Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: Sandwich on June 27, 2013, 04:20:28 pm
-
So as the news item states, I'm wanting to make the meat of each post be the most visually-prominent part of a post. There's 2 main ways I'm considering doing that, and each can be done in moderation, or drastically - vote between the options and lemme know. :) EDIT: Poll removed since it's no longer relevant.
- Your friendly neighborhood Sandwich
-
I find the fade in and out when a mouse goes over a post unnecessary and sorta distracting really.
-
Would it be better if it instantaneously appeared rather than the 0.1s fade it does now? :p
EDIT: Or perhaps a much longer, gradual fade would work better? Maybe even with a delay between when the mouse is over the post and when the fade-in begins?
-
Dunno.. all the fading and rollouts and everything are almost more distracting from the post text. It draws my eye and means I have to constantly focus on where my mouse is.
-
While we're making radical changes to HLP again, could we also look at fixing these two (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84283.msg1688928#msg1688928) issues? (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84607.0)
(Also where's the leave it as it is option?)
-
Actually.. yeah.. I'd vote leave it as is.. I picked the 'Enlarge post text somewhat, 1.2' because it seemed to be the smallest change.
Also the current fading thing makes scrolling a lot less smooth.
-
Would it be better if it instantaneously appeared rather than the 0.1s fade it does now? :p
It would be better to not have it at all imho.
I usually tend to just move my mouse around the screen and it just starts a disco as different signatures suddenly get lit up and off. Or when you scroll down.
Also, embedded videos when?
-
While we're making radical changes to HLP again, could we also look at fixing these two (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84283.msg1688928#msg1688928) issues? (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84607.0)
The image issue has been fixed. The wiki will unfortunately require a more drastic fix.
-
Another vote for how it was, new system makes clicking sig links pretty tricky on mobile.
-
Count my vote for going back to normal.
-
Please don't enlarge the posts, other than that, fade in or out makes no difference to me, in fact I didn't even notice it until I started reading this thread (but that can be attributed to the fact that I just took my first sip of coffee for the day). Fade in or out, or left alone, it makes no difference to me.
Consider though that we are all vets, may want to talk with some of the new blood. Those who aren't so set in their ways and running in HLP on the habits developed using the old way.
I gotta agree about the sig comment though, it does make things tougher.
-
With the small text in the sig windows I find it actually distracts me from the contents of the post. It's like your trying to hide stuff in the fine print so I just have to look. I'm sure over time I would adapt but if I'm being distracted by it members that are new or don't frequent the forums ofter probably would be as well.
Count my vote for leave it alone.
-
I also vote to leave it alone.
And Sandwich, how much of a "drastic" fix for the wiki are we talking about?
-
Wait, what about the sigs? I didn't do anything to their behavior at all... only made them faded out by default, and fade back in when the mouse hovered over a post. I've reverted that though due to the feedback, and am now simply mildly fading out the post header and the signature area permanently (no mouseover changes).
And Sandwich, how much of a "drastic" fix for the wiki are we talking about?
See (and keep it in) that thread. :)
-
The background in signatures remains transparent even when they do that roll down thing when you mouse over them, which creates a mess with the post below for sufficiently tall sigs.
-
Another vote here for going back to normal.
I'm wanting to make the meat of each post be the most visually-prominent part of a post.
This goal has already been met. HLP disallows images in sigs and derphuge avatars, and uses a subdued color scheme to emphasize post content. These are excellent design decisions and are sufficient for the stated goal.
Enlarging post text would be unnecessary and annoying, and any dynamic changes in text color draws the eye to that text, which is exactly what you're trying to avoid (the options such as "report to moderator" appearing and disappearing were already somewhat distracting when they were introduced).
Changing the title and sig color permanently to a slightly darker color might have the effect you want, and it's the only acceptable option of the ones stated.
[EDIT] What you have now is good. (I was going to say "good solution" but that implies that a problem exists)
-
As an fyi, the darkening of sigs has led to the (I assume) unintended side-effect of making them all darker on member's pages as well.
-
I really do appreciate the effort you put into making this site look the best it can be.. as well as the fact that you are thinking of how it can be made to better meet its goals.
However, in this case I must ask.. 'why fix what isn't broke?' And I'm a little worried that since you already made some changes that they'll just stay until we get tired of asking. :( I mostly worry this because they overwhelming response so far has been 'no change' and yet there's still been a change made.
