a grocery list. All the elements have so much weight they are all visually competing with each other making it difficult to read. And having everything centered makes it confusing.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 15, 2007)

No response yet, but it seems to be a work in progress. Things look a little more organized now.

Be careful though, buttons for each section are above now instead of beneath, so don't accidentally nuke anything you don't want nuked.


----------



## UndyingSong (Nov 15, 2007)

I absolutely agree.

_Please_ change the inbox layout back to its original form!


----------



## ZhivagoD (Nov 15, 2007)

Chalk up one more for the old version. It looks absolutely disgusting and makes my eyes ache. It looks like something a 12 year old made on Geoshities .


----------



## Echoen (Nov 15, 2007)

Perhaps the bigger question is this:

Why are the people who work on the site working on the layout of the inbox (Turning it from something that was actually very good, into this horrible eyesore), instead of trying to fix IMPORTANT things, like maybe getting Search up and running, or taking steps to reduce FA being slow, or the number of other problems?

Why are you guys dinking around and ruining what's GOOD about FA? Change the damn inbox back to what it was! ASAP! Then go get to work on what we users actually WANT!

It's not that we don't appreciate your hard work and big efforts to support FA and help us users out. We just don't like it when we see obvious things that need fixing, and find that something that WASNT BROKEN is subject to 'fixing' and is made horrible.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Nov 16, 2007)

Hmm, and here I thought it was just a coding and/or page rendering error, Konqueror tossed up a bunch of bugs when it shows the page.


----------



## quentinwolf (Nov 16, 2007)

Thank you so much.  The current state is MUCH better now.  Each group is separated, its aligned to the left, and its much closer to the original (Plus the slightly newer funky link colors, which is fine with me.) Though I don't get why some users are Purple-ish, and others are Grey/White?


----------



## CyberFoxx (Nov 16, 2007)

White == Non visited link.
Purple == Visted link.

Quite simple to figure out really...


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 16, 2007)

It's almost as ugly as MySpace pages.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 16, 2007)

I don't have any messages so I don't know what the problem is  :V

Not that I'm the one changing anything.


----------



## WesleyFoxx (Nov 16, 2007)

CyberFoxx said:
			
		

> White == Non visited link.
> Purple == Visted link.
> 
> Quite simple to figure out really...



Thats actually mildly useful.

If you put the select all stuff back where its supposed to be at the bottom and fixed the header size, this might actually be a step forwards instead of a step back. :V


----------



## Larathen (Nov 16, 2007)

*Dont fix something that isnt broken.*

You seem to do that a lot FA.


Change it back I dont like it.


----------



## Nightingalle (Nov 16, 2007)

Ew ew ew

it's weird.

I don't like ><;  I hope someone just.. messed up D:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v245/KuronekoTenshi/new/furpage.jpg That's what it looks like o.o


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

Look guys, i'm going to have to ask you to excuse me for using bold red letters, but please,

[size=large]CLEAR YOUR CACHE[/size]

.. before assuming it's as bad as it looks.


Now then, replies.....


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

Caution_Cat said:
			
		

> The way the new inbox layout is very confusing- the centered messages without divided boxes make it all look clumped together and unprofessional.
> 
> ........
> 
> ...


No, your browser loaded the correct stylesheet, instead of using one from the cache that didn't have the styles for the new layout.



			
				quentinwolf said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to agree, It looks very unprofessional.  The Comment/Shouts/Favorites/Journal area looks awful.  You can't just scroll down to the correct area to see where new stuff is, because it all looks the same, and all the buttons just scattered between them to seperate the sections is horrible.





			
				Eidolon said:
			
		

> Thank you! I thought the older style was great. Without any separating lines everything looks more like a grocery list. All the elements have so much weight they are all visually competing with each other making it difficult to read. And having everything centered makes it confusing.





			
				ZhivagoD said:
			
		

> Chalk up one more for the old version. It looks absolutely disgusting and makes my eyes ache. It looks like something a 12 year old made on Geoshities .





			
				Bokracroc said:
			
		

> It's almost as ugly as MySpace pages.





			
				kuronekotenshi said:
			
		

> Ew ew ew
> 
> it's weird.
> 
> ...


Folks, please clear your browser's cache.
Did you honestly think we could put something there that was _THAT_ horrible, as the message center without it's styles?


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 16, 2007)

The end results should look like this. As yak has said, if you are not seeing the layout like this, your browser is not correctly updating the cache. Clear it by doing a Control-F5 while on the Message Center.


----------



## Luukra (Nov 16, 2007)

this IS UGLY TO.

DAMN IT THATS WHAT I MEANT IN MY THREAD.

