www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - D forums now live!

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
http://forum.dlang.org/

This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!
Feb 14 2012
next sibling parent reply "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 14:00:05 Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/
 
 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.
 
 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

You should probably add a note to the description for digitalmars.D.bugs that bugs should be reported to the bug tracker and _not_ that list. Honestly, I don't understand why posting to that list is even enabled for anyone other than bugzilla itself. But if it becomes easier to post to that list, then we're that much more likely to get people reporting bugs there than to bugzilla. - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 14 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/14/2012 2:12 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 You should probably add a note to the description for digitalmars.D.bugs that
 bugs should be reported to the bug tracker and _not_ that list.

I agree.
Feb 14 2012
parent Piotr Szturmaj <bncrbme jadamspam.pl> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 On 2/14/2012 2:12 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 You should probably add a note to the description for
 digitalmars.D.bugs that
 bugs should be reported to the bug tracker and _not_ that list.

I agree.

Could it be disabled at the server side?
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

The pleasure is mine! I should add that I still have a long list of things to add, tweak or fix to go through, as well as balancing that with a move to a faster, beefier server. Feedback is still welcome, and you can find the source on GitHub, here: https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed
Feb 14 2012
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/14/2012 2:13 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Feedback is still welcome, and you can find the source on GitHub, here:
 https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed

Could you add that last as a note at the bottom of the display?
Feb 14 2012
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/14/2012 2:24 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 2/14/2012 2:13 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 Feedback is still welcome, and you can find the source on GitHub, here:
 https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed

Could you add that last as a note at the bottom of the display?

Never mind, I see you have that here: http://forum.dlang.org/help
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "MattCodr" <mattcoder hotmail.com> writes:
After posting it couldn't redirect automatically to the topic 
Instead of having to click on the message "View Message" ?
Feb 17 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kapps" <opantm2+spam gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:13:42 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

The pleasure is mine! I should add that I still have a long list of things to add, tweak or fix to go through, as well as balancing that with a move to a faster, beefier server. Feedback is still welcome, and you can find the source on GitHub, here: https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed

Definitely looks great so far. I'm more than a little surprised that it's so fast despite the server being in France and me being in Canada. One thing that annoys me though is that there is no easy way (short of the back button) to go back to the section / newsgroup you were at after reading. When you're scrolled to the bottom of the page, you have to manually scroll back up then click the text at the top. It would be nice if there was at least a Top button to get back to the top of the page. It sounds minor, but it's annoying to scroll to the top without using the keyboard, and generally when browinsg your hands aren't on the keyboard. Also, robots.txt seems like it needs to be updated. Google is storing pages from /reply/stuff, which brings up the reply form when clicked instead of the thread itself.
Feb 20 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 09:14:19 UTC, Kapps wrote:
 Definitely looks great so far. I'm more than a little surprised 
 that it's so fast despite the server being in France and me 
 being in Canada. One thing that annoys me though is that there 
 is no easy way (short of the back button) to go back to the 
 section / newsgroup you were at after reading. When you're 
 scrolled to the bottom of the page, you have to manually scroll 
 back up then click the text at the top. It would be nice if 
 there was at least a Top button to get back to the top of the 
 page. It sounds minor, but it's annoying to scroll to the top 
 without using the keyboard, and generally when browsing your 
 hands aren't on the keyboard.

OK.
 Also, robots.txt seems like it needs to be updated. Google is 
 storing pages from /reply/stuff, which brings up the reply form 
 when clicked instead of the thread itself.

Thanks, missed that.
Feb 20 2012
prev sibling parent reply "XP1" <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:13:42 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

The pleasure is mine! I should add that I still have a long list of things to add, tweak or fix to go through, as well as balancing that with a move to a faster, beefier server. Feedback is still welcome, and you can find the source on GitHub, here: https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed

Would the user be able to change one's password in the future?
Feb 22 2012
next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 02:52:24 UTC, XP1 wrote:
 Would the user be able to change one's password in the future?

There's technically no reason why this can't be implemented, but I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons why people would want that, considering: 1) There is little-to-no information stored in users' accounts worth stealing 2) Consequentially, registering a new account only means losing your settings and read post history 3) You can use any password, or even no password at all 4) There are no password recovery options, because there are no alternative ways of identifying users (secret question / e-mail address). If you still want this feature, remind me about it for after I add a user preferences page.
Feb 24 2012
next sibling parent "Xinok" <xinok live.com> writes:
On Friday, 24 February 2012 at 17:43:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev 
wrote:
 On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 02:52:24 UTC, XP1 wrote:
 Would the user be able to change one's password in the future?

There's technically no reason why this can't be implemented, but I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons why people would want that, considering: 1) There is little-to-no information stored in users' accounts worth stealing 2) Consequentially, registering a new account only means losing your settings and read post history 3) You can use any password, or even no password at all 4) There are no password recovery options, because there are no alternative ways of identifying users (secret question / e-mail address). If you still want this feature, remind me about it for after I add a user preferences page.

I think it would be worth adding. You never know what other features you might add in the future that would call for account security.
Feb 24 2012
prev sibling parent reply "russ" <bvykxcdb sharklasers.com> writes:
On Friday, 24 February 2012 at 17:43:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
wrote:
 On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 02:52:24 UTC, XP1 wrote:
 Would the user be able to change one's password in the future?