-
Jeez people. Chillax. :) We're experimenting here. Like the news item says, "I'm playing around...don't panic". All will be satisfactory - and I dare say improved - in the end. :)
Also, with every change I do, I want to make the forums more mobile-friendly. That doesn't necessarily mean that the desktop version will be affected, but in some cases it might. Just FYI.
The background in signatures remains transparent even when they do that roll down thing when you mouse over them, which creates a mess with the post below for sufficiently tall sigs.
Ahh, I overlooked that. Thanks for the specific description of the issue - it helps. :)
Ok, there's 2 main aspects of posts I want to adjust. The post header, and the signature:
(http://i.imgur.com/5K9WbE1.png)
I haven't heard any issues with the header's current muted appearance, so unless anyone has any objections to that aspect, I'll leave that as-is.
As for the sig, I'll take care of the see-through issue it has now. However, I've never been completely at ease with how it expands on mouseover. It's better than it scrolling in its own limited-height box, which we had previously and was screwing up mousewheel scrolling down thread pages, but it's still not ideal. I'm open to suggestions.
-
I've disabled the sig expanding thing in the meantime, and left them muted in color. I can also limit their height if need be, and not provide any way to display anything that gets cut off. Thoughts?
-
If you're looking to make the forums more mobile-friendly then my absolute first suggestion would be to get rid of those damned thread back/forward buttons that pop up on the sides of the screen: they are very easy to hit by accident on a touchscreen, especially since they're given to popping up out of nowhere, and worse still they don't even serve a particularly helpful purpose.
As for post headers, I think the best way of minimising them would be to get rid of the totally-superfluous individual titles, or make them default to a blank field, and leave the post date etc. as they were.
-
Also, embedded videos when?
Huh, what? Did you say something? :D ;7
EDIT: in case you're wondering how to embed YT videos:
[yt]youtube-video-id-here[/yt]
For example, the above video is:
[yt]xhAR8rWPluQ[/yt]
EDIT 2: Also...
[vimeo]vimeo-video-id-here[/vimeo]
...will get you:
-
If you're looking to make the forums more mobile-friendly then my absolute first suggestion would be to get rid of those damned thread back/forward buttons that pop up on the sides of the screen: they are very easy to hit by accident on a touchscreen, especially since they're given to popping up out of nowhere, and worse still they don't even serve a particularly helpful purpose.
Seconding this. I've tried to browse HLP on my Kindle Fire a few times and it's painful mainly because of this.
-
If you're looking to make the forums more mobile-friendly then my absolute first suggestion would be to get rid of those damned thread back/forward buttons that pop up on the sides of the screen: they are very easy to hit by accident on a touchscreen, especially since they're given to popping up out of nowhere, and worse still they don't even serve a particularly helpful purpose.
As for post headers, I think the best way of minimising them would be to get rid of the totally-superfluous individual titles, or make them default to a blank field, and leave the post date etc. as they were.
Both good points. Prev/Next links have been restored to regular text links at the top and bottom of threads (EDIT and yes, they need fine-tuning, style-wise. Later.). I'll begin work on individual post titles, which are indeed largely superfluous.
-
Can you just remove the post title (re:thread title) and leave just the reply number/time/date?
-
you are making some serious headway on this sandwich and in general I like what you are trying.
If you are doing requests is there any chance of p3d embedding?
-
Oh my
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Can you just remove the post title (re:thread title) and leave just the reply number/time/date?
Done. That misleading message icon is removed too. Never did figure out what it was for.
you are making some serious headway on this sandwich and in general I like what you are trying.
If you are doing requests is there any chance of p3d embedding?
P3d? Can you point me to example code for embedding it?
-
Oh my
Force-refresh. :)
EDIT: Oh, Android. Clear cache. :p
EDIT 2: Hmm, somewhere I appear to have broken the inline post editing. Reverting things one by one. Bear with me.
-
So I really really like the sigs now. I hated that stupid mouseover box, and these are unobtrusive enough that I can still read them and laugh at the funny ones without them drowning out the page.
-
Ok, individual post titles are apparently required for the javascript that does the inline post editing to work and not go crazy. So, they've got to stay. However, I've made them inline elements, so they don't take up as much vertical space as before.
Also, in the spirit of Twitter, the link to each individual post is now the timestamp, not the title. :D
Regarding the sigs... I'm gonna try something. Gimme a few... ;)
EDIT: Well that didn't work. Ah well.
