# The New Userpage Gallery



## Immelmann (Jan 19, 2009)

Oh hello there. I do hope this is the right place and time for this thread.

Just noticed that userpages now have the new gallery, wherein thumbnails are displayed, instead of just the title with timestamps. I'm curious as to what you all think about it.

I like it, myself. As I see it...
Pros: It's certainly prettier, to me at least. Nice and neat, and clean.
It makes previewing a gallery easier. The hovering mouse-over was a bit glitchy.
Cons: No time stamps! Does this user post once a week, or has he been dead for a year?


So, thoughts?


----------



## Madra (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, it's a nice idea. You're right, it does make previewing a gallery a little easier, but eh.. it seems to be really, really slow, so it kind of defeats the purpose. And I also miss the timestamps.. those were really useful. :/


----------



## Immelmann (Jan 19, 2009)

I miss the timestamps too - I think it'd be nice if the timestamp was put just under the big preview image, so that we see the upload date of whatever we have highlighted.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm going to be brutally honest here.

I think it sucks. Hard. It makes the pages load a hell of a lot slower. It looks awful. And I really liked being able to tell at a glance when the submissions were uploaded.


----------



## lawsuite (Jan 19, 2009)

I liked being able to hover over and get a big preview image! These tiny thumbnails aren't much help


----------



## Aq Bars (Jan 19, 2009)

I like it, you're right when you say the mouse-over thing was glitchy. It was annoying. The timestamps were kind of useful for stalkage-related purposes, but I don't think I'm going to miss them much.


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

Immelmann said:


> I miss the timestamps too - I think it'd be nice if the timestamp was put just under the big preview image, so that we see the upload date of whatever we have highlighted.



its still i nthe description page of the picture.


I do like the new interface seems less annoying now


----------



## Zekumas (Jan 19, 2009)

It makes the site sluggish, And I'm not the only one with that problem.


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

Don't like it.  Makes pages take a hell of a lot longer to load (which is currently being blamed on thumbnail re-cacheing), and it looks like FA is going to start going the way of DA and other sites that think Web 2.0 and loads of Flash/Ajax/other bloated browser-side scripting are the way to go.


----------



## Zalin (Jan 19, 2009)

Don't like it. The page took forever to load, and it doesnt even look much nicer. Suddenly, instead of a wall of text, its a narrow line of little, undecipherable pictures. I couldn't even tell which piece was which in my favorites section.
Maybe it should be optional to see it/not see it?

Ugh, hopefully this post doesnt become outdated in the time it takes for me to reload my page and get a final look before cementing my opinion <_<


----------



## Gillagad (Jan 19, 2009)

The lack of titles or timestamps on the userpage is annoying.  And having random small thumbnails floating in the center is pretty ugly imo.  Seems a lot less functional and useful than it was...


----------



## lawsuite (Jan 19, 2009)

They could at least make the thumbnails a bit larger! They really are too tiny to get a decent idea of the image. At least make them as large as the normal gallery thumbnails, for Christ's sake! Or even use less of them, and/or place them side-by-side. All the empty space is glaring. Right now it looks like a more poorly-organized version of a DeviantArt page display.


----------



## Yukiru (Jan 19, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> I'm going to be brutally honest here.
> 
> I think it sucks. Hard. It makes the pages load a hell of a lot slower. It looks awful. And I really liked being able to tell at a glance when the submissions were uploaded.



I completely agree..


----------



## XianJaguar (Jan 19, 2009)

Yeah, I'm going to have to say I do NOT like the new "user gallery" format on the user page. The tiny thumbnails are all lined up vertically, one thumbnail per row, stretching out the page more. I miss the titles with the handy mouse-overs. The old format was much cleaner, more informative, and faster-loading.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

And despite what is implied by that nice little notice on the main site, the slowdowns are not likely to get any better. Think about this. Instead of just having a few images and some text to load each time a userpage is called up, there will now be a ton of images. With the traffic that we get, it's going to translate to slower performance.

I think we should at least have the option to use the old style.


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

BUT GUYS WAIT IT'S JUST SERVER LAG, NOT CLIENT SIDE LAG
ALSO, THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS VISUALLY
AND NO IMPAIRMENTS TO USABILITY
THOSE ARE SERVER LAG TOO, WAIT IT OUT

Seriously.


----------



## Immelmann (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm all for making this optional, but if FA is going to be anything like DA, Google, or any modern site, I guess it's not going to happen.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 19, 2009)

An option to use the new or old way would be nice...


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

Immelmann said:


> ...but if FA is going to be anything like DA...


 
No, it's cool, DA loads fast as hell and doesn't have any glitches or client hangups when you try to change gallery pages, submit anything, or use a lightweight browser that isn't full of bloated, official releases of five different runtime environments and plugins.


----------



## yobutt5 (Jan 19, 2009)

i'm not going to mince words... i hate it. it makes the site a hell of a lot slower


----------



## Summercat (Jan 19, 2009)

XianJaguar said:


> Yeah, I'm going to have to say I do NOT like the new "user gallery" format on the user page. The tiny thumbnails are all lined up vertically, one thumbnail per row, stretching out the page more. I miss the titles with the handy mouse-overs. The old format was much cleaner, more informative, and faster-loading.



This is exactly what I was going to say. I dislike how it's set up now. Maybe if they were put into some sort of table with mouseover information....


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

Immelmann said:


> I'm all for making this optional, but if FA is going to be anything like DA, Google, or any modern site, I guess it's not going to happen.



On the other hand, if FA were going to be like those sites, the changes would at least make a little bit of sense.


----------



## Zalin (Jan 19, 2009)

EphyuSikay said:


> BUT GUYS WAIT IT'S JUST SERVER LAG, NOT CLIENT SIDE LAG
> ALSO, THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS VISUALLY
> AND NO IMPAIRMENTS TO USABILITY
> THOSE ARE SERVER LAG TOO, WAIT IT OUT
> ...


CAPS LOCK IS KRUISE KONTROL FOUR KOOL

In all seriousness, ya, its server lag. Server lag means the server is being stressed. A stressed server means a lot of stressed furries smashing their keyboards out of frustration.
There are problems visually. It stretches out the page and makes it look ugly.
There is an impairment to usability. I can no longer mouse over images and get a brief glimpse of them. I can't even tell how old a picture is without clicking it, which means waiting for an insanely long load.
Server lag will not go away. The traffic right now is at its lowest. Its midnight on a Sunday night. There shouldn't be too much traffic yet. It will only get worst.


----------



## JennaVixen (Jan 19, 2009)

I really do not like the new style. :-/ Can we have an option to use the old style, at least? I really liked having the "tool tip" style previews and seeing the titles and date in text... It certainly looked a lot cleaner.


----------



## OxfordTweed (Jan 19, 2009)

It does not work in Chrome. I've noticed that in FireFox, if you hover over the image, it does like on Y!Gallery, and makes it bigger. This does not happen in Chrome at all. D:


----------



## Kiffa_kitmouse (Jan 19, 2009)

Yeah, it'd be nice if users were given the option to view pages either in the old style or new style. I don't _need_ to see more thumbnails on the user page. If I want to see thumbnails, that's why I click on "Gallery".

The new way just looks awkward. It'd be one thing if you saw say, the last 9 favorites in a 3x3 block, or the last 12 in a 3x4 block, etc. But with the one big one at the top and the others following in single file, with the top pic offset to the left because the text appears at the right of the pic instead of underneath it, it just looks... ugly.

[EDIT: OK, I see the way it's _supposed_ to look now. I did see the message that said "If your gallery does not display correctly please refresh the page and/or delete your browser cache"... problem is, if you don't know how it's supposed to look, how do you know it's not displayed correctly? lol

It looks OK now, but I still like the old way better. I prefer the time stamps.]


