ThePortForum.com

Posted: **22:03 Mon 08 Sep 2008**

Julian

The current colour scheme is much easier on my defective eyes. (The colour chart hurt!)

Posted: **15:53 Tue 09 Sep 2008**

I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned or you are only testing, but I must say that the current color scheme, icons and what have you creates the most frustrating layout I've ever seen on a forum. It must be coded in some way so that you're only able to really understand it after a few glasses of Port

Go Silver!

Posted: **17:22 Tue 09 Sep 2008**

Please be more specific. Wat is wrong? How can it be better? (We’ve had comments both good and bad: specific comments would better guide improvements.)

Posted: **17:49 Wed 10 Sep 2008**

I think the most important issue for me is that it's almost impossible to differentiate between read and unread threads as the colour scheme used is the same. To me the new layout is just a bunch of words with no real structure to it. If you try the silver layout for a day and then switch back you should be able to see what I mean. We need colours, not just one colour for everything I my opinion. But hey, go ahead and make it as you like, I'll just use the silver layout instead and that's perfectly fine with me

Posted: **18:47 Wed 10 Sep 2008**

morteno wrote:I think the most important issue for me is that it's almost impossible to differentiate between read and unread threads as the colour scheme used is the same.

1. Are you using the phpbb3/ URL (which ought to be disabled)?

2. Assuming not, the forum and thread and PM icons are as follows. Top row = unread; bottom row = read. They look different to me. What more do you want?

Posted: **20:41 Wed 10 Sep 2008**

Actually, I think you're right about the colours for read and unread threads. They don't cause trouble. I stand corrected. It's not so much the overview itself that I'm against, only slightly, no it's the thread layout. Centered quotes, colours too much alike, too little space between posts, the colours, and a lot of other more or less logic reasons for not liking it. But the layout looks different now that when I wrote my first post, or I may be getting used to it (most likely). It's not that bad anymore, but I still prefer the silver layout by far

. Just ignore me.

Posted: **21:06 Wed 10 Sep 2008**

You can, of course, change to the Silver style when you are logged on by going to User Control Panel->Board Preferences->My Board Style.

Posted: **22:33 Wed 10 Sep 2008**

jdaw1 wrote:Also made a small change to the thread icons: read announcements and read stickies now have their ‘writing’ in red rather than tawny.

The old tawny was wrong, but so was the new red. Changed again: all colour washed out of ‘read’ icons: replaced with a grey, darker than that used for non-prioritised threads. ‘Writing’ in unread prioritised threads replaced with black.
PMs

; Fora

; Threads

; Stickies

; Announce’s

; Scraps

PMs

; Fora

; Threads

; Stickies

; Announce’s

; Scraps

morteno wrote:I'm against … Centered quotes

When both the citation and the quotation are left-aligned, I find the eye confuses them. I’ve centered the citation, but the quotation is boringly left-aligned as before. Do you really object?

morteno wrote:I'm against … colours too much alike

I have the best possible defence against this: blame somebody else. DRT wanted the two background colours to be slightly different shades of the same hue. Please argue with him.

morteno wrote:I'm against … too little space between posts

Disagree. I like a page to have lots of info, requiring scrolling only rarely, so my hand, rather than holding the mouse, can hold a glass. If you prefer the mouse to the glass, well, I doubt that is a majority opinion.

morteno wrote:I'm against … the colours, and a lot of other more or less logic reasons for not liking it.

It’s hard to fix this as described.

Posted: **13:12 Thu 11 Sep 2008**

I think this is a matter of taste and as long as we have different layouts to select, then I'm not objecting to anything. I prefer that you have the layout you like and have worked hard for and that I've got this default layout which I like.

Hi ho Silver!

Posted: **13:32 Thu 11 Sep 2008**

I prefer that, as far as possible,

has a single consistent brand. Hence if ThePortForumRed can be made to work for you, that would be better.

Posted: **19:21 Thu 11 Sep 2008**

I don't believe in one size fits all. Forget about me! Cheers.