Its awful, ugly and just not FA. Dump that fucking html-h3 tag.

Dont downgrade FA to Myspace-shit. You are ruining that uniqe FA style where i was here in the first place.
I dont want anoter FAP/SheezyArt or DeviantArt.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 16, 2007)

Luukra said:
			
		

> Dont downgrade FA to Myspace-shit. You are ruining that uniqe FA style where i was here in the first place.


We're not. I hate MySpace with a passion, and we're working towards cleaning up FA's design to make it easier to use, and smooth out the interface. The site's current design is "a box within a box within another box that holds yet more boxes".

That's not really a design so much as it is... well, Big Box Mart. It's functional, but not really a design.


----------



## Luukra (Nov 16, 2007)

It was EASY as it was bevore. Easy AND good looking.

Why dont you just focus on get the search running..


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

*scratches head* 
Hmm, it's the same thing only with no borders on the boxes, bigger section cations and buttons moved to some other place.

As for h3 tag, that's semantic markup. h3 means it's a heading, and that's just what it is. I can rant for days on end how i hate the tag soup that most of the websites including FA are. What benefit is there in using TABLES to display TEXT, when it's semantically correct to display headings in H tags and not table cells, and the rows in the unordered list instead of yet another table.

I'm not sure most people are aware, but the looks of this page is determined by CSS styles that are easy enough to edit and change the whole outlook of the thing. 

If only people would have came here and started a discussion on what exactly don't they like about the new layout istead of senseless shouts "it sucks", "you suck" and "i hate it", it would have been at least a somewhat productive procees going on.
But if you are going to insist on insulting us, then please don't be irritated if i choose to ignore you.


----------



## Luukra (Nov 16, 2007)

sorry to say that, but i know enougth about web-programming, because i studied it for 3 Years >__>

So you dont have to explain me how a webside is build. Sorry for beeing so ofensive but this "desingn" now really don't fit to the rest. its a bit to "rude"

Just.. make the desing consitent and don't change module for module.. It doesnt hurt if you make one BIG change.


----------



## Echoen (Nov 16, 2007)

While /now/ it doesn't look /as/ bad as that centered mess, this still doesn't answer the big question:

Why are you working on this non-issue, instead of fixing Search?


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

Luukra said:
			
		

> sorry to say that, but i know enougth about web-programming, because i studied it for 3 Years >__>


*sigh*
I have been _making my living_ off web programming for more then you have been studying it, and system progamming before that.

I'm sorry, but your experience doesn't really show when you still choose to describe problems using stupid vague terms like "it sucks". 



			
				Luukra said:
			
		

> So you dont have to explain me how a webside is build. Sorry for beeing so ofensive but this "desingn" now really don't fit to the rest. its a bit to "rude"
> 
> Just.. make the desing consitent and don't change module for module.. It doesnt hurt if you make one BIG change.


Oh, it will be consistent, consistend with a simpler layout then a box in a box one we currently have now.
But only god can create the universe in just seven days, and even Rome was built in stages. It'll take some time to rewrite each and every part of the website, and time is scarce.

If you don't like it that much, there's an excelent extension to Firefox called "Stylish". Using it you can change the look of just about any website with user-side styleshets. Since you've been learning web probramming for three years as you claim, you should have no problem in making a good use of this wonderful functionality the plugin provides.
Also, AFAIK, Opera allows you to add your own CSS files to a site without any extensions at all, it's already built it.


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

Echoen said:
			
		

> While /now/ it doesn't look /as/ bad as that centered mess, this still doesn't answer the big question:
> 
> Why are you working on this non-issue, instead of fixing Search?


Search = big, core code changing thing.
This = 30 minutes. 

There're more complains about it then it took to make the thing.

Also, we need t osave as much bandwidth as we can, that was the main purpose if the change.


----------



## dave hyena (Nov 16, 2007)

Hmmmm. I think I like this new way of doing things. I find that it makes managing notifications easier. 

The slight color change when you mouse over a particular notification is very fine too. Indeed, overall, for myself, I find the message center to be more aesthetically pleasing now.


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

Also, this is just phase 1 of the changes concerning the message center. Next phase is improving usability, and making that row hiliting not just a visual effect.


----------



## Pinkuh (Nov 16, 2007)

How about we leave things alone that are awesome and work on real problems?

Like E-mail registration *Jazz hands*


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 16, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> Bokracroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I keep clearing and it's still Lavender and Grey:?


----------



## Eidolon (Nov 16, 2007)

I didn't even need to clear my cache. I came on this morning and everything was adjusted to the left. So, its much better now. Sorry to be nit picky, but I think if the color of the font for the message categories was changed to the dark gray it would look better. The letters are so large and so dark they are almost forcing the viewers attention on them. Using the dark gray of the font under the Control Panel would help balance the design, and unify the page.