----------



## Ket-Ralus (Jan 19, 2009)

I want timestamps back. I REALLY REALLY want time stamps back.


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

Zalin said:


> CAPS LOCK IS KRUISE KONTROL FOUR KOOL
> 
> In all seriousness, ya, its server lag. Server lag means the server is being stressed. A stressed server means a lot of stressed furries smashing their keyboards out of frustration.
> There are problems visually. It stretches out the page and makes it look ugly.
> ...


 
You realize you're actually supporting what I'm saying, right?
I know there's server lag, but the problem is that it's ALL being blamed on server lag, rather than anyone admitting that there are other problems.

P.S.: The capslock did its job and got your attention.


----------



## Zalin (Jan 19, 2009)

EphyuSikay said:


> You realize you're actually supporting what I'm saying, right?
> I know there's server lag, but the problem is that it's ALL being blamed on server lag, rather than anyone admitting that there are other problems.
> 
> P.S.: The capslock did its job and got your attention.


Meh, Ive been reading all these anyways. (I have no life) Choose to respond out of boredism.

I must have misread what you said. The server is lagging, that much is true, and the problems are not because of the server's lagging. The problems are just there. I must have misread it because I thought you said it was all because of the server stress. Meh. Maybe staying up 24 hours and then trying to post on a forum wasn't the wisest decision of my life.


----------



## cadc (Jan 19, 2009)

I have to agree with captha, naturally I'm all for thumbnails, however, the way the thumbnails are layed out, it makes the pages feel rather un natural...

If i had to live with the thumbnails, I would suggest putting them next to each other instead of just following a straight line down.

also the idea of making this purely optional sounds really good right about now...

Still looking forward to the search function though


----------



## dragonofdarkness13 (Jan 19, 2009)

I think it sucks ... it's really unneeded & makes the site run slower , at least for me it does


----------



## LavitzSkall (Jan 19, 2009)

To be honest I do not like this new format at all. Although it is a nice idea to be able to see thumbnails to prevent the rollover glitches, they are WAY too small to be seen. The old system was much more effective at showing the title of a piece, as well as when it was posted. Also, it takes less server capacity to load the text. Although I am sure the current increased lag is just a result of changing servers, I do not doubt it is also due to having to load tiny thumbnails instead of text. If the mod's are dead set on keeping them, could they at least arrange them in a visually appealing way. The vertical bar of tiny little pictures is really frustrating.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

For the record, y'all, the vertical line thing should clear up if you clear your browser cache. It then displays two rows of four on top of each other. But it still looks awful.


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

Zalin said:


> Meh, Ive been reading all these anyways. (I have no life) Choose to respond out of boredism.
> 
> I must have misread what you said. The server is lagging, that much is true, and the problems are not because of the server's lagging. The problems are just there. I must have misread it because I thought you said it was all because of the server stress. Meh. Maybe staying up 24 hours and then trying to post on a forum wasn't the wisest decision of my life.


 
I think you were just trying to be contrary for the sake of it.  Or failed really hard at recognizing blatant sarcasm. :[


----------



## cadc (Jan 19, 2009)

after doing a refresh of the page, the page refreshed correctly, and I gotta just say, I take back what i said earlier, this is pretty nice!

but yea, optional is still a good idea


----------



## Zalin (Jan 19, 2009)

EphyuSikay said:


> I think you were just trying to be contrary for the sake of it.  Or failed really hard at recognizing blatant sarcasm. :[


I probably was just trying to argue, and when I am struggling to keep my eyes open, I could easily miss sarcasm. Meh, good night.


----------



## Koda (Jan 19, 2009)

Blah... Just needed to do Ctrl+F5.. I thought the stacking was intended! XD

==== Meaningless post follows, sorry for drama ====


What happened to titles and artist names? How about some kind of spacing out or something?

The images are all just stacked like legos, and it kinda sucks. The bottom ... *stops himself*

I see, it actually does function and look nice in Internet Explorer. Hope there are plans to make it work in a real browser sometime in the future...

In IE I've noticed that the thumbs can jump around as you mouse over between wide and tall images. Probably something else that should be looked at, specially if toenails are restricted to a max/min size, keeping the thumbs still shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## XianJaguar (Jan 19, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> For the record, y'all, the vertical line thing should clear up if you clear your browser cache. It then displays two rows of four on top of each other. But it still looks awful.



Ah, so it does. Well, that's a little bit better. Thanks for the tip. 

Still, I do like the old format better. It gave people more options...if they wanted to see a thumbnail from the line text, all they had to do was roll their mouse over it. If they didn't want to see the thumbnail, they didn't have to touch the text. And of course, no matter how tiny or efficient you make a thumbnail, text will always load faster. Oh, and timestamps FTW.


----------



## yell0w_f0x (Jan 19, 2009)

i miss the timestamps.. and yeah.. i like the old one better too..


----------



## JennaVixen (Jan 19, 2009)

It is better after clearing the cache and reloading.

I still liked being able to see the information in text though.


----------



## Dogman (Jan 19, 2009)

Cons:
vastly increased load times
thumbnails are really small
no titles
no timestamps
you no longer have a direct link to the artists userpage who's work you've faved.

Pros:
none.


----------



## Zalin (Jan 19, 2009)

Koda said:


> Blah... Just needed to do Ctrl+F5.. I thought the stacking was intended! XD
> 
> ==== Meaningless post follows, sorry for drama ====
> 
> ...


Mmm, browser doesn't mean anything. I tried it with Internet Explorer, Firefox 3, Opera, Google Chrome, and Safari. Nothing seems to be different.

Edit: Actually, Dogman, it functions fine. Hover over the one you want and a larger thumb appears on the top along with its title and the author. You can only link back to the original pic, however. There should be a link to the author and a time stamp, but everything else is functionable.

Edit 2: Clear your caches. Labeled Private Data on Firefox at least.


----------



## Honeymane (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm having difficulty understanding how this benefits us, the end user, compared to such normal functions like 'search'.

If FA wants to play with the big-boy artist communities of DA and such not, I suggest the fix the damn search function, not mess up one of the few good features of FA.


----------



## Aq Bars (Jan 19, 2009)

Honeymane said:


> I'm having difficulty understanding how this benefits us, the end user, compared to such normal functions like 'search'.
> 
> If FA wants to play with the big-boy artist communities of DA and such not, I suggest the fix the damn search function, not mess up one of the few good features of FA.


 Are you serious? Drop the damn search function already, its disappearance has been explained to death by staff, and it's not coming back. Deal with it.


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

New galleries work fine in Opera 9.6 here. I don't get the hate that I see in some others in the thread, but I'd like to see this not extrapolated too much farther. I'd hate to see FA become like the current dA.

Also, from the FA header: "_Site performance may be impacted while thumbnails are regenerated._"  Does this mean we'll see a performance increase after a little while?

Edit: I miss being able to click on the user name from mine or someone's favorites gallery.


----------



## Koda (Jan 19, 2009)

Zalin said:


> Mmm, browser doesn't mean anything. I tried it with Internet Explorer, Firefox 3, Opera, Google Chrome, and Safari. Nothing seems to be different.



The image jumping happens if you mouse over a tall image and then a wide image thumbnail. Only does it in IE for me. *shrug*

Anyway, I did put the tagline on there 'meaningless post' for a reason! I figured out I was just being dumb.