Posted: **20:51 Thu 11 Sep 2008**

The above exchange is precisely why I insisted on having two styles. Some people will not like TPFR. No-one should be forced to use something they don't like when the point of being here is to have fun and talk about port and rubbish.

I was right, jdaw was wrong, na-na na-na-na

Posted: **08:32 Sun 14 Sep 2008**

I've also changed back to the silver lay out after trying the red for a while. My major problem with the red is that it doesn't look like a page with a proper lay out. It probably suits you if you like looking at html codes, but I prefer something that's easy to navigate, has a pretty look, including clear graphics.

Posted: **02:49 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Changes:
• The header typeface specification repaired, such that browsers other than Firefox now will (or at least, are more likely to) render “ThePortForum.com† in Palatino. Reports of success or failure welcomed.
• Body text now should be in your browsers default typeface — which is controlled by the user.

Posted: **03:07 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

PM icons made language-independent.
PMs

; Fora

; Threads

; Stickies

; Announce’s

; Scraps

PMs

; Fora

; Threads

; Stickies

; Announce’s

; Scraps

Posted: **07:34 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

jdaw1 wrote:• The header typeface specification repaired, such that browsers other than Firefox now will (or at least, are more likely to) render “ThePortForum.com† in Palatino. Reports of success or failure welcomed.

Header now in Palatino on my IE6 browser.

jdaw1 wrote:• Body text now should be in your browsers default typeface — which is controlled by the user.

The text on the Board and forum index pages and also in the user area of posts is now very small. Too small for my failing eyes. I tried changing the text size from Medium to Very Large in my browser with no effect whatsoever. Can we go back to something more that is not going to cause eye strain, please? My only alternative will be TPFsilver.

Posted: **11:31 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Too small for my failing eyes

Agreed - maybe it's my monitor, but the new serifed font does not show terribly well, especially when it's the pale brown 'post read' colour

Tom

Posted: **13:22 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

OK. Will revert.

Posted: **13:53 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Reverted to “font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;†.

Posted: **14:14 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Reverted to “font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;†.

I've still got serifs - nothing seems to have changed..??

Tom

Posted: **14:25 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Mine has changed (IE6) but I think Tom runs in AOL, which might explain things.

Posted: **14:34 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

uncle tom wrote:I've still got serifs - nothing seems to have changed..??

A firm-handed reload should do it. (Some browsers don’t reload the styling even when asked.)

Posted: **16:35 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

I exited IE and came back in - now sorted - and much better!

Thanks

Tom

Posted: **16:48 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Has anyone other than me tried looking at the new style on a BlackBerry? The layout on the BB screen is quite difficult to follow.

Does anyone know if there is separate coding needed for the appearance of the site on a BB or is this something that is just easiest for me to put up with an get on with it?

Alex

Posted: **17:28 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

Ooooh, good question. Please compare silver and red, and then post what problems they have in common, and in what they differ.

Posted: **17:57 Mon 15 Sep 2008**

JabobH: how could one get messages in the Outbox to have icon

and messages in the Sentbox to have

? I think this requires an alteration to ucp_pm_viewfolder.html, but am stuck as to what.

Posted: **12:04 Tue 16 Sep 2008**

Here is my cheap .02

Since all this messing around with colors and a ton of exceeding large pictures in posts the site has been getting extremely slow loading, the past couple of weeks it has seemed to get worse. To the tune that I will get up and go into another room for a second to do something then come back to the forum after it has downloaded the page. And no, its not my computer as other sites download just fine.

On my cell, I have dreaded using for

becuase of this. Plus when I try to read a TN I have to wait for all those huge pictures to download just to get to the TN part of it. While the bottle pics are cool, do we really need to see a large pic of a filter with sediment in it? I totally understand posting pics and love to see the bottles, but is it necessary for such large ones and so many. It is a PITA when using a celluar phone based web browser.