-
I don't think p3d embedding is a good idea, p3d is a demanding and specialised thing that probably should stay behind an external link, the same as YouTube and such. Not to mention the dubious security of WebGL itself.
-
I don't think p3d embedding is a good idea, p3d is a demanding and specialised thing that probably should stay behind an external link, the same as YouTube and such. Not to mention the dubious security of WebGL itself.
Perhaps; however, there are ways, young padawan... at least, there might be ways. All I require is example code... ;)
-
I think this (http://p3d.in/faq/forums) is where you would need to go to find it, though dont know if this board uses any of the listed code bases.
p3d share code was here
their native support code gives a couple of extra functions and makes the linking shorter so the above would become p3d share code was here
if you could do it would be useful for those of us who do 3D work in the community
edit
removed p3d elements from post to speed page loading
-
When you need to do something right, do it yourself.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=80917.msg1696629#msg1696629
:D
-
Can you add a silver star function for the community just so I can give it to you for that?
-
No. :D
-
Yay for embedded videos! \o/
-
WHAT THE **** :confused:
There's this giant "PREVIOUS THREAD" sign on the left now, and it's annoyingly distracting. Mind fixing that, please? :nervous:
-
I think the fixing thread buttons...went a little wrong, here.
-
Nothing should be appearing wonky right now. If it's wonky, force-refresh.
-
Oh hey, it's gone. Wonder why that happened?
-
Your browser was caching old CSS files. I just implemented something that should prevent that from ever happening again. ;)
-
i haven't read all 3 pages yet so i don't know if this has been addressed, but please GOD don't put the expanding signatures back. i like the way it is as of this posting (faded header/sigs). maybe a little less fade would be better though. i think the old signature boxes, just not expanding would be fine too. i think that the headers/signatures probably don't really need to contrast all that much with the post body, just be clearly separated. the signature box, bolder lines, more spacing, etc.
having said that though, another forum i'm on just uses different colored text by default and a simple dashed line for the signature to great effect. it's on a less busy white/light blue theme though so that may not translate well.
also, curious as to why the buttons changed color except for the reply button. it looks fine, just wondering if it was intentional or not.
-
also, curious as to why the buttons changed color except for the reply button. it looks fine, just wondering if it was intentional or not.
Screenshot or it didn't happen... :p
-
i haven't read all 3 pages yet so i don't know if this has been addressed, but please GOD don't put the expanding signatures back. i like the way it is as of this posting (faded header/sigs). maybe a little less fade would be better though. i think the old signature boxes, just not expanding would be fine too. i think that the headers/signatures probably don't really need to contrast all that much with the post body, just be clearly separated. the signature box, bolder lines, more spacing, etc.
Sandwich, my sig is too thick :(
-
I kinda got used to the fixed height signatures. Now they're all just too huge so I turned them off. Personally I'm not opposed to having them as long as they're not bigger than what they were before.
-
also, curious as to why the buttons changed color except for the reply button. it looks fine, just wondering if it was intentional or not.
Screenshot or it didn't happen... :p
well it's nothing to get excited about, just the other ones are grey now.
-
Without the resizing boxes, digs like Sambo's are pretty massive in mobile view, significantly bigger (and therefore more prominent) than the post in most cases, greyness notwithstanding.
Length limit or something?
-
Please limit size of those embedded videos, they are obscenely huge.
-
well it's nothing to get excited about, just the other ones are grey now.
You must have been caching a really old CSS file - those buttons have been that color (red Reply, gray everything else) for many, many months.
Without the resizing boxes, digs like Sambo's are pretty massive in mobile view, significantly bigger (and therefore more prominent) than the post in most cases, greyness notwithstanding.
Length limit or something?
Yeah, that's the predicament... limit sig length (which doesn't prevent someone from filling that allotment up with linebreaks...) and anger people, limit sig height and cut off people's sigs, or limit height and provide a way to expand to a sufficient height. Not sure which way is best.
Please limit size of those embedded videos, they are obscenely huge.
Well, the videos are fluid-width, adapting to the forum width in the browser. I typically view the forum in a limited-width mode; I'm guessing you're in the classic "full-width" mode? I can imagine videos getting a bit oversize like that. Hmm. I'll see what I can do.