There's technically no reason why this can't be implemented, but I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons why people would want that,

This is much nicer than the old web archive interface. But I couldn't log in with the password I registered with (as a matter of course I use 30-character random passwords), so I had to create a second account with a shorter password. Is there a maximum length password and it's being silently truncated or something? Or disallowed characters which are silently accepted/modified? The registration screen should document what limits on passwords exist.
Mar 01 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 1 March 2012 at 15:34:07 UTC, russ wrote:
 On Friday, 24 February 2012 at 17:43:16 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev
 wrote:
 On Thursday, 23 February 2012 at 02:52:24 UTC, XP1 wrote:
 Would the user be able to change one's password in the future?

There's technically no reason why this can't be implemented, but I'm having a hard time coming up with reasons why people would want that,

This is much nicer than the old web archive interface. But I couldn't log in with the password I registered with (as a matter of course I use 30-character random passwords), so I had to create a second account with a shorter password. Is there a maximum length password and it's being silently truncated or something? Or disallowed characters which are silently accepted/modified? The registration screen should document what limits on passwords exist.

Sorry, I can't reproduce this problem. There is a limit of 64 characters on the password's length, but the forum will inform you if you've exceeded the limit.
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling parent reply Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
Why doesn't the Forums link under Community link to this forum? In
fact, I can't find the forum linked from anywhere on the website. When
you go to dlang.org 'Forums' links to
http://digitalmars.com/NewsGroup.html , but if you go to
http://forum.dlang.org/ the Forums link properly links to the current
page (http://forum.dlang.org/).
Mar 02 2012
parent reply "Brad Anderson" <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Friday, 2 March 2012 at 20:51:27 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Why doesn't the Forums link under Community link to this forum? 
 In
 fact, I can't find the forum linked from anywhere on the 
 website. When
 you go to dlang.org 'Forums' links to
 http://digitalmars.com/NewsGroup.html , but if you go to
 http://forum.dlang.org/ the Forums link properly links to the 
 current
 page (http://forum.dlang.org/).

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/d-programming-language.org/pull/93 Regards, Brad Anderson
Mar 02 2012
parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
Thanks Brad!
Mar 02 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 14/02/2012 22:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Excellent news! One quick suggestion: could the order of the groups on the front page be changed? Eg D.learn is no way near the top (most used/relevant should be closer to the top, the rest in alphabetical order imo) -- Robert http://octarineparrot.com/
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 2/14/12 4:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

On reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ppre5/the_new_d_online_forum_software_written_in_d/ Andrei
Feb 14 2012
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/14/2012 2:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On reddit:
 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ppre5/the_new_d_online_forum_software_written_in_d/

I do like how reddit picks up the D logo to use as the thumbnail for the article!
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 2/14/12 4:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 On reddit:
 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ppre5/the_new_d_online_forum_software_written_in_d/

Wow. Just WOW. At 80% acceptance rate and a ton of positive comments, the link is a home run. Did Vladimir just wrote D's killer app? We must integrate everything generic enough in Phobos, pronto! Andrei
Feb 14 2012
parent reply "Yao Gomez" <yao.gomez gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 04:00:38 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
 Wow. Just WOW. At 80% acceptance rate and a ton of positive 
 comments, the link is a home run. Did Vladimir just wrote D's 
 killer app?

 We must integrate everything generic enough in Phobos, pronto!


 Andrei

And the most talked feature is how super-fast and responsive the forum is. It's kinda nice.
Feb 14 2012
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/14/2012 8:04 PM, Yao Gomez wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 04:00:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Wow. Just WOW. At 80% acceptance rate and a ton of positive comments, the link
 is a home run. Did Vladimir just wrote D's killer app?

 We must integrate everything generic enough in Phobos, pronto!


 Andrei

And the most talked feature is how super-fast and responsive the forum is. It's kinda nice.

I couldn't have asked for a better set of reviews! And best of all, if anyone else wants to use Vladimir's software, they gotta use D! Queue D's patented time dilation technology.
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 14.02.2012 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice! One suggestion for improvement: don't change the font size based on the browser window size. I'm not a web programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way of setting the font size.
Feb 14 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 00:33:29 UTC, torhu wrote:
 On 14.02.2012 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice! One suggestion for improvement: don't change the font size based on the browser window size. I'm not a web programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way of setting the font size.

That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the interface look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also mobile devices. The advantage of the current approach is that it does not rely on JavaScript - it's completely CSS-based. It's not just the font size, either - the navigation column on the left is hidden if the viewport is not wide enough, and some other sizes are adjusted. While I could use JavaScript to query the viewport window on load time and apply the adjustments only on page load, it'd have to mean relying on JavaScript, and you'd still see the font size change when you resize the window and click a link. I don't think having a "font size" JavaScript widget is a better solution. It'd mean having one canned experience optimized for one device be the default for all devices. Detecting user-agents or other complicated logic is not something I wish to go down, either. May I ask why you don't like the current behavior?
Feb 15 2012
next sibling parent reply "Ludovic Silvestre" <ludovic.silvestre gmail.com> writes:
Using  media and different CSS settings for different screens was 
a smart move, but you are not using it correctly. By setting the 
font-size in pixels, you completely forgot about the screen 
density, and the forum might end up with really small text for 
mobile or desktop. Obviously, you can set the minimum font size 
in your browser, but that's not a solution, since that size is 
usually used for notes (like in wikipedia). For example, I have 
15pt as default and 10pt as minimum on my desktop. 10pt is really 
small for the post's text.

First of all, I recommend to use % for the body's font-size 
(which you are already using) and the rest should be set with em. 
That way, the body font-size will be equal to the browser default 
font size, and the rest of the page will be based on that size.

