ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Edit function: Don't use back arrow + eager edit time stamp.  (Read 3847 times)

Lee Patzius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1851
Edit function: Don't use back arrow + eager edit time stamp.
« on: April 20, 2004, 08:10:44 pm »

Hi,

First of all, I tried to post this last night, Monday APR 19, but I couldn't find the post button on any of the forums. I guess it was down temporarily.

Secondly, a warning to others, if you want to edit your post, do not use the back arrow like you used to do, on the old classic lab site. I just did this a few minutes ago, and lost a whole post due to an expired page!

And finally, when I notice an error in my posted reply, and use the edit function only seconds later, it'll still post an "edit time stamp" before anyone could have even possibly seen or replied to the post.

I know that the old lounge's phpBB style would let you do a quick edit procedure, without a time stamp, provided no one grabs your post, uses the quote function, or replies to your post.

Ernie, Dave, or admin: Is it possible that this FUDforum's editing time stamp could be changed to work like the old phpBB forum did? If so, it would be nice to see less of those embarrassing edit remarks.

For some reason, when I preview and spell check the message, it all looks good, (except the small font is hard to read) but then when I post it, I always find mistakes. If the mistake is very small, such as spelling, or bad English, like double "the the" or something, I'm tempted to just leave it alone and let it slide, in favor of not getting narc'd on.

Lee Patzius
                                                           

Logged
Lee Patzius

 

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2004, 08:39:36 pm »

kickdrive wrote on Tue, 20 April 2004 17:10


First of all, I tried to post this last night, Monday APR 19, but I couldn't find the post button on any of the forums. I guess it was down temporarily.


It's possible that for a few minutes during a consistency check or a theme rebuild.  It's usually less than a minute or so.


Quote:

Secondly, a warning to others, if you want to edit your post, do not use the back arrow like you used to do, on the old classic lab site.


Yep, I like to call it "Pay attention to the new software and learn how to use it."  Wink


Quote:

Is it possible that this FUDforum's editing time stamp could be changed to work like the old phpBB forum did? If so, it would be nice to see less of those embarrassing edit remarks.


There are comprehensive post editing facilities that offer ample  resources to preview and edit posts.  I don't think seeing an edit stamp is a big deal, all is does it let us know that something has changed.  If you do need to edit, tag it as such "EDITED: 4 spelin and gramer".

Now the font size deal...I'm OK at 1024x768 but I know a lot of you folks have big ass displays using resolutions like 2 million x 4 hundred thousand...  Wink or just don't dig the default text size.  No probelemo...  Using a real browser it's pretty easy change the default font scaling, some as easy as going to the view menu and chosing bigger text.  Minions of The Borg (tm) have decided for IE users that font scaling should be disabled by default, or not available (depending on which version of DOS w/ Pictures you use).  

Perhaps in the future we'll plug some dynamic style sheets (some sites have links for "large text" or "small text").  The style sheets do need some work but we're real busy right now and when we finish this we'll be real tired and real busy doing something else. Razz   Eventually we'll spank the style sheets and have some better font scaling, but it's back burner for the moment.

Dave

Logged
======================================
Revenge of the Chick Car...
A Barking Dog Goes Road Racing in 2011
http://www.roaddog.com/racing/

Ray Abbitt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2004, 02:44:31 am »

Dave wrote on Wed, 21 April 2004 01:39


Now the font size deal...I'm OK at 1024x768 but I know a lot of you folks have big ass displays using resolutions like 2 million x 4 hundred thousand...  Wink or just don't dig the default text size.  No probelemo...  Using a real browser it's pretty easy change the default font scaling, some as easy as going to the view menu and chosing bigger text.  Minions of The Borg (tm) have decided for IE users that font scaling should be disabled by default, or not available (depending on which version of DOS w/ Pictures you use).  


Ah, you are making it way too hard. For real browsers (Mozilla on Linux or Windows, Konqueror on Linux, probably most versions of Netscape on any OS and probably anything but Internet Exploiter) you don't need to go to all that trouble. Try <CTL>++ to increase the font size and <CTL>+- to decrease it.

-ray
Logged

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2004, 03:00:43 am »

For Mac users the control key doesn't get too much play.  Wink  Not like the the Apple or command key.

On Camino, it's command = (for larger) or - for smaller.  On Moz or Safari it's command + or -.  Moz has a cool text scaling feature that also does it in percentages of the current base.  

The dynamic CSSs help us because we can better control the elements of the layout, rather than the browser blitzing it by what it thinks is bigger but hoses the layout.

Dave
Logged
======================================
Revenge of the Chick Car...
A Barking Dog Goes Road Racing in 2011
http://www.roaddog.com/racing/

Ray Abbitt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2004, 03:11:04 am »

Dave wrote on Wed, 21 April 2004 08:00

For Mac users the control key doesn't get too much play.  Wink  Not like the the Apple or command key.

But Mac users don't use the keyboard anyway. (Ducking and running)
Quote:

On Camino, it's command = (for larger) or - for smaller.  On Moz or Safari it's command + or -.  Moz has a cool text scaling feature that also does it in percentages of the current base.