Good job FA


----------



## Zalin (Jan 19, 2009)

Aq Bars said:


> Are you serious? Drop the damn search function already, its disappearance has been explained to death by staff, and it's not coming back. Deal with it.


http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1896964/

Actually, Search is returning. Don't you look at those ads and stuff people pay Dragoneer to put up?
Edit: My apology, Koda. I read that meaningless post part and completely ignored it =\
Edit2: My apology again, this time for misspelling your name


----------



## Honeymane (Jan 19, 2009)

Aq Bars said:


> Are you serious? Drop the damn search function already, its disappearance has been explained to death by staff, and it's not coming back. Deal with it.



This still doesn't explain how exactly this change benefits the artists, other then one user proposing that perhaps FA is trying to change their style to better match websites such as DA.

However, in order to match, or even come close to matching an artistic website like DA, FA is going to need some sort of search function, because search functions are the bedrock of nearly every modern website, and certainly an important one to any artist website.


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

Zalin said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1896964/
> 
> Actually, Search is returning. Don't you look at those ads and stuff people pay Dragoneer to put up?
> Edit: My apology, Koda. I read that meaningless post part and completely ignored it =\
> Edit2: My apology again, this time for misspelling your name


 
Go to bed before you "misread" another post.  I thought you already said "good night."


----------



## Stonefire (Jan 19, 2009)

I was going to say that I didn't care for it, but then I cleared my cache and saw what it actually looks like, and I approve of it for the most part. As many have commented, I miss the timestamps, but I could live without them. Also, I miss the direct link to the artist's userpage that their name provided before. Other than that, and as long as the lag clears up, I think the new layout is pretty cool.


----------



## QuetzaDrake (Jan 19, 2009)

It's a very interesting concept, and I enjoy it, but I kind of miss the timestamps, and it does make the server somewhat sluggish...


----------



## Project Dark Fox (Jan 19, 2009)

If a person has different-sized images for their gallery and their favorites (chances are very high that they will be), the rows of tiny thumbnails looks like shit.  I've more enjoyed the style of thumbnails used in SheezyArt or at the very least go back to what you had.  How did it go, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?


----------



## Narffet (Jan 19, 2009)

I love the new style. Other features I'd like to see would maybe be a way to ad more Featured submissions in such thumbnail format.

Also, my friend Gichigami said something really cool, like Featured Favorites, for more networking and promotion.

Overall, fresh overhaul. I do like it.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

Project Dark Fox said:


> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?



That's the core of the problems people are having, I think.

What was wrong with the old format that warranted this change?


----------



## CyberFoxx (Jan 19, 2009)

*Cough* I honestly didn't notice the layout change till I read people complaining about it. Then again, I don't view people's userpages for long anyway, just 1) Click on link to userpage 2) Click on gallery.


----------



## EphyuSikay (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm also seeing posts about how FA is totally not badly coded, and all problems are currently server lag.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.furaffinity.net%2Fuser%2Fdragoneer%2F&charset=utf-8&doctype=XHTML+1.0+Transitional&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.606

'Kay.

Hell, even when you drop it from XHTML Transitional to HTML 4 Transitional you get:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...tional&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.606

Keep in mind "Transitional" is the designation for "loose" HTML specifications. If they're trying to go for the "future" they need to get on the ball with getting everything to pass XHTML Strict.

Edit:  Not sure if anyone's following, but this is just checking the quality of the HTML on the pages.  If this is what's making it to the browser as HTML, imagine the server-side programming, and the Java and Flash.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

So......Will we get an explanation of why the change was made?

I mean, we should have gotten one at the time (or ideally before) the change was made, but I'd still like to have the explanation.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm not a fan...

Mainly because the images load slower, it removes information I like to see, it slows down the whole site, and it doesn't really seem to add anything...


----------



## V_D_O (Jan 19, 2009)

Now that I've actually seen how it works, I'm comfortable enough with the change. If given a choice I would still use the old format, but this is mostly usable.


----------



## Hendikins (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm really not a fan of this. Whilst I don't expect it will be revoked (or even made optional), some alternate text would be nice.


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Jan 19, 2009)

If you have problems with load times, you need to do something about all the extra crap running on your computer. And thats twards no one in particular, it just seems to be a trend with people.

I keep my computer very clean and keep a very low system overhead, even DA loads in less than a second on my PC, even my laptop (an old Sempron) loads DA in about one to two seconds. I can't understand how anyone can have it load slowly. 

Then again, I see alot of screenshots of people with desktops that have a million apps running at once, and then they wonder why flash, java or other scripted pages load so slow. 

If you would keep your computer clean and optimized you wouldent have a problem, even closing one or two apps can make a big difference. And don't give me that bull about it taking long to restart it. If you didn't have so many apps running at once stuff would load faster.

I have a total of 24 processes running on my laptop at any time, and this is fresh from bootup, I don't have to close anything. If I can do it anyone can. People seem to packrat these things and have some kind of obsession with multi-tasking.

Now as far as the new design goes, I used to do web design. but the last time I did anything with a web page was around five or six years ago. Anyway, my opinnion on the new design is that they just have to tile the thumbnails, thats all. If the thumbnails where say five rows wide and two rows down, that would be perfect, it would keep the pages short and clean.


----------



## taklayyankovic (Jan 19, 2009)

Others have said this already, but I hate it, too. Assuming the majority of folks here are on broadband while they are complaining about the speed, I'm on dial-up, so the site barely loads at all. (I also do not hoard programs, especially those that communicate through the Internet, for speed reasons, so I know it's not that.) I much preferred the previous design; I didn't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragon-Commando said:
			
		

> Lots of stuff about system processes.



Hate to break it to you fella, but what is running on your computer has next to nothing to do with how fast a web page loads. I was running 64 processes on my computer when FA was in the old format, and it was loading in about two seconds. If it had anything to do with the amount of stuff running on my computer, that would not be the case.


----------



## Hendikins (Jan 19, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> Hate to break it to you fella, but what is running on your computer has next to nothing to do with how fast a web page loads.



Yes, no, maybe. CPU/RAM can be a bottleneck for script/image/content heavy pages. In fact, with the ready availability of broadband for many users, they can be the _main_ bottleneck.

That being said, the performance is leaving something to be desired on this machine (dual Opteron 2378, 16 gig of RAM and a 30 megabit cable connection), so I'd hate to think how it performs for people with slow connections or PCs.


----------



## Eidy (Jan 19, 2009)

It looks nice, but it seems to load slower. I prefer the timestamps, it lets me know how often someone posts, if at all, and lets me know how much a fave-whore they are. I also like to go directly to an artists page if I see something I really like. If their was a way to add those elements back in I might be swayed, but remember the rules of K.I.S.S. Simplicity, and function or fashion, please!


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Hendikins said:


> That being said, the performance is leaving something to be desired on this machine (dual Opteron 2378, 16 gig of RAM and a 30 megabit cable connection), so I'd hate to think how it performs for people with slow connections or PCs.


The performance right now has nothing to do with your PC. At all. It is all server side.

The system has to re-cache and re-size over a million image thumbnails.


----------



## Devious Bane (Jan 19, 2009)

Considering that my computer is literally falling apart, I don't like it. For starters, I think it takes a bit more out of the computer to run the scripts(and FF already has a good footprint).
Definitely better, for the last one occasionally stuck to my cursor and basically blockaded my view until I hit F5 or switch pages(Yes, I'm serious).

I like it, but I'd prefer an option to turn it on or off. Because not all computers are in good health, mine included. With prior use of similar looking script, this is why I normally have Task Manager opened 24/7 to nuke FF.


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Jan 19, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> Hate to break it to you fella, but what is running on your computer has next to nothing to do with how fast a web page loads. I was running 64 processes on my computer when FA was in the old format, and it was loading in about two seconds. If it had anything to do with the amount of stuff running on my computer, that would not be the case.