Another suggestion is using something like this: 
http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/06/26/setting-font-size-proportional-to-window-size/

Here is an example of the js code:
function updateFontSize(){
   msg = document.body.clientWidth;

   var font_math = Math.round( 0.012 * msg * 10 );
   font_math = font_math < 100 ? 100 : font_math;

   $( "body" ).css({
       "font-size" : font_math + "%"
   });
}

Use that function on page load and page refresh:
$( window ).resize( ... )
$( document ).ready( ... )

On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 10:55:57 UTC, Vladimir 
Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 00:33:29 UTC, torhu wrote:
 On 14.02.2012 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice! One suggestion for improvement: don't change the font size based on the browser window size. I'm not a web programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way of setting the font size.

That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the interface look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also mobile devices. The advantage of the current approach is that it does not rely on JavaScript - it's completely CSS-based. It's not just the font size, either - the navigation column on the left is hidden if the viewport is not wide enough, and some other sizes are adjusted. While I could use JavaScript to query the viewport window on load time and apply the adjustments only on page load, it'd have to mean relying on JavaScript, and you'd still see the font size change when you resize the window and click a link. I don't think having a "font size" JavaScript widget is a better solution. It'd mean having one canned experience optimized for one device be the default for all devices. Detecting user-agents or other complicated logic is not something I wish to go down, either. May I ask why you don't like the current behavior?

Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Ludovic Silvestre" <ludovic.silvestre gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:yuepxdfcgjebpkkhjnny dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...

I was wondering why the text seemed to be a completely different size on different browsers!
 First of all, I recommend to use % for the body's font-size (which you are 
 already using) and the rest should be set with em. That way, the body 
 font-size will be equal to the browser default font size, and the rest of 
 the page will be based on that size.

Yes. This.
 Another suggestion is using something like this: 
 http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/06/26/setting-font-size-proportional-to-window-size/

 Here is an example of the js code:
 function updateFontSize(){
   msg = document.body.clientWidth;

   var font_math = Math.round( 0.012 * msg * 10 );
   font_math = font_math < 100 ? 100 : font_math;

   $( "body" ).css({
       "font-size" : font_math + "%"
   });
 }

 Use that function on page load and page refresh:
 $( window ).resize( ... )
 $( document ).ready( ... )

That's not good (and I don't mean because of the JS - it's always possible to have non-JS fallback). This is a classic case of narrowly optimizing for one specific metric (ie, getting a consistent words-per-line) instead of always keeping an eye on the big picture. The problem this creates is that font sizes become too uncontrolled: First of all, shrinking the window *should* re-flow the text, not cause it to be too small to read. A shorter line length is *much* better than tiny text. Second, I tried the example: http://jaredstein.org/resources/stein/js/fonter.html The text on that page (when I have JS on) is so enormous, that I actually have a *very* hard time reading it. Much, much harder than reading really long lines. I have to go messing around with my browser's window size just to make it readable. I shouldn't have to do that, I've never had to do that before, and honestly, who would ever even *think* to do that? Yea, you *could* clamp the max and min font sizes, but it's really just a goofy approach overall. There's a reason that desktop apps never scale by messing with font size. Consistent controlled font size just turns out to be more important than consistent line length. You're much better off just using the CSS "max-width" (or something like that, I forget the exact name) and maybe "min-width", both specified in em of course. In any case, this is one of the reasons I hate the modern web. On the user's side, content and view have become completely married together. That's a *huge* step backwards. Thanks to a very large effort put into standard file formats and general computer-to-computer interop, it used to be that any content could be viewed in any program, any UI, any style, any anything the *user* wanted. We had achieved a computing golden age! But once things moved to the web, that got completely thrown out the window as interface is now inseparably *bundled* with content once again (and vice versa - content comes inseparably bundled with the interface). While model-view separation is popular among webdevs, that separation exists completely on the developer's side, not the user's side. Of course in this particular case, it's not quite so bad because there's lots of different interfaces to the same NNTP server, but still...
Feb 15 2012
next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:59:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 First of all, shrinking the window *should* re-flow the text, 
 not cause it to be too small to read. A shorter line length is 
 *much* better than tiny text.

The problem is that a lot of mail and news software prewrap messages to a certain width. While some standards have appeared that provide reflow information with backwards-compatibility (format=flowed), it doesn't help us much since we can't scale down some messages and rewrap others.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-15 16:57, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Ludovic Silvestre"<ludovic.silvestre gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:yuepxdfcgjebpkkhjnny dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...

I was wondering why the text seemed to be a completely different size on different browsers!
 First of all, I recommend to use % for the body's font-size (which you are
 already using) and the rest should be set with em. That way, the body
 font-size will be equal to the browser default font size, and the rest of
 the page will be based on that size.

Yes. This.
 Another suggestion is using something like this:
 http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2008/06/26/setting-font-size-proportional-to-window-size/

 Here is an example of the js code:
 function updateFontSize(){
    msg = document.body.clientWidth;

    var font_math = Math.round( 0.012 * msg * 10 );
    font_math = font_math<  100 ? 100 : font_math;

    $( "body" ).css({
        "font-size" : font_math + "%"
    });
 }

 Use that function on page load and page refresh:
 $( window ).resize( ... )
 $( document ).ready( ... )

That's not good (and I don't mean because of the JS - it's always possible to have non-JS fallback). This is a classic case of narrowly optimizing for one specific metric (ie, getting a consistent words-per-line) instead of always keeping an eye on the big picture. The problem this creates is that font sizes become too uncontrolled: First of all, shrinking the window *should* re-flow the text, not cause it to be too small to read. A shorter line length is *much* better than tiny text.