Posted: **13:33 Tue 16 Sep 2008**

The CSS changes will not have slowed the site. I have marginally shrunk the sizes of both CSS and of icons. But DRT has also complained of site slowness. Admin, who controls hosting, will be informed.

I find large pictures in TNs very helpful. They bring it alive. Can you set your mobile browser to ignore pictures (on www.jdawiseman.com and on flickr.com) larger than 50k?

Posted: **14:16 Tue 16 Sep 2008**

i love pics in threads too. I'm just saying, do we really need a life size pic of a bottle. I say no, a smaller one does just the same and makes viewing the threads from a mobile device that much easier. I dont think i can prevent larger pics from downloading on my phone nor do I want to adjust for this site, then adjust back everytime I visit a different website and need to view the pics on there.

Posted: **14:42 Tue 16 Sep 2008**

I like the pictures in the TNs but I intentionally create low res copies of my pictures before uploading them to http://www.flickr.com. The pictures I posted on the Noval 1978 at the weekend are all between 12-40kb. And, being a sediment nerd, I like those ones best

On the general slowness of the site, yes, I think it is slow. It seems that the buttons re-load every time you view a page which suggests they are not being copied to the local cache.

Posted: **14:53 Tue 16 Sep 2008**

DRT wrote:It seems that the buttons re-load every time you view a page which suggests they are not being copied to the local cache.

Buttons are tiny — I made them that way. The ‘Quote’ button, for example, is all of 270 bytes. Reply is 333 bytes. (Bytes, not kilobytes nor megabytes.) They are tiny.

And the way that they are implemented on the machine is the same as for any other style.

Posted: **04:04 Wed 17 Sep 2008**

When I get the chance to compare them, I shall do so. If I can figure out how, I may even include some screen shots.

Posted: **09:06 Tue 23 Sep 2008**

The first and most important issue with trying to use the site via a BlackBerry is that there is no "reply" button visible. The only means of replying to a thread seems to be using the "quote" link.

Can this be changed? It does make using the site when not at a PC rather difficult.

I also note that the site loads very slowly, whether on PC or BlackBerry. Do picture resolutions on FlickR make a difference to this? If so, I will have to resize my FlickR pictures as I have always worked on the assumption that the resizing is effectively done for me.

Thanks.

Posted: **16:38 Mon 10 Nov 2008**

Trying to fix AHB’s difficulty. ProSilver has a style, in which the word ‟Reply” is formatted, that has a background image. But for a smaller background image, such as is now used, the word ‟Reply” peeks out of the sides. So I removed it. Hence the problem. So what I’d like to do is specify the CSS version of an ALT text for the background image. Or something? Or is it possible to specify that the background image is important and must be shown?

Posted: **05:30 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

OK, further efforts, going badly. Giving up for today.

• One possibility would be to use an IMG inside the A, that IMG having an ALT. Does that work with the double-height phpbb-style buttons?

• Another would be use a FORM button, such as the ‟Preview” button visible when replying. Please, how do I make one of those attached to a link? Can I have a nearly-null form? Example code would be welcomed, please.

Posted: **07:19 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Is it possible to put the word/link back beneath the button using a smaller font so that it doesn't peek out?

Posted: **07:20 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Or use white text so that it doesn't show up against the white background. I think BBs ignore font colours.

Posted: **14:57 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Yuck. Let’s see if the most techie TPFer knows better.

Posted: **15:06 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

jdaw1 wrote:OK, further efforts, going badly. Giving up for today.

• One possibility would be to use an IMG inside the A, that IMG having an ALT. Does that work with the double-height phpbb-style buttons?

• Another would be use a FORM button, such as the ‟Preview” button visible when replying. Please, how do I make one of those attached to a link? Can I have a nearly-null form? Example code would be welcomed, please.