-
Ok, embedded media (YouTube and Vimeo videos, and P3D thingys) are limited in width now for those of you with the forums in full-width mode. I arbitrarily chose a max-width of 960px; if you have any reason for anything different, lemme know. :)
-
I put in my vote for limiting sig length on the user side. Users who have sigs over <x> length (not in characters) will be politely asked to shorten it.
-
well it's nothing to get excited about, just the other ones are grey now.
You must have been caching a really old CSS file - those buttons have been that color (red Reply, gray everything else) for many, many months.
i might be just going crazy, but i could swear they were all red before...
as for video size, why not just leave them original size? what's the default youtube plays in the little windows, 480? no sense in stretching things and making them look fuzzy.
-
YouTube videos automatically adapt their quality to the window size, so there actually is a point. :)
-
Ah, just a note, when you get to it, the reply window needs (unless you don't want) icons for yt vimeo and 3d model links (that's how I learned a bit of BBCode without having to bother asking people).
Also, for sigs, how about a faded double arrow pointing downwards at the end of a short, fixed length sig that will expand only when clicked? Make the double arrow button clickable area the same width as the post, and have it unobtrusively highlight itself on mouseover.
Basically, thin clickable rectangle the width of the posts, of a slightly lighter color than the current HLP background color, that becomes visible when mouseover, with only the small grey double arrow being visible when not in mouseover (perhaps have the double arrow change to black in mouseover to stand out more against the clickable rectangle).
.... does that suggestion make any sense or am I not being clear enough?
-
Ah, just a note, when you get to it, the reply window needs (unless you don't want) icons for yt vimeo and 3d model links (that's how I learned a bit of BBCode without having to bother asking people).
Also, for sigs, how about a faded double arrow pointing downwards at the end of a short, fixed length sig that will expand only when clicked? Make the double arrow button clickable area the same width as the post, and have it unobtrusively highlight itself on mouseover.
Basically, thin clickable rectangle the width of the posts, of a slightly lighter color than the current HLP background color, that becomes visible when mouseover, with only the small grey double arrow being visible when not in mouseover (perhaps have the double arrow change to black in mouseover to stand out more against the clickable rectangle).
.... does that suggestion make any sense or am I not being clear enough?
Video embedding buttons and expand-on-click sigs - both good suggestions IMHO
-
I agree. BBCode buttons for YouTube, Vimeo, and P3D added. Now to work on the sigs.
-
Ok, how's the signature toggle thing look now? I'm pretty satisfied with how it turned out. :)
-
I don't know what others think but I find this expand and collapse pretty convenient. :cool:
-
Much better, it stays out of the way when you don't need it, and doesn't do anything you don't want it to.
-
If you absolutely must have some expandy thing... I would suggest a lot less 'BAM I'M A BUTTON! LOOK AT ME LIGHT-UP!
Honestly, after a few days of longer sig areas, I was completely fine with it. Mostly because all the stuff that pops in and out, lights up, darkens, and whatever animations that seem to go on when I scroll are really distracting. It was nice to have less of that for a little while. But please make a choice and stick with it. I've had to update my sig every single time (I don't want my to need to expand) because every single time the visible length changes.
EDIT: For example, when I first made my sig, it was 3 lines at regular font. Then the area got slightly larger, so I went with 4 lines smaller font. Now it seems we are down to slightly more than 2 lines at regular font. Make up your mind, man.
-
If you absolutely must have some expandy thing... I would suggest a lot less 'BAM I'M A BUTTON! LOOK AT ME LIGHT-UP!
Honestly, after a few days of longer sig areas, I was completely fine with it. Mostly because all the stuff that pops in and out, lights up, darkens, and whatever animations that seem to go on when I scroll are really distracting. It was nice to have less of that for a little while. But please make a choice and stick with it. I've had to update my sig every single time (I don't want my to need to expand) because every single time the visible length changes.
EDIT: For example, when I first made my sig, it was 3 lines at regular font. Then the area got slightly larger, so I went with 4 lines smaller font. Now it seems we are down to slightly more than 2 lines at regular font. Make up your mind, man.
Look, you... :p I've been doing my best to figure out the sig thing, based on feedback from everyone. Nothing has been set in stone, even now, so stop updating your sig until I say you can, y'hear? ;)
On a slightly more serious note... the sigs are about as small as I'd be comfortable with right now; do you think they should be taller? Perhaps 1.5-2x or so?
Also, you should be much more please with the popping in and out of the post links now. ;)
EDIT: Also, be glad I restrained myself from doing this: http://css-tricks.com/examples/DifferentTransitionsOnOff/
-
I'm liking the current set up, well done!