This site is a great example of a design that reflows when resizing the window: http://upperdog.se/ . It works great on both desktop browsers and mobile devices. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:jhgu3t$15th$1 digitalmars.com...
 This site is a great example of a design that reflows when resizing the 
 window: http://upperdog.se/ . It works great on both desktop browsers and 
 mobile devices.

Heh, leave it to me to come up with this: http://www.semitwist.com/download/img/shots/upperdog.png
Feb 15 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-15 20:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Jacob Carlborg"<doob me.com>  wrote in message
 news:jhgu3t$15th$1 digitalmars.com...
 This site is a great example of a design that reflows when resizing the
 window: http://upperdog.se/ . It works great on both desktop browsers and
 mobile devices.

Heh, leave it to me to come up with this: http://www.semitwist.com/download/img/shots/upperdog.png

I guess this requires a quite new web browser. They don't support IE7. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Ludovic Silvestre" <ludovic.silvestre gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:59:48 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 That's not good (and I don't mean because of the JS - it's 
 always possible to have non-JS fallback). This is a classic 
 case of narrowly optimizing for one specific metric (ie, 
 getting a consistent words-per-line) instead of always keeping 
 an eye on the big picture. The problem this creates is that 
 font sizes become too uncontrolled:

The font sizes aren't uncontrollable if every font-size/width/height/etc uses em as unit. You must use a elastic layout to make it work.
 First of all, shrinking the window *should* re-flow the text, 
 not cause it to be too small to read. A shorter line length is 
 *much* better than tiny text.

If you looked at my code, you'll see that I never set the body font-size below 100% (the example given in the link doesn't take that problem into account). This way, the line length is maintained unless the font become too small.
 Second, I tried the example:

 http://jaredstein.org/resources/stein/js/fonter.html

 The text on that page (when I have JS on) is so enormous, that 
 I actually have a *very* hard time reading it. Much, much 
 harder than reading really long lines. I have to go messing 
 around with my browser's window size just to make it readable. 
 I shouldn't have to do that, I've never had to do that before, 
 and honestly, who would ever even *think* to do that?

There's several reasons why you have difficulties to read the text: 1. You're standing too close to the screen. 2. Black text in white background (my eyes become tired after a long reading period because of this). 3. You're not used to it. Besides, the web dev can change the ratio between the font-size/window.width, making the text a little smaller/bigger.
 Yea, you *could* clamp the max and min font sizes, but it's 
 really just a goofy approach overall. There's a reason that 
 desktop apps never scale by messing with font size. Consistent 
 controlled font size just turns out to be more important than 
 consistent line length. You're much better off just using the 
 CSS "max-width" (or something like that, I forget the exact 
 name) and maybe "min-width", both specified in em of course.

 In any case, this is one of the reasons I hate the modern web. 
 On the user's side, content and view have become completely 
 married together. That's a *huge* step backwards. Thanks to a 
 very large effort put into standard file formats and general 
 computer-to-computer interop, it used to be that any content 
 could be viewed in any program, any UI, any style, any anything 
 the *user* wanted. We had achieved a computing golden age! But 
 once things moved to the web, that got completely thrown out 
 the window as interface is now inseparably *bundled* with 
 content once again (and vice versa - content comes inseparably 
 bundled with the interface). While model-view separation is 
 popular among webdevs, that separation exists completely on the 
 developer's side, not the user's side. Of course in this 
 particular case, it's not quite so bad because there's lots of 
 different interfaces to the same NNTP server, but still...

Check out this: http://axr.vg/
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Ludovic Silvestre" <ludovic.silvestre gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:lgmfvnqiiwxuctpgqsbq dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 In any case, this is one of the reasons I hate the modern web. On the 
 user's side, content and view have become completely married together. 
 That's a *huge* step backwards. Thanks to a very large effort put into 
 standard file formats and general computer-to-computer interop, it used 
 to be that any content could be viewed in any program, any UI, any style, 
 any anything the *user* wanted. We had achieved a computing golden age! 
 But once things moved to the web, that got completely thrown out the 
 window as interface is now inseparably *bundled* with content once again 
 (and vice versa - content comes inseparably bundled with the interface). 
 While model-view separation is popular among webdevs, that separation 
 exists completely on the developer's side, not the user's side. Of course 
 in this particular case, it's not quite so bad because there's lots of 
 different interfaces to the same NNTP server, but still...

Check out this: http://axr.vg/

Interesting. At a glance, it sounds like it still doesn't address my rant above (though I don't see how it could). And I would have preferred to see XML abandoned and have a unified language for content and presentation (note that doesn't preclude separation of actual content and presentation - I'd just like to see them both use a single common langauge...and no XML). But other than that, it sounds very similar to what I've been wanting to do. Definitely worth a closer look.
Feb 15 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-15 22:34, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Ludovic Silvestre"<ludovic.silvestre gmail.com>  wrote in message
 news:lgmfvnqiiwxuctpgqsbq dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 In any case, this is one of the reasons I hate the modern web. On the
 user's side, content and view have become completely married together.
 That's a *huge* step backwards. Thanks to a very large effort put into
 standard file formats and general computer-to-computer interop, it used
 to be that any content could be viewed in any program, any UI, any style,
 any anything the *user* wanted. We had achieved a computing golden age!
 But once things moved to the web, that got completely thrown out the
 window as interface is now inseparably *bundled* with content once again
 (and vice versa - content comes inseparably bundled with the interface).
 While model-view separation is popular among webdevs, that separation
 exists completely on the developer's side, not the user's side. Of course
 in this particular case, it's not quite so bad because there's lots of
 different interfaces to the same NNTP server, but still...