----------



## quentinwolf (Nov 16, 2007)

CyberFoxx said:
			
		

> White == Non visited link.
> Purple == Visted link.
> 
> Quite simple to figure out really...



Wasn't working like that last night, unless my browser was just messing up from being open so long.  Clicking and then refreshing the page with white links stayed as white links.  Now it seems to be working correctly.


----------



## cobalt (Nov 16, 2007)

I cleared my browser cache.

Everything is now left justified.

It still looks awful.

Change it back.


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> I cleared my browser cache.
> 
> Everything is now left justified.
> 
> ...


Why? It's saving us bandwidth.


----------



## cobalt (Nov 16, 2007)

> Why? It's saving us bandwidth.



I think the major gripe I have is, you took a page that had a quiet, subtle and sophisticated air, that was easy to use, and easy on the eyes, and turned it into a Microsoft Product (tm).


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> > Why? It's saving us bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the major gripe I have is, you took a page that had a quiet, subtle and sophisticated air, that was easy to use, and easy on the eyes, and turned it into a Microsoft Product (tm).


I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
If you'll do the side-by-side comparation of the previous and the new layout you'll notice it hasn't changed much. Borders were removed, captions made a bit bigger, and buttons moved. That's just about it.

Five minutes of playing around with CSS - and you'll have exactly the same layout as before. What, does the loss of table borders and nesting matter this much?

Microsoft(tm) Product is not a valid argument ,sorry.


----------



## cobalt (Nov 16, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
> If you'll do the side-by-side comparation of the previous and the new layout you'll notice it hasn't changed much. Borders were removed, captions made a bit bigger, and buttons moved. That's just about it.



Yes, those are the three big things that are wrong with it. It's no longer compartmentalized, the header titles are oversized and distracting, and the buttons are no longer color-matched and have confusing text inside them. (select and delete? it doesn't actually DO that when you push it.)




			
				yak said:
			
		

> Five minutes of playing around with CSS - and you'll have exactly the same layout as before.



Okay. That sounds like it should be a quick and easy thing to fix, then.



			
				yak said:
			
		

> What, does the loss of table borders and nesting matter this much?



Yes. It does. Visual cues matter.



			
				yak said:
			
		

> Microsoft(tm) Product is not a valid argument ,sorry.



I'm sure Microsoft feels exactly the same way.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 16, 2007)

I don't really care about the layout changes. They're weird at first, but the spacing between each message is welcome as it makes it easier to read.

Still, I wanna joke about the large text being in response to a lot of SENIOR furrries. Old murries. They're all walruses and turtles for avatars now. )

Edit: Basically, I like this change, thought it was unnecessary, but still like it. I'd rather see Ferrox instead of these *incremental upgrades for an obsolete website*, made obsolete because of the glacial development of Ferrox. Sorry for still whining, but. Well. It's important to be vocal about this.


----------



## Petrock (Nov 16, 2007)

I think the little changes like this are refreshing...and the centered style actually looks better to me, everything stacked on the left made the screen seem a little heavy to that side. But what do I know, I'm an art student. X3;


----------



## Echoen (Nov 16, 2007)

Perhaps if the amount of bandwidth that this saves is of any meaningful amount, then this might be worth it...

But I still want to know why you're taking on little projects instead of the big ones that have been around for years. We appreciate the hard work you put into FA, but please...

Stop avoiding the big issues by using the little issues as an excuse.

You say Search is a big project.

So get to work. Having Search up will be a lot more appreciated by the entire user base than little nitpicking changes in how FA looks. Looks < Function. It's safe to say that we want an FA that works more than an FA that looks good.


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> Yes, those are the three big things that are wrong with it. It's no longer compartmentalized, the header titles are oversized and distracting, and the buttons are no longer color-matched and have confusing text inside them. (select and delete? it doesn't actually DO that when you push it.)


Color matched buttons? What do you mean?

Header size was supposed to actually make it easier to distinguish between different message types, make it easier for people with screen resolution above 1280x1024 to read (it's hard enough as it is because the text size is in .pt and not em) and maybe there was a little easthetic preference on mine involved.

Also, buttons don't say "select and delete", it says "select/clear". This is a trigger button, and it  shout tell you somehow that if you press it again, the action will be reversed.



			
				cobalt said:
			
		

> Okay. That sounds like it should be a quick and easy thing to fix, then.


That's the problem - you never said what was wrong and what required fixing in what way. This reminds me of that Simpsons episode.




			
				cobalt said:
			
		

> Yes. It does. Visual cues matter.