 

You fail to realize that the new system runs on scripts, the old system didn't need nearly as much client side processing time as the new one does. That is why the new one is slower, it has everything to do with how much crap is running on your computer.

Even multi-threaded processors have to put stuff in queue, and the more stuff you have running the longer that queue gets.

To put that into perspective, say the old one had 3 individual tasks to complete before the page could be displayed, those would be put into the queue in three seperate locations, as the processor cycles it will get to those and complete them, but if it has alot of stuff to do it will have to take more time between each of them to do other stuff. Now if the new page with all of its client side scripts gets loaded, that may have say, 20 things to do before the page gets loaded, and now you should see where that adds up. Its got to do all 20 of those and run everything else all at the same time, not to mention it might have to disk swap to keep everything in memory.

Before the change my laptop would load a user page in much less than a second, now it takes about a second to load. I still have 24 processes running, but the scripts do take alot more power to load than the original system. However, even on a single threaded and admitantly underpowerd CPU I can still load the pages without a problem, where as my friends dual core PC with a 50+ processes running struggled to load the pages before, and I can't imagine now. And this is running from MY internet.


----------



## BigPuppy_Stuart (Jan 19, 2009)

The Longer Load time and ungainly layout have left me somewhat Displeased. I also find the removal of the timestamps irksome.
overall It was a nice idea to try but the implementation is poor.


----------



## Daniel Kay (Jan 19, 2009)

Ehh looks kinda wonky and i bet it increases load times, i'd say back to the old layout


----------



## Timmy_Ramone (Jan 19, 2009)

Don't like it.  The thumbnails are so small as to be useless as a preview medium.  And, yes, userpages now load slower.  A definite minus.

Now, if the image title and timestamp were included along with the thumbnail, that might make it more useful.


----------



## thebeast76 (Jan 19, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> I'm going to be brutally honest here.
> 
> I think it sucks. Hard. It makes the pages load a hell of a lot slower. It looks awful. And I really liked being able to tell at a glance when the submissions were uploaded.



I feel the same way. It was fine the way it was. All that needed to be done was maybe change the way images were displayed when your mouse went over it is all.
TL;DR I LIKED THE OLD VERSION, IT JUST NEEDED TWEAKING


----------



## Nishi (Jan 19, 2009)

Ooooh yeah! I forgot about that.  That why it's so slow? ;P

I think it's pretty... but I did like having a good idea of how often people submit their stuff. And you could always hover for previews too... the previews we get are a little too small to really notice anything anyways. :B
But there's no other way to see how often people post, aside from clicking on each picture. It was kinda neat.


----------



## Blair_McKain (Jan 19, 2009)

K, just throwing in my two bits about this whole thing. I don't like it one bit. The previous system that we had before worked just fine, with the time stamps, the mouse-over much bigger preview, and not causing any more server strain of having to re-cache everything. As a very old and wise saying goes "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." I'm all in favor of returning to the previous format as it also did look much nicer and more streamlined.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jan 19, 2009)

Yay!
Something to eat more bandwidth. ( I assume that loading those 'midsized' thumbnails is going to eat a good sized chunk )

and absolutely *nothing* for the site users that aren't graphical artists.
No love for the writers. 
We're still stuck with tiny little images to act as 'book covers' and nothing other than .rtf will display on the site itself.

Lets balance things out a bit. Writers have to use really basic formatting?
Have every piece of graphical art uploaded dithered down to 16 colors.

Not especially impressed with the new look.
It's not especially 'shinee' and really pooches a lot of functionality.

Sorry, hate to be all negative but, well... I'm not real impressed.

Red


----------



## taklayyankovic (Jan 19, 2009)

I managed to get enough of the page loaded to find out _how _it was meant to work. It's not _so _horrible, really. The idea is okay in some circumstances, but I still much preferred the old version.

If the new layout stays, though, then... oh well. I just started really using the site about a month ago. If user pages are _always _going to take 5+ minutes for me to load, I'm not gonna want to bother with those much more.


----------



## Grimfang (Jan 19, 2009)

ah! Looks pretty good to me after seeing Captain Havoc's mention of a hard refresh. The only thing that really bother me about it, like most people said, is the lack of timestampage. It'd be nice to see the timestamps again, and maybe possibly the ability to click the artist name to be brought directly to their profile.


----------



## Syntax0 (Jan 19, 2009)

Would it be feasible to change the thumbnails back to the title/timestamp listing, while keeping the new way of displaying the images? Title/timestamp showed off more useful information than a very-shrunken-down thumbnail does, and hovering over the title would display the pic the way it does now, instead of that popup. I think this would be a good compromise.

I'm going to miss the way the artist's userpic showed up when you hovered over the name though, but that's just me.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 19, 2009)

This looks better, but the old way performed better, in both information, and speed.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 19, 2009)

Welcome to the Present FA, we've been waiting for you..


----------



## Drakensoul87 (Jan 19, 2009)

Hi, long time stalker on FA since 2006 with almost 2100 people on watched and on here daily. Finally signed up on forum just so I can say I don't like the new setup at all.

I too experience longer loads and fail to see the need. If it is kept and even if time stamp is somehow added, would love the option to go back to the old format perhaps as an toggle in template settings? That was the first thing I went to try before coming here on the forums.

Also during some update a few weeks back when viewing the new submissions I have lost two of my buttons. I no longer have the "select all" and "uncheck all" buttons, they were perhaps worded differently but its been weeks since i last saw them! My only options are now : oldest-newest, nuke all submissions, 36 more>>> and remove checked. I have cleared my cache, and tried multiple different browsers but the check all simply won't show up. I had a friend over and he noticed it when he signed in on my pc as well.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> This looks better, but the old way performed better, in both information, and speed.


The new one performs well, too. The system is just slow while the site regenerates the thumbnails, hence why why posted that in the site banner.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Drakensoul87 said:


> I too experience longer loads and fail to see the need.


_*"Site performance may be impacted while thumbnails are regenerated."*_


----------



## Dragon-Commando (Jan 19, 2009)

LOL, I didn't clear my cache, now it loads proprely, and they did exactly what I mentioned, two rows down, five rows wide.

It actualy looks quite good, and the page isn't huge.

So remember people, CLEAR YOUR CACHE. (Ctrl+F5)

Still, pages load in about a second for me, no lag.

Just kill alot of the apps you arn't using right that second and it will load a hell of a lot faster for you, either that, or you need to figure out whats eating all your resources.


----------



## StupidGit (Jan 19, 2009)

It was a good idea, but it looks like not much thought was put into it.  In widescreen displays, there's all this unused space, and if you don't have 8 submissions, it looks even more awkward.  Seriously, test this stuff before implementing it please.


----------



## Drakensoul87 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> _*"Site performance may be impacted while thumbnails are regenerated."*_


 
I know, i saw the banner. It still doesn't change the fact that it loads slower right now which is what i said  And I do fail to see the need for thumbnails of images I might not be interested in as before I could just hover over or click and go to. "While thumbnails are being generated" really doesn't explain much for someone who doesnt understand the process you are using  Mean no offense, but it comes off kind of rude to just post in bold what I can already read and not understand lol.

Does that mean your server computers are busy making thumbnails right now for all back content, or that it will make thumbnails everytime we try and load a new userpage page and everytime that user gets a new fav, or uploads again?


----------



## Aurali (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> _*"Site performance may be impacted while thumbnails are regenerated."*_


You think people are gonna read that? it's not big enough.. do it like this:

_*"Site performance may be impacted while thumbnails are regenerated."*_

maybe you could put it on the main part of the forum.. in real big.. so people will read it.