Check out this: http://axr.vg/

Interesting. At a glance, it sounds like it still doesn't address my rant above (though I don't see how it could). And I would have preferred to see XML abandoned and have a unified language for content and presentation (note that doesn't preclude separation of actual content and presentation - I'd just like to see them both use a single common langauge...and no XML). But other than that, it sounds very similar to what I've been wanting to do. Definitely worth a closer look.

It looks interesting. But I think it was a mistake to use JavaScript as one of the languages. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Marco Leise" <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:
By the way: The title in digitalmars.D changes to digitalmars.D.learn when you
open a topic.
Feb 16 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 14:24:23 UTC, Marco Leise wrote:
 By the way: The title in digitalmars.D changes to 
 digitalmars.D.learn when you open a topic.

This was caused by a mailing-list user mistakingly replying to a thread on dm.D.learn, then changing the destination address to the dm.D list. As a result, the thread now contains posts across two groups. The same effect will happen with cross-posted messages.
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-15 11:55, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 00:33:29 UTC, torhu wrote:
 On 14.02.2012 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice! One suggestion for improvement: don't change the font size based on the browser window size. I'm not a web programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way of setting the font size.

That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the interface look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also mobile devices. The advantage of the current approach is that it does not rely on JavaScript - it's completely CSS-based. It's not just the font size, either - the navigation column on the left is hidden if the viewport is not wide enough, and some other sizes are adjusted.

I really like this behavior but noted a couple of things. Take this for example: http://imageshack.us/f/140/dfeediphone.png/ This is an image from the iPhone simulator. As you can see, the text in the top post overflows the design to left. The reason for this seems to be because of links that don't get wrapped. It only wraps at word boundaries and some characters like "-". These links also causes the text size to become smaller sooner then it seems to have. An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property "word-break": http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_word-break.asp An other idea, that would work for basically all browsers, would be to add zero-width spaces to the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_space -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 12:44:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
 I really like this behavior but noted a couple of things. Take 
 this for example:

 http://imageshack.us/f/140/dfeediphone.png/

 This is an image from the iPhone simulator. As you can see, the 
 text in the top post overflows the design to left. The reason 
 for this seems to be because of links that don't get wrapped. 
 It only wraps at word boundaries and some characters like "-". 
 These links also causes the text size to become smaller sooner 
 then it seems to have.

 An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property 
 "word-break":

 http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_word-break.asp

It looks like it will break on any character indiscriminately, so looks like it'd need to be applied selectively. There's no way to get it to prefer breaking on whitespace/punctuation, but resort to breaking at arbitrary points otherwise?
 An other idea, that would work for basically all browsers, 
 would be to add zero-width spaces to the links:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_space

I'm wary of magical characters because they may end up in text copied by the user. For example, what if someone posts a code sample that contains a long string of alphanumerics?
Feb 15 2012
parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-15 15:06, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 12:44:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 I really like this behavior but noted a couple of things. Take this
 for example:

 http://imageshack.us/f/140/dfeediphone.png/

 This is an image from the iPhone simulator. As you can see, the text
 in the top post overflows the design to left. The reason for this
 seems to be because of links that don't get wrapped. It only wraps at
 word boundaries and some characters like "-". These links also causes
 the text size to become smaller sooner then it seems to have.

 An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property "word-break":

 http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_word-break.asp

It looks like it will break on any character indiscriminately, so looks like it'd need to be applied selectively.

Exactly, it should only be applied to links.
 There's no way to get it to
 prefer breaking on whitespace/punctuation, but resort to breaking at
 arbitrary points otherwise?

It don't think so.
 An other idea, that would work for basically all browsers, would be to
 add zero-width spaces to the links:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_space

I'm wary of magical characters because they may end up in text copied by the user. For example, what if someone posts a code sample that contains a long string of alphanumerics?

It depends on where you paste it. Copying a string containing a zero-width space and pasting it in TextMate results in a visible space. If I instead paste it in TextEdit there's no visible space. I tried a few other applications as well and there was no visible space in those. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:19:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
 I'm wary of magical characters because they may end up in text 
 copied by the user. For example, what if someone posts a code 
 sample that contains a long string of alphanumerics?

It depends on where you paste it. Copying a string containing a zero-width space and pasting it in TextMate results in a visible space. If I instead paste it in TextEdit there's no visible space. I tried a few other applications as well and there was no visible space in those.

Yes, but will the code from our hypothetical example still compile and work as it should?
Feb 15 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-15 18:16, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 15:19:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 I'm wary of magical characters because they may end up in text copied
 by the user. For example, what if someone posts a code sample that
 contains a long string of alphanumerics?

It depends on where you paste it. Copying a string containing a zero-width space and pasting it in TextMate results in a visible space. If I instead paste it in TextEdit there's no visible space. I tried a few other applications as well and there was no visible space in those.

Yes, but will the code from our hypothetical example still compile and work as it should?

I have no idea and it might depend on the text editor you're pasting the code in. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 12:44:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
 An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property 
 "word-break":

Done.
Feb 16 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-17 03:06, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 12:44:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 An idea to fix this would be to use the CSS3 property "word-break":

Done.

Cool, that works great on the iPhone, thanks. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de> writes:
Am 15.02.2012 11:55, schrieb Vladimir Panteleev:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 00:33:29 UTC, torhu wrote:
 On 14.02.2012 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice! One suggestion for improvement: don't change the font size based on the browser window size. I'm not a web programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way of setting the font size.