That visual cue is 16 pixels is size, and you complain it is too big of a cue.






			
				Echoen said:
			
		

> But I still want to know why you're taking on little projects instead of the big ones that have been around for years. We appreciate the hard work you put into FA, but please...
> 
> Stop avoiding the big issues by using the little issues as an excuse.
> 
> ...


Let's put it this way.

We have a team of people working on Ferrox, and we have myself here single handedly taking care of this legacy code and the servers, their problems and all user complaints about them, as not to distract those people from their work.

The reason i am doing this stupid, completely unrewarding masochistic task is to keep you guys from whining about things never getting done. My work will be scrapped, and i am aware of that; not really much of a feeling of achievement and appreciation in doing something that aready is outdated by definition, is it?

This is why i am concentrating on developing ideas, concepts of subsystems and layout, because at least that, partially, could be ported over to Ferrox. This is the only thing i can do to help those guys. 
You can almost say i am forcing these layout and functionality changes to get you people to respond, and to develop something decent through series of updates,  _based on your feedback_.

But the feedback hasn't been anywhere near decent, sadly.

There's also the bandwidth issue...

[PS]


			
				Echoen said:
			
		

> You say Search is a big project.
> 
> So get to work. Having Search up will be a lot more appreciated by the entire user base than little nitpicking changes in how FA looks. Looks < Function. It's safe to say that we want an FA that works more than an FA that looks good.


Basing my reply on my previous experience here on FA.
When the search goes live, trust me, we will have people complaining it's not what they expected.


----------



## Echoen (Nov 16, 2007)

It's not that the feedback hasn't been decent, it's that the feedback hasn't been what you wanted it to be.

The feedback has been pretty clear, from what I've seen. Let me simplify it for you, to perhaps make it even more clear.

"This sucks!"

Your claim that this argument is 'too vague' is ludicrous. You do a major overhaul on how the message center inbox looks. People start posting, in a thread called *New Inbox Layout*, and say "it sucks". When you say that statement is too vague, or you don't know what "It sucks" is referring to, I slap my forehead.

Event: Inbox layout change
Feedback: It sucks

You want us to respond? Listen to us. We're responding. The new layout change? It sucks, why did you mess with it, why are you doing this instead of truly important work, etc.

Again, I'll make it clear that I appreciate the hard work you do, just to make sure you don't think that I'm unappreciative of this work you do. But really, _come on_.[/i]


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

Echoen said:
			
		

> It's not that the feedback hasn't been decent, it's that the feedback hasn't been what you wanted it to be.


Exactly. I want to know what you don't like about it, because otherwise i will not fix it for you. Simple enough?



			
				Echoen said:
			
		

> Event: Inbox layout change
> Feedback: It sucks


Response: [crit. or STFU. | Tough shit. | What is the problem with it?]
Feedback: It sucks
Response: *Ignore* Deal with it.

I've traded my mind reading machine for a can of meat, because i'm starving and the pay here sucks. 
Unless you tell me what is wrong with it, you're going to have get used to having your posts being ignored as a waste of the alphabet.
Have a good day now.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 16, 2007)

Glad we are having this very important discussion about something that hardly changed.  Superb use of sysadmin time.

I don't have any strong memories of the old message center (having gotten all of six messages ever), but it looks fine to me now.


----------



## cobalt (Nov 16, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> Exactly. I want to know what you don't like about it, because otherwise i will not fix it for you. Simple enough?



In a nutshell:

Please make it look exactly the same way it looked last week.

Simple enough?


----------



## yak (Nov 16, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> In a nutshell:
> 
> Please make it look exactly the same way it looked last week.
> 
> Simple enough?


Next question is - why? 
If it's just because of your personal preferences, then i'm afraid this can not be done. We can't be fiddling around with site design, changing it back and forth to every person's preference out there. 
However, if it's not just you saying "i want it to look this way", and you can actually provide reasons why we should do that, and you can get people to agree with them - it will count as a legitimate request.

I have been a little more abrasive then i should have perhaps, but you have to realize that you can't make anyone change things just by yelling how much the new changes suck. 
And drop that attitude, it'll not help you achieve anything.


----------



## CyberFoxx (Nov 16, 2007)

Personally, I like the new layout, the old tables/boxes reminded me too much of DA... That, and the old ugly way I used to make webpages way back when.


----------



## LimeyKat (Nov 16, 2007)

I'm highly disliking the large spread out appearance of the message inbox. It seems to be working properly though.


----------



## thecrypto (Nov 16, 2007)

As the lead developer on Ferrox, we are planning on a full visual refresh for the entire system. I must say that this design is closer to what we are looking for for Ferrox than what we had before. It is cleaner and smaller and much easier to navigate in my opinion. What are people's problems with it other than it is different?