-
I think good work has been done. :yes:
-
The times I updated my sig were not in the last few days, but just over the course of your changes since the new layout was rolled out. I fully realize that's only once every few months.. But, how often does the forum layout/look/feel really need to be messed with?
I mean, we already know HLPers are a stubborn lot with how they take FSU upgrades.... Stop messin with mah forums. I just got used to it. :p
-
I liked it the other way better, with the whole sig displayed. I really have to wonder if the post-content-to-viewing-space ratio is really in so much need of precision fine tuning.
-
I liked it the other way better, with the whole sig displayed. I really have to wonder if the post-content-to-viewing-space ratio is really in so much need of precision fine tuning.
On desktop\laptop screens, probably not, but in mobile there was definitely a problem in some cases.
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Pfff, that just means Sandwich's sig is too long. No reason the rest of us should have to "suffer" for it!
Suffer used in jest.
-
This method also leaves quite a bit of blanks space between the top of the Sig box and the first Sig text line.
-
It does indeed; white-space is not a bad thing. Also, just FYI, I'm posting from my phone and I see there are optimizations to be made. I hope to get to those tonight perhaps.
-
I didn't know Sandwich had signature that ridiculous as I have sigs disabled. I think that no signature should exceed length of sensible post, which Sandwich's does by a mile and then some. Wasn't there supposed to be character limit to sigs?
Also, currently layout of user profile view is broken. You can only see half of first line of signature.
-
I like the signatures! Hmm, but for others, how about an addition to the signature on / off switch so it becomes on (always open) / collapsible / off? If you feel like it anyways.
-
Wasn't there supposed to be character limit to sigs?
2000 characters. For reference, a visual illustration of 2000 characters using just the humble x. (We could probably jettison 500/1000 and nobody would notice.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
Seems small. Increase it to 10^4.
-
2000 characters. For reference, a visual illustration of 2000 characters using just the humble x. (We could probably jettison 500/1000 and nobody would notice.)
That's default limit yeah. It was shortened to something much less when I was still an admin. Perhaps that change has been reverted, though I see no good reason to do that. Sigs aren't supposed to be longer than most posts for chrissakes.
-
And please never allow pics in the signature.
-
after a day of consideration, i think the new sig boxes look bad. it's better than the auto-expanding box, but displaying the whole thing like it was a couple days ago was the best so far. this one displays three lines, cutting off half of the bottom one. the expand button takes up almost as much vertical space as the displayed part of the sig, and i agree that the flashing is kinda annoying. the button also remains even if the sig fits in the box. the bit i find the worst about it though is that it leaves a LOT of empty space below it on short posts for people who have badges or images. i find the occasional really long sig less jarring than the flashing expand button and empty space in an odd place.
edit: ok so i see the 'expand' doesn't light up like a christmas tree anymore, but the same applies to the other buttons on posts. they don't need to be blacked out.
-
I like the current setup :yes: Never did like sigs bigger than posts.
-
I am guessing the char limit reverted during the forum upgrade.
as for the sig style again I think I prefered the show all method but perhaps cut the char limit down to 750-1000
edit
or would it be better (if possible) to limit the number of lines the sig can use?
-
or would it be better (if possible) to limit the number of lines the sig can use?
If we can do this, I'd throw in with revealing the whole sig.
-
As would I.
-
Say, how about Twitter embedding? Easy or hard? Worth the effort?
-
Mmmm and why would we need tweeter feeds for here?
-
Please no. Allowing social embeds is a slippery slope.
-
Before anyone says so, I'm just gonna say no 4chan for ****sakes!
-
Not feeds, not even a "tweet this" button. I should have been more specific: just a way to post a tweet like you would with a youtube video using twitter's own embed code, which looks like this:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Ah, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23LosAngeles&src=hash">#LosAngeles</a>. Man, I hate cities. <a href="http://t.co/Cnd40HWs74">pic.twitter.com/Cnd40HWs74</a></p>— Stephen Bernal (@ScourgeOfAges) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScourgeOfAges/statuses/354346276457959424">July 8, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Just a thought, and it's definitely not as useful as youtube or p3d. It's a slippery slope indeed, I'll leave it in better hands than mine.
-
It's nice that images within img tags are scaled to screen, but why is it that you can't click on the image to open it in original size? Thankfully Chrome has option to open an image in new tab when you right-click on one.