That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the interface look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also mobile devices. The advantage of the current approach is that it does not rely on JavaScript - it's completely CSS-based. It's not just the font size, either - the navigation column on the left is hidden if the viewport is not wide enough, and some other sizes are adjusted. While I could use JavaScript to query the viewport window on load time and apply the adjustments only on page load, it'd have to mean relying on JavaScript, and you'd still see the font size change when you resize the window and click a link. I don't think having a "font size" JavaScript widget is a better solution. It'd mean having one canned experience optimized for one device be the default for all devices. Detecting user-agents or other complicated logic is not something I wish to go down, either.

Do you know of CSS media queries? These together with some <meta> tags for mobile browsers make for a simple and powerful way to have a perfect layout on every device and resolution (on IE CSS conditionals can be used). I would highly recommend this approach. (Although I personally do not mind the current approach too much, apart from the fact that parts of the text do not scale)
Feb 15 2012
parent =?UTF-8?B?U8O2bmtlIEx1ZHdpZw==?= <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de> writes:
Am 15.02.2012 15:52, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
 Am 15.02.2012 11:55, schrieb Vladimir Panteleev:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 00:33:29 UTC, torhu wrote:
 On 14.02.2012 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice! One suggestion for improvement: don't change the font size based on the browser window size. I'm not a web programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way of setting the font size.

That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the interface look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also mobile devices. The advantage of the current approach is that it does not rely on JavaScript - it's completely CSS-based. It's not just the font size, either - the navigation column on the left is hidden if the viewport is not wide enough, and some other sizes are adjusted. While I could use JavaScript to query the viewport window on load time and apply the adjustments only on page load, it'd have to mean relying on JavaScript, and you'd still see the font size change when you resize the window and click a link. I don't think having a "font size" JavaScript widget is a better solution. It'd mean having one canned experience optimized for one device be the default for all devices. Detecting user-agents or other complicated logic is not something I wish to go down, either.

Do you know of CSS media queries? These together with some <meta> tags for mobile browsers make for a simple and powerful way to have a perfect layout on every device and resolution (on IE CSS conditionals can be used). I would highly recommend this approach. (Although I personally do not mind the current approach too much, apart from the fact that parts of the text do not scale)

just noted my answer was not quite up-to-date ;)
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/15/2012 2:55 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the interface
 look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also mobile
 devices.

Working well on mobile devices is essential. I was pleased to find that dfeed works well on an iPod and a Kindle Fire. Mobile devices are also very sensitive to bandwidth, so staying with no javascript and small html files is a big win. The response on Reddit made one thing really, really clear - people LIKE the high performance of dfeed in a big way. That makes me very, very reluctant to endorse any changes that would slow things down.
Feb 15 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jhh0dg$1ah0$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 2/15/2012 2:55 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 That's a tough one... This behavior is part of an effort to make the 
 interface
 look good on any screen size. This doesn't include just PCs, but also 
 mobile
 devices.

Working well on mobile devices is essential. I was pleased to find that dfeed works well on an iPod and a Kindle Fire. Mobile devices are also very sensitive to bandwidth, so staying with no javascript and small html files is a big win. The response on Reddit made one thing really, really clear - people LIKE the high performance of dfeed in a big way. That makes me very, very reluctant to endorse any changes that would slow things down.

(I didn't want to say this *on* reddit, but I think I'm safer here...) It kinda makes sence that the reddit croud would find it to be notably super-fast. Reddit itself really *is* very, very, VERY slow when you have JS on. Particularly on pages like that with many posts. And that's even with all the ad stuff blocked.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 15.02.2012 11:55, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 00:33:29 UTC, torhu wrote:
  Nice! One suggestion for improvement:  don't change the font
  size based on the browser window size.  I'm not a web
  programmer, but I'm sure someone here can suggest a better way
  of setting the font size.


[...]
 May I ask why you don't like the current behavior?

The font is a bit too small to read, so I zoom in a bit. Then, when I maximize the browser windows for some reason, the font is suddenly very large. If it was based on screen resolution instead, at least it wouldn't change.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 May I ask why you don't like the current behavior?

http://tinypic.com/r/2ch9ykj/5
Feb 20 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 14:55:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 May I ask why you don't like the current behavior?

http://tinypic.com/r/2ch9ykj/5

That's part of the set of problems when using non-standard font sizes.
Feb 20 2012
parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
 That's part of the set of problems when using non-standard font 
 sizes.

Maybe just remove that black band on the left? Is it just me or the font on the reply form is much smaller?
Feb 20 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 15:44:03 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 That's part of the set of problems when using non-standard 
 font sizes.

Maybe just remove that black band on the left?

It would mean removing the menu on the left for all users. It would make the site look even more awkward for widescreen users.
 Is it just me or the font on the reply form is much smaller?

It looks fine here, but I can't say the same for all browsers and configurations. My browser scales everything when I zoom in - images, styles, even plugins, which is why I didn't account for varying font size while working on the style.
Feb 20 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice work! This is a HUGE improvement over the previous web-news gateway. -bb
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Whoohoo! It is a fantastic interface. One issue I noticed though is that newlines don't seem to work: http://www.semitwist.com/download/img/shots/dforum.png (Posting this through the forum interface itself :) )
Feb 14 2012
next sibling parent "Yao Gomez" <yao.gomez gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 02:11:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright 
 wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Whoohoo! It is a fantastic interface. One issue I noticed though is that newlines don't seem to work: http://www.semitwist.com/download/img/shots/dforum.png (Posting this through the forum interface itself :) )

This is an issue with Firefox. Andrej Mitrovic reported a similar problem with some dlang.org code examples.
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 02:11:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 One issue I noticed though is that newlines don't seem to work:

 http://www.semitwist.com/download/img/shots/dforum.png

I've added a fallback CSS property for browsers that don't support CSS 3. Does it look better now?
Feb 15 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote in message 
news:bxpaxijwipktuqxzbrtv dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
 On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 02:11:45 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 One issue I noticed though is that newlines don't seem to work:

 http://www.semitwist.com/download/img/shots/dforum.png

I've added a fallback CSS property for browsers that don't support CSS 3. Does it look better now?