Also, I would like to say that yak has done tons of work on this site and should not be bashed over this. If it wasn't for yak, FA would not be running right now. Trust me when I say this.

Please support yak. Yes I know search isn't working yet. But we are working at that. You might not realize it but the work he has done on the message center makes the site faster which allows search to actually be fast when it does come out. E-mail registration is the same thing.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 16, 2007)

Yak:

Complaints (which are not JUST the "it's different I don't like different" that you are dismissing everything as):

*1. There are bigger, more important, and comparatively vital issues users have been complaining about for a long time now that are still unaddressed. *Search may be "not until Ferrox" but Account Registration is not something that needs to be put off. Until the big, visible, rather crucial system function is restored, ANY other changes will be met with complaint.

2. It looks different. The message center now looks incredibly out of place compared to everything else about the site. 

A: The large-text headers that you admit were a personal aesthetic choice were complained about. So reduce the distractingly-large text size. 

B: The placement of the buttons at the top of each section instead of at the bottom, as everyone has become accustomed to, is another purely aesthetic choice and has met with user disapproval. So put the buttons back under each section they apply to.

C: The "select/clear" button has been stated to not be as clear as you feel it to be. Many people will think that it is now a single button that selects and clears(as in deletes) that section. So change the text of the button to "select/deselect" to be more clear as to what it does.

D: Someone mentioned the bright purple for visited links doesn't look right, and a dark grey would be more in tune with the site's visual theme. So change the visited link highlight color to a darker grey tone to match with the overall visual style of the site.

E: You keep saying that five minutes of work would make everything look how the people complaining want it to look. So do that five minutes, and give the users what they are asking for if it takes so little effort instead of dismissing their complaints as invalid simply because they disagree with you.

3. Why are you changing something that worked, and looked fine as it was? "It sucks" and "I don't like it" ARE valid complaints when discussing visual aesthetic appeal, because that is a concept that is completely a matter of opinion. Users HAVE stated WHAT they dislike, as I listed above, but you have been dismissing all that.

The justification for making the change is a valid one, but nobody was aware of your reason because you didn't tell anyone, and when you did, you have been significantly dismissive to the users you seem to think should have just known your reasonings by default.




If you can make a change that streamlines the site or reduces system resource usage, that is great. But you should try to do so while retaining every bit of the visual appearance as possible. You shouldn't make personal aesthetic preference changes because just as you disagree with the aesthetic preferences of the users here, they clearly disagree with yours. Updating the site's appearance is a separate concern from making the site work properly. If users see us making everything all pretty and shiny, but the basic stuff still doesn't even WORK right, they WILL complain, and those complaints are NOT invalid.

You've already said email registration will be up by the end of the week. Other less crucial changes should be made in a test space until then, and put into effect on the actual site AFTER the more visibly crucial system functions are restored, and preferably after you have given the rest of us a heads-up as to what you're changing and why.

Other admins could have met this thread with the VERY valid reason of "it reduces the size of the page by a factor of 12" right at the onset, instead of being just as clueless as everyone else as to what was going on.


----------



## Fennex (Nov 16, 2007)

As some people are apparently too boneheaded to understand that critiquing the new layout means pointing out, in detail, what is wrong with it, here's a decent critique.

*Titles are huge*
This is mostly a subjective impression. The rational part of my brain tells my the size is just fine. They just look so big because every other bit of text on the site is ridiculously small. 

*List items*
While they were too cramped originally, I now find them to be too far apart. There is so much empty space between the lines that you can easily fit another line in there. This makes it more difficult to see the list as a group, and makes the new list be harder on my eyes than the old one. I've got the feeling that reducing the spacing by a pixel or two would make the list far easier to skim over.

*select/clear buttons*
I find these to be somewhat confusing as I associate clear with delete (clear cache, clear cookies,...). Select/Deselect would be more straightforward.

*ease of use*
While I find the idea of placing the select/clear buttons at the top left a really neat one, positioning them all the way at the left side has a rather annoying usability issue. 
If I want to remove all watches, some comments and all shouts, favorites and journals I have to traverse a ridiculous amount off distance with my mouse. And my screen is only 1280 pixels width. Imagine what people on a 1600x1200 screen have to do.

It would also be really nice if I could shift-click to select a series of messages. It would make it a lot easier to clean up _almost all_ messages

*remove selected messages*
This button and to a lesser extent the select all button look really lost just floating down there in the middle of all that empty space. Use a different background color or a border or... Just do something about it because right now they look really lost and forgotten.