-
Ah, that's another of the advantages of the lvlshot tag that I forgot to mention before.
-
Mmmm and why would we need tweeter feeds for here?
Would be quite useful in gendisc threads actually.
-
Please no... Twitter embeds? Srsly? I think everyone in GenDisc is perfectly capable of copy/pasting 160 characters with a link if needed. Clean forum is clean. It should stay that way.
-
Hey. I'm just dropping a quick thank you for the work that was done here. Well done, Sandwich. Loving the Youtube embeds :)
-
on youtube embeds: personally i think they are a little large. they are set at 960 now right? if i were doing it i'd use 720 so it would play native 720p. i don't think it makes sense to scale up to a size youtube doesn't output in.
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
-
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
Also, is there any way to specify a start-time in embedded videos? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't.
[yt]g5wFS6Gnkk4&t=1m21s[/yt]
-
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
Not going to happen. First, it's not that big of a deal to copy just the video ID. More importantly, creating a feature which allows the user to embed an arbitrary URL in a forum post is just asking for a security breach or a phishing attempt.
Also, is there any way to specify a start-time in embedded videos? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't.
[yt]g5wFS6Gnkk4&t=1m21s[/yt]
That should be possible, yes. Ask Sandwich to modify the bbcode to allow a time offset as an optional extra parameter.
EDIT: Optional parameter, not arbitrary. I blame lack of sleep.
-
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
Not going to happen. First, it's not that big of a deal to copy just the video ID. More importantly, creating a feature which allows the user to embed an arbitrary URL in a forum post is just asking for a security breach or a phishing attempt.
Wait, what? Does that mean that the contents of [url ] [/url ] tags are sanitised somehow?
-
I'm not sure exactly how [url] is handled and I don't have time right now to check. But remember that putting a YouTube video in a post is embedding the video, whereas posting a [url] tag is merely linking to the video.
-
or would it be better (if possible) to limit the number of lines the sig can use?
Number of lines is a completely subjective perception, based on whether you have the forum at full or fixed width, how wide your browser window is, etc. So no, I can't do that, Dave. ;)
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
The problem is I don't have much leeway in parsing these BBCode tags. Also, security reasons. :nod:
Also, is there any way to specify a start-time in embedded videos? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't.
[yt]g5wFS6Gnkk4&t=1m21s[/yt]
This just in!
[yt time=###]{VIDEO_ID}[/yt]
The 'time' parameter is optional of course, but when specified, it must be digits only, representing the number of seconds from the start of the video. You can find this out easily by right-clicking on a video and selecting "Copy video URL at current time", pasting what it copied somewhere, then looking at the value for 't=###' at the end of the copied string.
Or, you know, just calculate the seconds from the minutes and seconds in the player. :p
Say, how about Twitter embedding? Easy or hard? Worth the effort?
Should be possible, but I personally don't see a need for it. However I am willing to let the majority rule in this case, so if you want to create a poll thread about it, go for it.
It's nice that images within img tags are scaled to screen, but why is it that you can't click on the image to open it in original size? Thankfully Chrome has option to open an image in new tab when you right-click on one.
Yeah, thanks for bringing this up. I've been meaning to implement something to address this, but forgot.
There's a technical restriction, though. I can't simply add a link only to scaled-down images. I can do it globally, to all images, but it might be a bit unexpected if someone posts an image that isn't large enough to be scaled down, and you click on it and it shows the same image at the same size. Not sure if that's undesirable or unexpected.
Regarding implementation, one method (let's call it option A) would be to implement a "lightbox" type popup (http://lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2/). Another (B) would be a simple link that opens the image directly in a new tab, without any fanfare. A third (C), which might be most confusing considering the technical limitation I mentioned above, would be to prevent images from being scaled down at all if they have browser focus (i.e. if they've been clicked on). Once you click elsewhere, the image would return to being scaled-down as necessary.
Personally, considering the purposes people post images around here (showing off latest models, renders, screenshots, etc), and considering the growing use of mobile browsing, I think that option B would be best. It would allow each user's browser to handle the large image natively (good for mobile), and would not restrict things to the entire browser window like option A's lightboxes tend to do (they're best used for small thumbnails).
Wait, what? Does that mean that the contents of [url ] [/url ] tags are sanitised somehow?