Perfect on FireFox. Still has the same problem in IE7 (haven't tried it in other IEs), but I can understand if you don't want to support IE7 (not like I normally use IE).
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-14 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

That's great news. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Made it to Hacker News:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3592769
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jordan Miner" <jminer7 gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

This is great. I stopped using the old web interface years ago and was reading from gmane, although you can't post from there. I'm really happy to be able to use this now.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:00:05 -0500, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

The "Forums" link on the left points at http://digitalmars.com/NewsGroup.html for many pages (including dlang.org home page). Please make this point at the new forum page. Great job Vladimir! -Steve
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v9p5j6jaeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:00:05 -0500, Walter Bright 
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

The "Forums" link on the left points at http://digitalmars.com/NewsGroup.html for many pages (including dlang.org home page). Please make this point at the new forum page.

That really should stay there, with a prominent link to the forum added to that page. This is just for people who's rather not use a web interface. We don't want to make it *harder* to discover the proper NNTP version.
Feb 15 2012
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jhgleu$f1n$1 digitalmars.com...
 ...This is just for people who'd rather use a web interface...

Fixed.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:09:17 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:op.v9p5j6jaeav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:00:05 -0500, Walter Bright
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote:

 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

The "Forums" link on the left points at http://digitalmars.com/NewsGroup.html for many pages (including dlang.org home page). Please make this point at the new forum page.

That really should stay there, with a prominent link to the forum added to that page. This is just for people who's rather use a web interface. We don't want to make it *harder* to discover the proper NNTP version.

No, I didn't mean that. But NNTP is not a forum. Note that on other pages (notably forum.dlang.org), the "Forums" link goes to forum.dlang.org I think the right solution is to create a new page for dlang.org that contains information about NNTP joins, add a link to that under the "Community" section labeled "News Groups", and make the "Forums" link go to forum.dlang.org -Steve
Feb 15 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v9qbmosueav7ka localhost.localdomain...
 No, I didn't mean that.  But NNTP is not a forum.  Note that on other 
 pages (notably forum.dlang.org), the "Forums" link goes to forum.dlang.org

 I think the right solution is to create a new page for dlang.org that 
 contains information about NNTP joins, add a link to that under the 
 "Community" section labeled "News Groups", and make the "Forums" link go 
 to forum.dlang.org

I see. That makes sence.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-14 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

I got another idea. When shrinking the window you're removing the menu to the left. It might also be good to remove the gravatar images, at some size, to get some more for the text. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 18:47:08 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
 On 2012-02-14 23:00, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

I got another idea. When shrinking the window you're removing the menu to the left. It might also be good to remove the gravatar images, at some size, to get some more for the text.

There isn't really a lot to win, because you can only remove so much until the side panel of posts becomes too narrow. One thing that can be done instead, is to move said panel at the top of the post (like you can see in the threaded / horizontal-split views). This can't be done with just CSS without also duplicating the HTML, though.
Feb 15 2012
parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
 One thing that can be done instead, is to move said panel at 
 the top of the post (like you can see in the threaded / 
 horizontal-split views). This can't be done with just CSS 
 without also duplicating the HTML, though.

You shouldn't have used tables... this would be pretty easy without them. It'd just be a matter of removing the float or changing the display on the author container.
Feb 15 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 19:53:48 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
wrote:
 One thing that can be done instead, is to move said panel at 
 the top of the post (like you can see in the threaded / 
 horizontal-split views). This can't be done with just CSS 
 without also duplicating the HTML, though.

You shouldn't have used tables... this would be pretty easy without them. It'd just be a matter of removing the float or changing the display on the author container.

Believe me, I tried to not use tables. Anyway, it's not just the layout - the content of the panel is different as well.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 http://forum.dlang.org/
=20
 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the forums.
=20
 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice work! The only thing I see as an immediate barrier for my regular = use is the lack of a "mark all read" button. I like how icons are = pulled from=85 github?
Feb 15 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 20:43:57 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
 On Feb 14, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 http://forum.dlang.org/
 
 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.
 
 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Nice work! The only thing I see as an immediate barrier for my regular use is the lack of a "mark all read" button.

I could easily add a button to mark posts as read on all groups, but not for individual groups.
 I like how icons are pulled from… github?

Both GitHub and DFeed use Gravatar.
Feb 15 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Walter:

 http://forum.dlang.org/

Sorry for the late reply. They are indeed fast. A screen grab: http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg At first sight there are three things I don't like about them: - All those thick boxes inside boxes waste too much screen surface that's better used for the actual messages text. - The image of the person that is writing steals and wastes another vertical chunk of space. This asks for a redesign that saves that space for the message. - The menu on the left of the page steals a large amount of space. The threads are often long, while the D menu on the left is short, so there's often a huge amount of space wasted on the page. The result is a too much thin space left for messages text. In my screen about 54% of the horizontal space is wasted for things that are not messages text. I suggest to fix this, I'd like to something more like 80% of it left to messages text. Bye, bearophile
Feb 16 2012
next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 13:22:43 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 A screen grab:
 http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg

I'm not quite sure what browser or configuration you're using, but the screenshot does not represent the intended look of the forums.
 At first sight there are three things I don't like about them:
 - All those thick boxes inside boxes waste too much screen 
 surface that's better used for the actual messages text.