And that concludes my critique for now. I'll need to use it a bit more to form a better opinion but overall I find the new message center to be a vast improvement over the old one. All of the things I've mentioned here are nothing more than minor nitpicks really.

*pats yak on the back*
Many thanks for the new and much improved message center


----------



## TakeWalker (Nov 16, 2007)

FWIW, my disapproval of the new inbox style centers around the lack of borders. Everything kind of runs together and, yes, it looks like a 12 year old coughed it up for his computer class. There's just something in comparison that doesn't look at professional or usable as the previous style. That, and for a while I thought the "Select/Clear All Messages" button had become a combined select all/remove all. Which it isn't. Just a little unclear is all.

However, if it's an improvement for bandwidth, I'm all for it. This is something that will be easy enough to get used to, and I imagine that by the end of the week, none of us will remember how the old one looked. So, yeah, it's ugly, but I really don't care that much.


----------



## Caution_Cat (Nov 16, 2007)

If yak wants to dick around with a site, and if he wants to be professional, shouldn't he have a test site for all this?
When a site is making a new layout, they have a testing site to see how it runs or how it looks, instead of mickey mousing around with the site they have.
And instead of getting a huge flood of "I hate this." "wtf are you doing?!?!?!?!" you could have a beta site for the new layout, for people to test it out, and to REALLY see if it's easier, nicer to look at, and much more quicker to navigate.

You don't need to redesign the layout right now, you have other issues you should do first.
If the search engine takes so long, you should do it first, and leave the easy simple crap for last. They way you're doing this is completely ass backwards and unprofessional.

With the feedback so far, it seems that you should have left the box in a box in a box layout alone. At least then it wasn't a spaced out mess.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 17, 2007)

Yak *does* have a test site for experimenting with FA code, so that if something crashes it doesn't take FA down with it.  However, that's about it, it is not public nor for beta testing.


----------



## Farhoug (Nov 17, 2007)

Reading all this "feedback" I have to wonder how people will ever get used to the new system once it's live for the public. This is, and quite likely the next version too will be "*work in progress*", and it'll take plenty of changes to get things to a stable stage. If that is ever achieved, that is. The only sites that never change are usually dead sites, that's the nature of Internet.

The new style looks good to me, the old one was a bit boxy anyways. And if it saves bandwidth, all the better. Only minor gripe I have is that "Select/Clear", I first thought it was a nuke button, until after a little while of poking I realized it's just a toggle switch. Gotta say that I can't figure out a better wording for that though, "Toggle Watches" sounds a bit too technical to me, even though it'd be shorter. "Select/Unselect"?

But anyways, keep up the good work. ^^


----------



## cobalt (Nov 17, 2007)

Farhoug said:
			
		

> Reading all this "feedback" I have to wonder how people will ever get used to the new system once it's live for the public.



It seems pretty clear that most of the posters here in this thread all hate the same things about the new look. We've all pretty much made the same complaints over, and over, and over again.

The dismissal of those complaints, while waving around a "five minute fix" that we have yet to actually see, has done nothing for the credibility of the people responsible, at all.

There is another -unnamed- website for posting furry art, which is similar in concept to FurAffinity, and which is actually run by a good, close and personal friend of mine.

But, I don't use it. Here's why:

It's confusing, it's complicated, and it's hard on the eyes.

I Use FA, because I like the way it looks, and the way it works. Or at least, I did until this happened. And I am obviously not alone in that.

If the whole site is changed to match this new look, things are going to go from bad to worse, around here. I doubt we'll get all the angst and hang-wringing "OMG Leaving! Bye!" crap we got when the cub-art war got started, but I know that right now, I'm a lot less interested in using the site, just because it's harder to operate. 

I do appreciate the hard work being done to keep this place running, and I do understand that this new design was supposed to help cut down on bandwidth. 

But, it it's possible to make FurAffinity look exactly the same way it did before, just by making a few style sheet changes, then those changes need to be made, now.


----------



## Farhoug (Nov 17, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> It seems pretty clear that most of the posters here in this thread all hate the same things about the new look. We've all pretty much made the same complaints over, and over, and over again.



Since statistics are our bastard friends we all love, I'd like to point out one other thing that is often overlooked in these matters of personal taste: 0.2% of the forum users are saying "Change it back!". And the registered forum users are but a fraction of the all FA users. I guess the rest of the crowd still tolerates our little journey toward better browsing. ;-)

But patience, please. I'm pretty sure Yak doesn't do these changes to annoy people. And if the site is moving toward similar layout the Ferrox system will have, it's kinda useful to get people used to it too beforehand.