Both [url]...[/url] and [url=...]...[/url] tags have basic sanitization and validation, including adding http:// to the beginning if it's missing, stripping out certain strings and chars, etc. Also, what Goob said about merely linking vs. embedding. :)
-
EDIT: inserted quote because of Sensei Sandwich-ninja
also, it would probably be easier if we could just use the whole URL instead of the video id. everyone does it wrong the first time, and it's more effort to extract just that part than just copy the address bar anyway.
Not going to happen. First, it's not that big of a deal to copy just the video ID. More importantly, creating a feature which allows the user to embed an arbitrary URL in a forum post is just asking for a security breach or a phishing attempt.
Wait, what? Does that mean that the contents of [url ] [/url ] tags are sanitised somehow?
.. in other words, it's bringing the contents of the link to the HLP page, and is loaded without any other user intervention than just loading the HLP page that has the embedded video. Versus, url links have to be clicked and load another page, leaving the content outside of HLP.
I guess they are afraid of someone figuring out how to trick the forum software into embedding something other than a youtube video.
Bah.. ninja'd
-
*snip*
Bah.. ninja'd
Always quote. Always. :D
-
*snip*
Bah.. ninja'd
Always quote. Always. :D
Good point. Fixed. :p
EDIT: :banghead:
-
Good point. Fixed. :p
See, there you go again, not quoting. :p You ended up at the top of a new page, so there's no context to this post. :p
-
Good point. Fixed. :p
See, there you go again, not quoting. :p You ended up at the top of a new page, so there's no context to this post. :p
I blame gremlins!
-
Wait, what? Does that mean that the contents of [url ] [/url ] tags are sanitised somehow?
Both [url]...[/url] and [url=...]...[/url] tags have basic sanitization and validation, including adding http:// to the beginning if it's missing, stripping out certain strings and chars, etc. Also, what Goob said about merely linking vs. embedding. :)
(and @ the Goober & jr2 replies)
Yeah - I get it now, thanks for the enlightenment, I missed the no-interaction vs must-click issue :nervous: I was just thinking that it's pretty easy to phish someone just by having fairly arbitrary linking ability. i.e. post a meme [img] with a [url] link around it to some site that hosts drive-by malware. Of course, regulars that do that would have the ban hammer dropping on them, and I'd hope that most people around here would be smart enough not to click on any link or image posted by one of the few spam[mers|bots] that get through.
Anyway, you ain't going to add it and that's fine by me :D
Just one other thing - the youtube time tag is awesome :yes: Is it possible to add this to the wiki as well? (so you don't need this sort of comment above the vid?)
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/...With_Vast_Seas#QuantumDelta
-
Just one other thing - the youtube time tag is awesome :yes: Is it possible to add this to the wiki as well? (so you don't need this sort of comment above the vid?)
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/...With_Vast_Seas#QuantumDelta
I tried a number of permutations of the Wiki code for that embed but couldn't get it to take. I'm guessing it'll have to be dealt with in the PHP side of things, but I'm completely unfamiliar with MediaWiki's PHP code, addons, etc.
Sooo, probably not. Rorry!
-
the youtube embedding doesn't seem to work anymore.
-
Ok, learning more and more about SMF every time. :) Should be all fixed now.
-
we could really use an option for smaller youtube embed sizes (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85306)
-
And an option to replace the embedded videos with hotlinks. Or just include the link a little over or under the embedded video.
If it isn't too much trouble. I kind of have them disabled because it dramatically increases the page-load time.
-
we could really use an option for smaller youtube embed sizes (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85306)
Working on it. I'll provide the ability to control the size, but what do people think the default embedded video width should be? Currently it maxes out at 960px now at 640px.
EDIT: Ok, initial sizes are set and ready to go:
[yt size=small|medium|large|max]{VIDEO_ID}[/yt]
With the default max-width being 960px 640px, the sizes correspond to 320px, 640px, 960px, and no max-width, respectively. In other words, specifying 'medium' is the same as not specifying anything.
Small
[yt size=small]Sk4uUavsrgI[/yt]
Medium / Default
[yt size=medium]lMXJlUIQP94[/yt][yt]Xz5z1hBxejg[/yt]
Large
[yt size=large]Xz5z1hBxejg[/yt]
Max
[yt size=max]MCsiuqg06BA[/yt]
-
And now for something completely different, yet strikingly clever and awesome.
http://codepen.io/TimPietrusky/pen/eHGfj
-
You want to be able to have star-wars-style crawling posts? :P