----------



## Zee-Zee (Jan 19, 2009)

Just wanna echo what other people have said - I liked being able to click on the artist's name in the favourites section, I liked being able to see the times when submissions were posted and faves were added. Would be all in favour of an option to change back to the old format.

And why change it in the first place?


----------



## shirei-demon (Jan 19, 2009)

hmm. I don't post often on the forums, but I felt the need to say something for once, although I'm sure it's just repeating the same thing everyone else is saying.

I do like the new look stylistically, maybe more then a lot of the people here who have posted (then again, most of them hate it, so that's not a huge stretch) 

but the timestamps. That's all I really want. I don't know why you guys thought they weren't important enough to leave where they were, but please, put them back? It wouldn't be that hard, really. Even putting them next to the names that pop up when you rollover the images shouldn't be all that extremely difficult, would it? And it would solve many of the timestamp complaints out there.

But, I doubt they'll ever be added back in, cause from what I've noticed every time something has been changed here on FA, and even if tons and tons of users complain about it, it's never changed. So, why are we complaining again? 

meh, that's my two cents, albeit a little bitchier then I had originally meant to say them xD


----------



## Kio (Jan 19, 2009)

My suggestion would be the thumbnails to be arranged like the one I attached.

An ajax pic browser would be cool too. The user clicks on the small pic and views the bigger one on the top, then clicks on the top to view full. However the timestamp was nice to have.


*EDIT*: Ah it seems the gallery is already what I suggested, it just showed up vertically the first time I accessed my page. o.o
So nice, this is exactly what I was thinking of. I like it, although I'd want to see a timestamp next to picture title or below it.

FA is getting better and for those that complain they want the old gallery back, why not have an option in their profile to switch it?


----------



## Gravecat (Jan 19, 2009)

Big edit: _Woah_, wait.



capthavoc123 said:


> For the record, y'all, the vertical line thing should clear up if you clear your browser cache. It then displays two rows of four on top of each other. But it still looks awful.


 
Okay, now if that was made clear on the warning at the top of the site, instead of relying on us having to dig into the forums to actually discover how to fix the site, then I suspect my vitriol wouldn't have been needed in the first place.

Having said that, I'm still not terribly keen on the new system and prefer the older method, though now that it's displaying _properly_ and not appearing as an insipid single line of images surrounded by a lake of whitespace, it's certainly a great deal less aggravating. I still dislike the new change, mind you, but I no longer feel such irked revulsion towards what I thought the new layout was. I still stand by all the people who've suggested an option to toggle between the old and new styles, though -- would that _really_ have been so difficult to implement?


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Jan 19, 2009)

Take away a decent search and now this... soon it'll be impossible to find anything worth looking at... especially if you are a poet or a story writer and use the generic icons.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1905893/

Fix the broken stuff instead of breaking the stuff that works. Coders... *shakes head*


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Ebon Lupus said:


> Take away a decent search and now this... soon it'll be impossible to find anything worth looking at... especially if you are a poet or a story writer and use the generic icons.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1905893/
> 
> Fix the broken stuff instead of breaking the stuff that works. Coders... *shakes head*


This is part of "fixing the broken stuff" actually. And "take away a decent search". What search would that be? FA never even had a half-decent search. EVER.


----------



## Ebon Lupus (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> This is part of "fixing the broken stuff" actually. And "take away a decent search". What search would that be? FA never even had a half-decent search. EVER.


And that's why I've never given you any money... so all's fair.


----------



## Ket-Ralus (Jan 19, 2009)

As I said in the poll thread, please display the time stamp underneath the title for each submission/favorite. I actually use that information on a regular basis.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Ebon Lupus said:


> And that's why I've never given you any money... so all's fair.


Oh look. An insult.


----------



## cassandrarising (Jan 19, 2009)

My .02:

I rather like the new setup, but it needs some tweaking. Seems like a lot of people miss the timestamps - and I agree (though I'm sure I could live without them). How about including the simplified timestamp under the title? 

Also, there is a disproportionately large space between my first submission and it's title. I'm assuming this is because it is in landscape aspect rather than portrait, as I don't see it happening on other profiles.  Any chance this could get fixed?  It throws off the whole aesthetic.    

Other than that, I'm all good.

Oh - and to those complaining that the new layout makes FA lag, did you somehow miss the giant red font on the top of every page? Seriously.  Its a WIP, chill.


----------



## Kio (Jan 19, 2009)

I am not experiencing any lag at all. People should either upgrade their internet connections or their browsers.


----------



## Jinggo78 (Jan 19, 2009)

oh this is wonderful. Now those of us who are writers (yes we do exist) just have story story story story etc as thumbnails. Real smart *rolls eyes*. I think I liked it better when I could SEE THE TITLE OF THE STORY!!!!!

EDIT: Nevermind. I figured out what I can do personally. I'll just create my own thumbnail with the title in it for each new submission. No big deal really. Sorry for my previous sarcasm. I just don't like the idea of mouseovering every thumbnail to see its title now. Inconvenient.


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 19, 2009)

Jinggo78 said:


> I'll just create my own thumbnail with the title in it for each new submission. No big deal really.



I already do that, but the userpage thumbnails are so small that the titles are difficult to read, so it's only an advantage in the actual gallery view.


----------



## Dyluck (Jan 19, 2009)

Considering that we could already get thumbnails just from rolling over the name of a work, these thumbnails, which _still_ give us roll over thumbnails (seriously what the fuck), the change just seems tacky and superfluous.  The old list was nice and neat, and listed the full name of the work with a time stamp.  Now you have to roll over just to see the name of something.  Honestly, it just seems like a dick move to try and be more like deviantART.


----------



## SFox (Jan 19, 2009)

I don't like this new thing.
With the old way I could see at a glance how often artists have been updating their galleries which helps me in deciding whether I +watch or not.


----------



## Konda (Jan 19, 2009)

I signed up to the boards finally, and to defend the new layout.

Actually I didn't notice that timestamps, descriptions, and user icons no longer appear in the preview. But who needs timestamps really.. that's an arbitrary statistic for the most part. User icons is a loss... but at least the artist's name is still displayed, that does the job at least. Also you can't jump straight to an artist's page this way, but hey, that's not a -terribly big deal-.

Really though, you see more stuff than you did before. That's pretty great. I think. Bunch of little thumbnails really. But still... why does it seem good. It attracts more attention to the pics. It makes them more accessible.

I like it. I am pro new.


----------



## Zaisan (Jan 19, 2009)

I liked the way it was before, but I do like the idea of *change* in general, at least in the spirit of updating the look of everything. But the new design looks kind of messy.

It may look better if we could get a two- (or three-)column table for the mini gallery; and I really liked the mouse-over previews (but with the thumbnails, it may make more sense to at least have mouse-over descriptions/submission names + timestamps?).

I'm partial to textual data anyhow, and looking at the new userpage gallery feels like a step away from what I was most comfortable with: the way it was before.


----------



## Vesuro (Jan 19, 2009)

I don't like it, looks like shit on any reasonable resolution with a bunch of dead space.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm not liking it so far. I find the site is taking longer to load which means I can't browse things as quickly. I also liked having the timestamps so I could see which artists were active without actually browsing their gallery. Plus, I feel the thumbnails are too small to view effectively on my screen. I liked the old system where mousing over a title displayed the thumbnail for it. Maybe some sort of option where we can pick what gallery view we want to use would be helpful. They didn't implement that, right?


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Oh look. An insult.



An insult from Ebon Lupus means you must be doing something right.


----------



## Offizier (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm putting my hand up for yet another person who absolutely _hates_ this new layout.