Code-wise, it looks nice and lean now, and I know from experience that it's much more easily tweakable than any table-based layout would. And probably saves a nice little chunk of bandwidth too. 
And we'll get those little tweaks for it eventually, though I really hope it won't mean returning to the old style. I just hate to see space wasted on borders and stuff. But that's just my personal opinion.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 17, 2007)

Well, to be overly-cynical, you'll use FA because you have no alternative but to.

FAP provides similar services, but suffers from being new and extremely unfamiliar. VCL doesn't have embedded commenting in their galleries and doesn't allow as wide a variety of media. There are the sites that're started up by Yerf and pseudo-Yerf artists, but they're even *less* popular and harbor different community mentalities.

Also, because the change actually improves site efficiency to some degree, the visual aspect probably isn't going to be altered.

Also, did I mention the part of you having no alternative when it comes to using FA? The coders are unpaid and therefore extremely hard to sway when you complain about the fragile electromagnetic string starting to collapse reality as you know it because they altered their, not your, inbox.


----------



## Arcturus (Nov 17, 2007)

The new message center layout is crap. It's visually horrible. And the buttons aren't even the same SIZE. And things are spaced so damn far apart..


----------



## UndyingSong (Nov 17, 2007)

Mm, all right. The only problem I have now is the amount of space between the 'New Watches' - Why not place them a bit closer together, for more ease of use? :0 They're so far apart right now, that it looks like it is stretching the page. There's no need to give each one that much space, yes?

Oh! I wanted to mention, too, that I really like the fact that things can be highlighted now when moused over. Yup. :3


----------



## blade (Nov 17, 2007)

I like the current design of the setup/layout, however, I have found it a little confusing with the buttons above the selection rather than below where it had been before.  I also have found that the "select/clear" button was a little confusing at first since it had clicked in my mind that pressing the buton twice would clear (delete) the entire section, even though it had been proved wrong in my reguard because it cleared the checkboxes.

I will say thank you for all your hard work in doing this for all of us.


----------



## pornthulhu (Nov 17, 2007)

First, I'm sorry If I didn't read the whole thread and it looks like that has been mentioned already, so here's my take on it:
What happend to the message center? 
I'm not fond of just remaining static and never trying out new things to improve the site, but at least for me having the "select all checkboxes" buttons on the right side *above* the messages is confusing. And the headlines take a way too much space, they should be smaller. I like the lines, be it <hr>s or css bottom borders. 
Here's my vote on adding the CHECK ALL button below the actual boxes/entries on the left side or centered. Just like it's the case with the REMOVE ALL MESSAGES button already. 

Thanks! And also thanks for trying to improve the site!


----------



## Rilvor (Nov 17, 2007)

Reading through this thread was like reading the Runescape/Warcraft forums.


----------



## imnohbody (Nov 17, 2007)

It may not quite be as important as people screaming "it sucks, change it!" ( :roll: ), but I do have one issue with the message center, but one that goes back a bit more than the current layout.

Background: When I'm checking messages, I open a new tab for the non-submission stuff, and open each notification in a new tab, so I can just hit "select all" then "remove selected" to clear the notices.

For the non-submission notices, the buttons for "select all" and "remove selected", at the bottom of the notice page, are positioned fairly well apart, whereas for the submission notices, the buttons are right next to one another, making for a quick one-two clearing of everything once the new tabs have loaded. Is there any particular reason submissions have a different (but preferable) setup than the other types of notices?

As for the "turning into MySpace" comments, sounds a lot like the people saying that don't actually _use_ MySpace, or even look at it. FA's setup is nowhere near as obnoxious as MySpace, and isn't going anywhere more than vaguely in that direction, based on history to date. Whatever the issue may be, wild hand-waving and screaming vague hyperbole  (like "FA is turning into MySpace") isn't exactly the best way to get results.


----------



## whitedingo (Nov 18, 2007)

I have a problem with the sun,its to hot at midday now, I want yak to put it back to the way it was before global warming.
Geez if you all whinge this much about something simple like this what are you going to be like when fernox comes out
get over it


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 18, 2007)

Just how much bandwidth is this new layout saving?


----------



## pornthulhu (Nov 18, 2007)

Pretty good question Bokracroc.

Besides as long as people can't customize the css or look of their userpage it won't be as ... chaotic and visually disgusting as Myspace. But hell, that's Myspace with it's very special charm of its own. I guess it wouldn't work any other way 
Still, please not for FA. I remember there's an art site that allows that kind of customization, and I just don't like it. Better to get a website if someone wants to customize his pages.


----------



## cobalt (Nov 18, 2007)

TehSean said:
			
		

> Well, to be overly-cynical, you'll use FA because you have no alternative but to.



Actually, No.

Still waiting for that "five minute fix."


----------



## TehSean (Nov 18, 2007)

You've been waiting for days.  It seems like you'd get the hint.