Actually I appreciate knowing that. Whenever I visit my sister the Mac fanatic and ask about keyboard shortcuts she gives me a blank stare. Of course she has no idea what I am doing when I open two or three ssh sessions to my system at home.  
[/quote]The dynamic CSSs help us because we can better control the elements of the layout, rather than the browser blitzing it by what it thinks is bigger but hoses the layout.[/quote]
True. But (within reason) font changes don't seem to mess this system up too badly. And strangely enough, (at least in my opinion) it looks better in Konqueror than any of the other browsers I've tried.

-ray
Logged

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2004, 04:40:03 am »

rabbitt wrote on Wed, 21 April 2004 00:11


But Mac users don't use the keyboard anyway. (Ducking and running)


If the supreme being, and by that I mean Steven Jobs Wink had meant us to use the keyboard, he wouldn't have ripped off Doug Engelbart's mid '60's idea....


Quote:

Of course she has no idea what I am doing when I open two or three ssh sessions to my system at home.  



What I like about OSX is that it's what Linux (or Solaris or any *nix variant) wants to be on the desktop.  It's the best of both worlds and the hardware is pretty sexy as well.

Dave
Logged
======================================
Revenge of the Chick Car...
A Barking Dog Goes Road Racing in 2011
http://www.roaddog.com/racing/

Ray Abbitt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 130
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2004, 11:46:58 am »

Dave wrote on Wed, 21 April 2004 09:40

What I like about OSX is that it's what Linux (or Solaris or any *nix variant) wants to be on the desktop.  It's the best of both worlds and the hardware is pretty sexy as well.
Dave

But they left out fortune! And I like a more open hardware platform. (Maybe read that as cheaper--Linux and the various BSD variants are all quite happy with "obsolete" systems that most people wouldn't consider running M$ operating systems on--but notice that I'm not saying anything about Solaris 86.) But I agree that OSX is most definately a step in the right direction. The user interface tends to be a bit cumbersome to me, but I'm kind of a command line person anyway and have my own ideas about what a graphical interface should be. (Isn't X just a way to have lots of xterms at once?)

Oh, and to get somewhat back on subject, how about getting rid of the blank line at the beginning of the quoted text? I like having the quoted text set off in a box, but the blank space at the top of each box is kind of annoying.  
Logged

Dave Stevens

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2004, 03:31:46 pm »

rabbitt wrote on Wed, 21 April 2004 08:46

how about getting rid of the blank line at the beginning of the quoted text? I like having the quoted text set off in a box, but the blank space at the top of each box is kind of annoying.  


That's a good idea, I'll put that in Ernie's que.  He's the presentation guy.

Dave
Logged
======================================
Revenge of the Chick Car...
A Barking Dog Goes Road Racing in 2011
http://www.roaddog.com/racing/

Ernie Black

  • SR Forums
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
    • http://www.standingstone.com
Re: Edit function:
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2004, 08:34:15 pm »

Queue? What queue? Oh, you mean that backed-up list of to do items which, like a hydra, grows two more for each one done? Laughing (As you can see, my response here is quite late--I wonder if anyone will read this old thread now?--but I've been so tied up with other issues, I've pretty much let Dave handle all the goings-on in the SR Forums, and only just now checked.)

That is a good idea; I'll look into it. I hate the wasted space but like the way the quotes are offset.

There's always something about these forums--whether ye olde wwwboard, phpBB, FUD, or any of the other flavors out there. Here, as in many forums, I typically prefer to open the reply form in a new window, then resize that window so that I can conveniently reference the post(s) I'm responding to whilst keeping my reply text box visible at all times. Scrolling up and down from reply box to reference post to reply box sucks (ok, there's my bitch about the new forums Twisted Evil ).

Logged
Ernie Black, Code Warrior
ProSoundWeb Forums Webmaster

Ernie Black

  • SR Forums
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 190
    • http://www.standingstone.com
Re: Edit function: Don't use back arrow + eager edit time stamp.
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2004, 08:45:22 pm »

kickdrive wrote on Tue, 20 April 2004 20:10

Ernie, Dave, or admin: Is it possible that this FUDforum's editing time stamp could be changed to work like the old phpBB forum did? If so, it would be nice to see less of those embarrassing edit remarks.

We could turn the edit time stamp off completely so that when you edit a post, no edit mark shows in the post (unless you manually add one, say if it's important to note something on a timely basis). We've done this in other forums.

kickdrive wrote on Tue, 20 April 2004 20:10

For some reason, when I preview and spell check the message, it all looks good, (except the small font is hard to read) but then when I post it, I always find mistakes.


Dave wrote on Tue, 20 April 2004 20:39

Now the font size deal...Perhaps in the future we'll plug some dynamic style sheets (some sites have links for "large text" or "small text"). The style sheets do need some work but we're real busy right now and when we finish this we'll be real tired and real busy doing something else.  Eventually we'll spank the style sheets and have some better font scaling, but it's back burner for the moment.

Good idea on dynamic stylesheets, Dave, but as you say, that's back burner for now. Something I'd like to tackle down the line. In the meantime, this issue came up over in the Marsh forums and what I did which satisficed those users nicely was to bump the base font size to 13 px, with I think 7 px of padding in the text areas (of the posts only, not the other content areas) to keep the text from bumping into the table cell borders and make it easier to read. This looks good and is a pretty easy fix to apply, so I'd be happy to do the same thing here if you'd like. Dave?
Logged
Ernie Black, Code Warrior
ProSoundWeb Forums Webmaster
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.044 seconds with 19 queries.