First of all, on Firefox, I can't even get it to work. I've checked out the multiple threads for help, and for some reason, all the pictures keep lining up vertically, stretching my page down several inches, and then the thumbnail mouseovers don't even work!

They strangely work in Internet Exploder, though, and looking at the layout, I still don't like it. At all. I agree with the "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" sentiment; the past one was just fine.

The thumbnails are way too small; I really liked the instant mouseovers from the past layout. Also, I've noticed that with this version's previews, some of the images don't even load properly. I don't know if this is just my computer, or what, but when I try to preview things such as .gifs, they come out all warped; half the layers don't show up; etc. 

And I agree with returning the time stamps back in. And just...visually...I don't find the new layout at all appealing. I really didn't see any sort of problem with the other one.


----------



## Madra (Jan 19, 2009)

You know how when you click to view someone's gallery, you can mouseover the bottom right corner of the thumbnail to see the description? What if you guys just put the timestamps next to the title in those mouseovers? It would get rid of a lot of the bitching about not having timestamps anymore, and it wouldn't take up space on the ~*new and improved*~ userpage.


----------



## Enik (Jan 19, 2009)

It is sluggish and makes my site look like crap cuz i'm a poet who dosent upload thumbnails w/ his poems so I end up w/ a sea of Grey boxes. And I miss the Time stamps


----------



## chetchaka (Jan 19, 2009)

It's slower, and leaves open, uneven space, ruining composition. It's not unbearable, however, I simply prefer the last one.


----------



## wildrider (Jan 19, 2009)

Timestamps?  Whats the big deal?  If you really want to see when it's posted, just click the damn thing.  Plus it's set up in a line so you can tell when pieces are newer And it works just fine for Firefox once you reset the cache.  It seems nice to me, but hopefully it can be tweaked to be alittle faster.  The old way wasn't so speedy as people seem to think it was, but it was still abit quicker than this.  But it's not a bad thing when you can see the art ahead of time as a small thumbnail.


----------



## Storm-Weaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Well I for one have nothing against this current system. Of course I couldn't care ether way but I don't feel it deserves the "hate" its getting in bulk. I personally feel there are more important issues that need addressing than this simple change.



Offizier said:


> I'm putting my hand up for yet another person who absolutely _hates_ this new layout.
> 
> First of all, on Firefox, I can't even get it to work. I've checked out the multiple threads for help, and for some reason, all the pictures keep lining up vertically, stretching my page down several inches, and then the thumbnail mouseovers don't even work!



Well I have no idea what YOUR doing but I'm running Firefox and all it took was about one second to clear the private data then everything worked fine. The thumbnails work great for me and they load in a few seconds. The help file for the update said that all you need to do is go to >Tools, and Clear private data and everything should work fine.


----------



## Darzi (Jan 19, 2009)

Don't like it.

To echo some concerns from a roomie:  it completely makes his page look like garbage because he is a musician.  All of his file previews (with no titles unless you mouse over and wait forever) just look like fanart that he keeps uploading...

Also, for those suggesting Chrome:  I LOVE Chrome.  But my linux based laptop says no.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Jan 19, 2009)

I hate the shit out of it, personally.

Mostly because timestamps, and also because for a lot of people it won't display properly even after clearing the cache (One of my computers included.)


----------



## ravewulf (Jan 19, 2009)

I love it!

To those experiencing problems: Just give them time to do bug fixes and optimizing and it'll be much better.


----------



## Firehazard (Jan 19, 2009)

David M. Awesome said:


> Considering that we could already get thumbnails just from rolling over the name of a work, these thumbnails, which _still_ give us roll over thumbnails (seriously what the fuck), the change just seems tacky and superfluous.  The old list was nice and neat, and listed the full name of the work with a time stamp.  Now you have to roll over just to see the name of something.  Honestly, it just seems like a dick move to try and be more like deviantART.



More like SheezyArt is more like it.  That's how they do things (last time I checked... which was 2007); deviantART has never used rollovers on userpages; they still include titles and dates, even though they are limited to four recent submissions at once.  And even SheezyArt displays the same size thumbnail used in galleries.  These... these are completely useless; it's impossible to tell what anything is.  They might as well be identical Rorschach blobs.  And if you're on a device without JavaScript, now you have no way of even knowing the title of anything.

My recommendation: Keep the rollover-to-change-preview thing you put in; put back the text.  Or, just go to a script-free set of regular-sized, labeled thumbnails like deviantART has.


----------



## Artic (Jan 20, 2009)

Pretty similar to what a bunch of others have said.

It looks nice for visual artists, but not for writers or musicians who either don't have thumbnails or use the same ones, or for artists who use text warning thumbnails. but I miss the titles and timestamps on submissions and fav's too. Don't mind it sticking around so long as the info is added back in some manner, or we can pick which way we want to view it.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jan 20, 2009)

I don't like the new display. 
Yes it displays pictures better than previously but it is slower. 
You can't tell how often someone posts, and I'm not going to load a whole new page to find out. 
The icons look rather tacky just floating there in the middle of nowhere. 
On favourites you can't go to the artists userpage, only the picture. I might not want to see that picture but go straight to the artists page to see what else they have.

The gallery preview didn't need fixing. Rather fix the search function or how stories are displayed. If it's .txt not all speech marks are shown and if it's .doc or .rtf then you have to download the file to read it.


----------



## TheComet (Jan 20, 2009)

I love the idea, but I have one MAJOR problem with it:

No titles next to/underneath icons on the userpage.


I do mostly music, so my gallery rarely has any icons. Now, people can't see the titles of anything I've submitted on my userpage, so they don't know if I've been putting up new WIPs and demos of in progress songs, nor do they know which icon is a full song or a demo track.

this problem applies to writers too I'd imagine



so a small suggestion: Have submission titles underneath the icons on the userpage?


edit: ok apparently rollovers show the title....but that was seriously VERY hard to find out on one's own. I link to pages for people who have never been on the site, if I had trouble figuring that out, I'd imagine they would also.


----------



## Lunedragon (Jan 20, 2009)

No, i really don't like the change. I have a feeling that it wont change back either ^.-.^;;

 First i'd like to say that the pages loads slower, the point with a site is that it should load fast and be as user friendly as possible, this option makes it load slower, no titles either unless you hover the mouse over the small icon, it's troublesome for both writers and musicians since now it's a requirement to be able to make thumbnails themselves unless people chose to hover over the "Story" icon, people like to browse fast and that's what I've been taught in class if i remember things correctly. 

 Why should FA try to be like DA anyway? Isn't the goal to be as unique as possible and at the same time very practical for users? 

As said before. What you guys need to fix is a search function and to fix that the .txt files displays correctly and doc, docx and rts files would be great to be displayed too.

However, I'm not saying that this option is bad, no no it's a good step but it has too many flaws compared to the older version. It would be great if you could choose between the present and old layout in options.