----------



## blade (Nov 18, 2007)

Just let them do what they need to do considering they are not getting paid for their hard work.

Most likely Ferrox will have things as totally new and most of these arguments are going to be moot.

Things for in the meantime will be done when they're done, so yes it has been a long wait, but it usually makes things sweeter when things are completed.


----------



## imnohbody (Nov 18, 2007)

TehSean said:
			
		

> You've been waiting for days.  It seems like you'd get the hint.



How often does _anyone_ give up on a cherished notion, though? On or off the intarweb, but especially _on_ it.


----------



## Eevee (Nov 18, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> Still waiting for that "five minute fix."


https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2108

Dead serious.  The Web is open.  If you don't like it, fix it.


----------



## robomilk (Nov 19, 2007)

Well, unless I'm the only one, I like it. And in terms of bandwidth (and in the end, cost of running) it's good for the site too. 

The old page was bloated and looked like something from the mid- to late-90s, this however fits with the styles found commonly in websites of more recent times

I happen to go to a lot of these recent sites, and so do many others. What's so hard to differentiate? The sections are divided by a largish title and a line, that's the EXACT same method they use on Wikipedia. I'm even thinking to the extent that some people here are complaining for the sake of complaining.

I do still have complaints however. Basically the colour of visited links, lilac/lavender/whatever, doesn't fit in very well. And also the wording on the buttons - as someone said, they don't actually delete anything, so shouldn't have the word delete on them.


----------



## cobalt (Nov 20, 2007)

TehSean said:
			
		

> You've been waiting for days.  It seems like you'd get the hint.



Yep. As expected, the lack of response has been highly Microsoftesque.

Five minute fix, my a$$.


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 20, 2007)

To all the users complaining about yak's "5 minute fix" statement:

*He meant you can fix it for yourself in 5 minutes, with the proper browser tool*, such as the Stylish extension for Firefox (linked by Eevee above).


----------



## Eevee (Nov 20, 2007)

cobalt said:
			
		

> Yep. As expected, the lack of response has been highly Microsoftesque.


Do you have a list of people to compare us to to make us feel super-bad?  What's next?  If we don't change it back, the terrorists win?

yak is busy.  Sorry.  Fix it yourself if it bothers you that much.


----------



## ZhivagoD (Nov 24, 2007)

Cobalt, you're a nitpick. I was one of the original complainers on the board and I think it looks just fine now. Besides, I think it looks more Mac than Windows anyway.

Eevee is right, if you don't like it, fix it yourself.


----------



## quentinwolf (Nov 24, 2007)

Figured I'd quick put my input in,

I like the new layout for the most part, but the only thing I don't prefer, is having the 'Select/Clear all *" button above everything, especially the Journal area,  It can get a bit confusing, plus the Journal list is usually long enough that you scroll down to the bottom reading through them, then have to scroll back up again to select all the journal entries, then scroll back down again to the bottom to clear them. (Much more time consuming)

As for how the original layout was, I don't usually pay that much attention, All I know is the functionality was there, and was quicker to navigate button-wise.

Current:
[attachment=2062]

Suggested:
[attachment=2063]

Stylish works great for changing various CSS options, but it doesn't do much to the actual HTML Layout.   So this isn't something that can be changed with just a plug-in, correct?


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 25, 2007)

I agree.  Putting the "select all' button at the bottom of the box helps visually 'frame' everything between it, it provides a more distinct header and footer for the list, there is not even a snowball-clause possibility of confusing which button does what.


----------



## yak (Nov 25, 2007)

I think i will adopt this layout, if the author does not mind


----------



## quentinwolf (Nov 25, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> I think i will adopt this layout, if the author does not mind



If you're talking about mine, Feel free to use it however you'd like.   I'd be more than happy to see the change.


----------



## quentinwolf (Dec 13, 2007)

quentinwolf said:
			
		

> yak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*bump*

Just wondering if this has been considered yet or not?


----------



## yak (Dec 14, 2007)

It's not only considered, it's already approved. Stay tuned.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 14, 2007)

New inbox layout is new.


----------



## quentinwolf (Feb 21, 2008)

Bit of a holy thread resurrection...

But I've noticed that the "Comments, Journals, Favorites, and Watches" area layout still hasn't changed over the past 2 months, and I still find the location of those "Select all Watches", "Select all Comments", "Select all Journals" buttons etc inconvenient... 
(As seen in post: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=14468&pid=247016#pid247016 , with a comparison of how I think it would work better)

Just wondering if this slipped by anyone, or got pushed aside because of other requests?  I have noticed the text of the buttons have changed, making it a bit clearer..


----------