I’m not sure how Blackberries handle CSS. Do they ignore it altogether or only ignore some parts (e.g. background-image)? Based on the fact that the Quote button is working, I think the answer is the former, which would make the solution quite simple. What happens when you change:

Code: Select all

<div class="reply-icon"><a href="./posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=438" title="Post a reply"><span></span></a></div>  <!-- jdaw -->

to

Code: Select all

<div class="reply-icon"><a href="./posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=438" title="Post a reply"><span>Reply</span></a></div>  <!-- jdaw -->

?

Posted: **15:12 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

The text peeks out from either side of a button though the idea that I wrap it in two <small>s is nice.

Posted: **15:16 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Errr, why is the text now atop the button? (I’ve changed only the Reply button near the top of the page.)

Posted: **15:18 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Opps!sorry, I had assumed that there was a display: none; in the CSS style-sheet.

Try:

Code: Select all

<div class="reply-icon"><a href="./posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=438" title="Post a reply"><span style="display: none;">Reply</span></a></div>  <!-- jdaw -->

Posted: **15:50 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

JacobH wrote:display: none; in the CSS style-sheet

kills the background image as well. (Would it be different if added to the HTML? Shouldn’t be, but untested.)

Posted: **16:21 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Hmm!
May I check:
i) to which element is the background-image assigned? (I had assumed it was the div with the last class ‟reply-icon”)
ii) to which element is the display:none assigned? (I had assumed it was the span that is the child of the abovementioned div)

Posted: **16:54 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

I had it wrong, but having it right has the same effect.

Posted: **17:12 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Hmm...I hadn’t realised that display:none; worked that way. Many apologies. Testing here, I think that visibility:hidden; on the span should do the trick (as that seems not to be inherited by that element’s parents).

Posted: **22:28 Tue 11 Nov 2008**

Sometimes "Yuck" is effective.

Posted: **02:16 Wed 12 Nov 2008**

Annoyance!

Code: Select all

<div class="reply-icon"><a href="./posting.php?mode=reply&f=9&t=1931" title="Post a reply"><span style="visibility: hidden;">Reply</span></a></div>

also fails to show background icon (i.e., shows nothing at all).

Is there any way that an IMG (or equivalent) can be persuaded to use the double-height icon as phpbb does?

Or should ‟Reply” be formatted as a form button? How?

Posted: **10:12 Thu 13 Nov 2008**

JDAW,

Until a beautiful solution is found you could place the reply link somewhere other than beneath the button. There are other links above and below posts so it would not look too out of place as a temporary fix.

Derek

Posted: **13:23 Thu 13 Nov 2008**

jdaw1 wrote:Annoyance!
Code: Select all
<div class="reply-icon"><a href="./posting.php?mode=reply&f=9&t=1931" title="Post a reply"><span style="visibility: hidden;">Reply</span></a></div>
also fails to show background icon (i.e., shows nothing at all).

Is there any way that an IMG (or equivalent) can be persuaded to use the double-height icon as phpbb does?

Or should ‟Reply” be formatted as a form button? How?

Sorry, my fault. I hadn’t realised that the background-image was a style of the <span> rather than the <div>. Situation is slightly complicated as the span does not have a class attribute but is selected with: .reply-icon span. Possible solutions:
i) Apply the background-image to the <a>, not <span>.
ii) Give the span a class; change the CSS selector to reflect the new class; add a second span inside the first, with the style of visibility: hidden;.
iii) Give the span the style of: font-size: 0em;.

iii) is the only one that I have tested and it does work here (as well as being the simplest). It will, of course, only be of help on the Blackberry if it ignores all CSS rather than just background-image.

I’m not sure I understand the ‟double hight” image (as I only see one, here). Do you mean the colour change when the mouse hovers? That can be done with an <img> by using a little JavaScript. This would probably be the best solution.

A form would be possible:

Code: Select all

<form action="**phpBB pseudo-code**" method="get">
<input type="submit" value="reply" />
</form>

where **phpBB pseudo-code** is whatever phpBB currently has as the href attribute of the <a> tag. This will require quite a lot of styling.

ThePortForum.com

New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

New Style on BlackBerry

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style

Re: New Style