Thank you for putting time on this site, but some changes isn't for the best.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 20, 2009)

looks like shit. cluttered and now you have a ton of ugly colors all over the page... takes up more space. and now if im browsing and come across a gross pic but like the style and want to see the artist but dont want to click on the pic cuz of NO PRIVACY,i now have to click on the art to get to the user. and if i dont want to click on the disgusting pic to get to the user if i have company, i have to type the name in.which is an total inconvenience for lack of time..... ALSO. the thumbs lag. and are huge so anyone walkin by me can see. I used those small thumbs to sift through the shit and find the good stuff and keep people off my back. now everyone blatantly sees it. also i was able to move my mouse to get the yiff off the screen. now i have to scroll down to hide it. i dont browse for yiff, but i do like it. and if im goin through pages and shits comin up id like to be able to hide it. even though everyone in my house knows about it. they DONT WANT TO SEE IT.

one more thing..... instead of doing all these updates that are unnecessary why not fix the search? i spent hours one night trying to find a commissioner cuz i didnt know their name. knew the art on their page and could have typed it in. but instead i had to browse art for hours looking to find his art randomly. yeah, thats not hard at all.....

and if you say privacy isnt your problem. ask the furs if they have privacy 100% of the time. i dont want to sneak around to look at art cuz FA has a new crappy layout

in a nut shell we should be given and option to have the old layout. "thumbnails or title and dates with hover option"


----------



## Xodiac (Jan 20, 2009)

I don't like it.  Thumbnails are nice, sure, but they're so small now that they're useless.  Maybe on a larger monitor they're okay, but mine is 17" which ought to be plenty large enough.  And there's no other information with the pictures - no title, for instance, or even an artist name for those listed as a Favorite.  Nothing appears as a rollover, either.  I pretty much have to go to users' Galleries and Favorites to look at the larger thumbnails; from there I can get at least an inking of what the picture is about by the title listed underneath before I consider clicking on any of these pictures, and that renders the thumbnails on the users' front pages pointless.

I actually liked the old way better.  It was a simple list of the picture titles, most of which give some hint about the content.  If you weren't sure, you could roll your cursor over the title and see a thumbnail about the size of those on the Gallery and Favorites pages.  If that was intriguing enough you could click the link.

I've taken a few days in an attempt not to go off half-cocked, trying to get used to the new method.  But I still feel as I did when I first saw it: I want the old system back.


----------



## Offizier (Jan 20, 2009)

> Well I have no idea what YOUR doing but I'm running Firefox and all it took was about one second to clear the private data then everything worked fine. The thumbnails work great for me and they load in a few seconds. The help file for the update said that all you need to do is go to >Tools, and Clear private data and everything should work fine.


Re-read my statement: I clearly already said what I had done. I already went to that help topic, and various other ones concerning the new layout (trying to read up on other people's problems and how they dealt with it as well), cleared the data and whatnot, and for the past couple of days, the layout refused to work.

I come on today and see that it is working now. I don't know what the truck happened, but...whatever. Regardless, this doesn't change my opinion: I still hate the new layout.


----------



## BigPuppy_Stuart (Jan 20, 2009)

Now that it is displaying correctly it is not so bad. The problem i had is that it continued to display strangely  even after hitting F5 a few time. Still the longer load times are annoying as well as the fact that it is of not help to writers with the standard place holder.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

Still would love to have date information on there somewhere


----------



## thebeast76 (Jan 20, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Still would love to have date information on there somewhere


Seconded


----------



## Phraggle (Jan 20, 2009)

Not  a fan. It's visually unappealing.


----------



## Moonfire (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm not going to mince words. It sucks.

When you replace something, you sure as hell do not reduce the functionality of what was there before. We've lost the Artist and Date information. I'm sitting on a 20Mb line with a Dual 2.5GHz processor, and I get little mac-like circles on the page with the site trying to load a new intermediate image. 

I don't think anyone was marching all over the place clamoring for a replacement of these parts of the userpage. If anything there were plenty more little "tweaks" that were actually desired and should have taken precedent.


----------



## Gildedtongue (Jan 21, 2009)

Coming from a writer, the move to "just the icon thumbnails" is really annoying.  Titles are a lot more important than whatever icon you staple to the story (usually the icon is just a simple grabber that should be somewhat related to the text, but is largely unimportant).

Granted, I know that most of the furry fandom is largely only interested in art/comics, so I'm surprised there's even an option to upload text.

Hell, even yiffstar, with their trying to be more like FA, has become a poor literary den of writings, with everything moving so sluggishly on their Java based servers, and FurRag, well, I've posted to it, and tried to make changes to say I'm a mature user, but it still hasn't accepted it, thus I can't even read my own writings there.

Meh, ah well.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 21, 2009)

I think we writers have to come to the realization that it doesn't matter what's being displayed, no one's going to be reading our work anyway. The argument isn't worth it.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 22, 2009)

great... another thing about this PISSING me the hell off....

when i go to click on the big image. if my mouse scrolls over the other pics and i click it takes me to the pic i just scrolled over instead of the one that was up. and im not going slow. i mean its point click.. so i have to be extra careful and go AROUND the thumbs to click. not user friendly by any means


----------



## Jinggo78 (Jan 22, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Still would love to have date information on there somewhere



I second this. When I look at a new artist and see that they haven't posted anything in over a year that tells me something very important about that artist. If I see their last journal post was last year around April but their latest submission was last month it tells me they don't like journals but at least they post stuff still. See the point now? Now what are we left with?

Also would it be terribly difficult to allow a setting in the settings for us to switch back to the old style or is just gone forever and you're not even reading these complaints?


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 22, 2009)

ok. to get the issue across. i keep going to click on a pic and end up clicking on another cuz my mouse moves over the other thumbnails and it thinks i want to view it. so by the time i click its another pic poppin up instead of the one i want to view. not appreciating clicking on something i don't want to click on. especially if i end up clickin on something i DONT want to see.


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

TheFabFurry said:


> ok. to get the issue across. i keep going to click on a pic and end up clicking on another cuz my mouse moves over the other thumbnails and it thinks i want to view it. so by the time i click its another pic poppin up instead of the one i want to view. not appreciating clicking on something i don't want to click on. especially if i end up clickin on something i DONT want to see.



Wait, what? You're saying you can't control your mouse, or what?


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 22, 2009)

TakeWalker said:


> I think we writers have to come to the realization that it doesn't matter what's being displayed, no one's going to be reading our work anyway. The argument isn't worth it.



I do think it's worth reminding the people in charge, though, that there are plenty of people in FA's community who aren't visual artists, including both writers and musicians.  Granted, visual artists are still the majority, so we can reasonably expect their needs to take priority over ours.  But overall, as long as I have the chance to speak up, I'm just not prepared to be that pessimistic.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 22, 2009)

Thumbnails are so small as to be essentially useless.
Hiding information until hover is bad UI and makes it impossible to establish context at a glance.
Appearance implies that the larger image is the first and the others are older works, but for some reason the initial big image is just a placeholder for rollover.  This is confusing and unusual.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 22, 2009)

Eevee said:


> Thumbnails are so small as to be essentially useless.
> Hiding information until hover is bad UI and makes it impossible to establish context at a glance.
> Appearance implies that the larger image is the first and the others are older works, but for some reason the initial big image is just a placeholder for rollover.  This is confusing and unusual.



^this. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!

THIS


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 23, 2009)

Aden said:


> Wait, what? You're saying you can't control your mouse, or what?



no am sayin when i point and click. if i move my mouse up to click on the pic and i pass over the other thumbnails to click on it. (say my cursor is on the bottom thumb, i move it up to clik on the big thumbnail and it changes before i get there...stupid previews. so by the time i click its already changin the thumbnail to the last thing i scrolled over so i end up clickin a pic i dont want.  make sense. the big thumbnail i want to click on is up on the screen. i go to click it and it changed before i click because ive scrolled over the other thumbnails. just sucks when my cursor is at the bottom of the screen and i move up to click and it  to those other thumbs i just moved over. its stupid. all i have to do is AVOID the thumbs all to gether. its just annoying.


----------



## Valerion (Jan 23, 2009)

Or you can click on the thumbnail itself, you don't need to move up to the larger picture and click on that.


----------



## Zee-Zee (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks for restoring the time-stamps and name-links! ^.^ Much appreciated!


----------



## Syntax0 (Jan 23, 2009)

Well, thumbnails are bigger, the date is shown on hover, the update makes this new system *much* better than it was before, in my opinion. 

I'm still going to miss the userpic-on-hover popup on usernames though, but I could get by without it.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 23, 2009)

All of my gripes have officially been resolved.

Great job, guys. It looks awesome now.


----------



## Immelmann (Jan 23, 2009)

Hey look, time stamps!

Thank you for listening to us.


----------



## Tatsuyoujo (Jan 23, 2009)

I think it should be made optional. My comp can be alil slow so the flash time will mess up sometimes. FA needs to work for everyone.


----------



## yak (Jan 23, 2009)

This is the first wave of updates.
Switching back to old format would be available through the 'site settings' page - you would have an option to choose this new format, the old format and having the server decide which format to pick automatically, based on the type of prevailing content.


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 23, 2009)

yak said:


> This is the first wave of updates.
> Switching back to old format would be available through the 'site settings' page - you would have an option to choose this new format, the old format and having the server decide which format to pick automatically, based on the type of prevailing content.



Cool.  In the meantime, the timestamps and larger thumbnails help tremendously.  Thanks!


----------



## Lunedragon (Jan 23, 2009)

Quick question: For those who dislike the new update, i'm of course speaking about the thumbnails without titles unless you hover your mouse over them. So, will we or not be able to change it back to the preferred layout many of us preferred it to look like?

It's not that I'm not great full for the time you guys put down on the site, so I thank you guys, but would it be too much to ask to be able to switch back to the old layout?

EDIT: Great work with the timestamps and direct link to the artist. Appreciate that you guys do listen. I just hope You're considering giving us who misses the old layout a treat too.


----------



## Poetigress (Jan 23, 2009)

Lunedragon said:


> but would it be too much to ask to be able to switch back to the old layout?





yak said:


> This is the first wave of updates.
> Switching back to old format would be available through the 'site settings' page



Um... unless I'm missing something, that sounds like we'll be able to switch in the near future.


----------



## Lunedragon (Jan 23, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> Um... unless I'm missing something, that sounds like we'll be able to switch in the near future.



eep? I can't seem to find that option on my page o.-.o, i've looked more than once. All I see is "Avatar display", "Date format" and "'Perpage' setting"

Oh wait, never mind! I thought they already updated the site! Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 23, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> Um... unless I'm missing something, that sounds like we'll be able to switch in the near future.



dood. furries don't know how to read?!


----------



## darkdoomer (Jan 23, 2009)

yeah i noticed it's now appliable to all members; and not only subscribers. it's a good evolution to have a whole customizable page with modules, displaying your most recent artworks a better way, features and showcases...
gotta lurv $starvingartist for that <3

edit : btw we're supposed to talk about furaff.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 24, 2009)

horray! the thumbs dont change when i scroll over to click now!! they have like a 2 second lag. very nice. love the titles and time stamps.  everything looks great


----------



## Kitch (Jan 24, 2009)

Except for the fact that thumbnails now cover the "See Gallery" links.  The spacing in the Gallery and Favorites windows in the main user pages needs to be adjusted.


----------



## JosePaw (Jan 24, 2009)

Kitch said:


> Except for the fact that thumbnails now cover the "See Gallery" links.  The spacing in the Gallery and Favorites windows in the main user pages needs to be adjusted.



Jep, very interfering....


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 24, 2009)

hit CTRL+F5 again...


----------



## 9_6 (Jan 24, 2009)

What the hell, I used to roll over all pics so the thumbnails load and are instantly displayed later if I hover over a pic and now there is that half a second delay before a new pic gets displayed?
Did you do that because that ONE moron that didn't know how to click the small pics complained?
If it was meant to be that way, it sucks, just to let you know. Sucks even worse than before :[

How about listening to the 90 other people and change it back... you CAN change it back easily, can you?

Another thing is I just had an ultra hard time logging in to this forum because I couldn't click the 'username/password' textboxes as long as that 'If you are not yet registered please take a moment and join the forums today! Click here to start the process.' bar was hovering over the forums.
It only worked after clicking somewhat 20 times, same goes for the 'submit' button and I wasn't even able to successfully activate the 'stay logged in' checkbox so I'll have to do the wild clicking again if I want to log in later.
It has to be that silly bar because now that it's gone, I can click textfields and checkboxes just fine -like in every single other forum- so I'd suggest losing that bar because it serves no real purpose after all.
Using the latest opera.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 24, 2009)

One thing with the new(ish?) layout: it seems that combinations of user-made and default icons cause the thumbnails to display... well, not nicely anyway. On my page, in the specific, I've got a row of five, a row of four, and then one lone thumbnail in a third row. Not a major problem, but I figure it ought to be brought up.


----------



## seawitch2525 (Jan 24, 2009)

I don't like the new userpage gallery. I like the old one better becouse when I get on the new one all of my art and the art I have faved is not in the right box but it in is running down the page. So I hope they go back to the old one soon.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 24, 2009)

9_6 said:


> What the hell, I used to roll over all pics so the thumbnails load and are instantly displayed later if I hover over a pic and now there is that half a second delay before a new pic gets displayed?
> Did you do that because that ONE moron that didn't know how to click the small pics complained?
> If it was meant to be that way, it sucks, just to let you know. Sucks even worse than before :[
> 
> How about listening to the 90 other people and change it back... you CAN change it back easily, can you?




change it back. whatever. cant wait 2 seconds??

ok dragoneer. change the thumbs back to the 0 second lag, since supposedly "90" people have asked you too. but wait i only see one! still change it back so he will saw BAWing cuz he has to wait 2 seconds. my issue was it was changing so fast i couldnt click the big pic (which is the most recently posted if you first get to the page) so if i want to click it ill just go around the thumbnails. its just a hinderance having to becareful where i move my mouse.  but i guess its more of a hinderance to waste 2 seconds of your life so we can move our mouses to click a big pic without having to worry about it changing before your mouse gets there.

" just cuz a moron that didnt know how to click the small pics" tell me. NOONE clicks the big picks? everyone clicks the thumbs?? and EVERYONE moves their mouse around the all the thumbs to scroll up to click the the big pic?  . and also im talkin about the most recent upload mostly. if i wanna click it when i get to the page and move my cursor over the other thumbs before i get there it changes before i click. but wait. they will say ' then click the thumbnail" and if thats what everyone is gong to say why make the big pic clickable? all i wanted was a millisecond lag. so it didnt instantly change. not a few seconds so everyone would shit themselves

just going to look at submissions in my box only instead of browsing FA anymore... cuz the thumbs are big enough to see but not so big that others behind me will see. so i can sift through and click on stuff thats ok. and tits and dick arent the issue, thats fine. the yiff is fine.. its the cub, beastiality , hyper,  guru, buckets of cum, scat, water showers, vomit, ect... stuff that i dont want to expose my roomates to, and i dont want to see it either. i dont have privacy nor do i want to have to stare at a huge thumbnail of it, thats why it was so nice with the old option lke i said. where you move your mouse and its gone. i agree with dick head above that we should change it all back. and hes only a dick head cuz he called me a moron for no reason. I feel l have the right to say dick head considering its rude to insult with out reason, and i have reason considering he insulted me first without reason.


----------



## TheFabFurry (Jan 25, 2009)

also that millisecond lag allows it to load. youd just have that little mac cirlcle loader thing if there was no lag. takes the same amount of time either way


----------



## Aurali (Jan 25, 2009)

I like the picture changing loader.. makes it harder to ddos the server.


----------



## Ket-Ralus (Jan 27, 2009)

Many thanks for adding in the timestamps. I like the new font choices too.


----------