Removing them would make the forum rather ugly in the normal view mode. Since it looks like you're customizing half of your web experience already, I'd suggest further tweaking the look to suit your needs yourself.
 - The image of the person that is writing steals and wastes 
 another vertical chunk of space. This asks for a redesign that 
 saves that space for the message.

I don't understand how you can claim that it takes up vertical space when it's alongside the post. The only case where it would waste vertical space is when the post is a few lines long.
 - The menu on the left of the page steals a large amount of 
 space. The threads are often long, while the D menu on the left 
 is short, so there's often a huge amount of space wasted on the 
 page. The result is a too much thin space left for messages 
 text. In my screen about 54% of the horizontal space is wasted 
 for things that are not messages text. I suggest to fix this, 
 I'd like to something more like 80% of it left to messages text.

Viewing the forum in a modern browser will cause the menu on the left to be hidden when there is insufficient space to show the full width of messages.
Feb 19 2012
next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev:

 I'm not quite sure what browser or configuration you're using, 
 but the screenshot does not represent the intended look of the 
 forums.

That's the latest Firefox release, I have not used scripts to modify the page rendering, I have used two Firefox options present in its regular graphical menu. Other people where I work, and friends or mine, use similar settings. Firefox designers have added those options, and have put them well visible in that menu, because there are enough people that use or want to use them. The purpose of PDF viewers is to show a formatted document, where the position, color and shape of every glyph is decided by the person that has created the page (or by her software). HTML documents, by their nature, specify mostly the contents and the semantics of the page, and leave most of the presentation to the browsers. There are browsers that even read the page aloud, so the "look" of the page is an audio signal. A person that writes HTML pages has to keep in account, as example, that up to 8% of male viewers are color blind, this is not a Firefox option, unfortunately.
 Removing them would make the forum rather ugly in the normal view mode.

I think they are too much thick, they steal too much space.
 I don't understand how you can claim that it takes up vertical 
 space when it's alongside the post. The only case where it would 
 waste vertical space is when the post is a few lines long.

I meant there is a empty vertical rectangle, it steals a rectangular surface. Doing so steals both vertical and horizontal space.
 Viewing the forum in a modern browser will cause the menu on the 
 left to be hidden when there is insufficient space to show the 
 full width of messages.

I have just seen you are right. But I think the text lines of the messages are too much short. The end result is that less than half the page is used by something that's not content. My HTML design sense tells me this is not good. Bye, bearophile
Feb 19 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 16:16:29 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 That's the latest Firefox release, I have not used scripts to 
 modify the page rendering, I have used two Firefox options 
 present in its regular graphical menu. Other people where I 
 work, and friends or mine, use similar settings. Firefox 
 designers have added those options, and have put them well 
 visible in that menu, because there are enough people that use 
 or want to use them.

Using browser features that override page styles does not put you in a position for complaining about the resulting page style. Surely you'd at least agree that it is impossible to create a non-trivial web site that will look good with any combination of user style customization?
 The purpose of PDF viewers is to show a formatted document, 
 where the position, color and shape of every glyph is decided 
 by the person that has created the page (or by her software). 
 HTML documents, by their nature, specify mostly the contents 
 and the semantics of the page, and leave most of the 
 presentation to the browsers. There are browsers that even read 
 the page aloud, so the "look" of the page is an audio signal. A 
 person that writes HTML pages has to keep in account, as 
 example, that up to 8% of male viewers are color blind, this is 
 not a Firefox option, unfortunately.

I don't see how this applies. Text is visible and accessible to screen readers, and there are no issues with color. You are complaining about *style* but bringing *accessibility* into this discussion.
 I don't understand how you can claim that it takes up vertical 
 space when it's alongside the post. The only case where it 
 would waste vertical space is when the post is a few lines 
 long.

I meant there is a empty vertical rectangle, it steals a rectangular surface. Doing so steals both vertical and horizontal space.

This layout is used by nearly all web forum software. It was chosen to be familiar to people used to those forums. How would you design the layout?
 I have just seen you are right. But I think the text lines of 
 the messages are too much short. The end result is that less 
 than half the page is used by something that's not content. My 
 HTML design sense tells me this is not good.

This is a limitation of the format used to transmit mail and NNTP messages over the Internet (not all clients create messages with reflow information). However, text using shorter lines is known to be more readable, as you're less likely to lose track of which line you are reading.
Feb 19 2012
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev:

 This layout is used by nearly all web forum software. It was 
 chosen to be familiar to people used to those forums.

The old D web interface I am currently using doesn't have the simple problems I have listed. That's what I am familiar with. In the web forums I use in other sites most screen space is left to the text of the messages, so those problems are not common. Thank you for your answers, bye, bearophile
Feb 19 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev:

 This is a limitation of the format used to transmit mail and NNTP 
 messages over the Internet (not all clients create messages with 
 reflow information).

I have just done some tests, and I've seen that the lines I am seeing on the screen in various moments are shorter than the lines I see in Thunderbird, so this web interface is adding many extra newlines.
 However, text using shorter lines is known 
 to be more readable, as you're less likely to lose track of which 
 line you are reading.

Too many words in a line make text harder to read, too few words on a line ask for too much scrolling and too many eye movements. I am seeing too much short lines. Bye, bearophile
Feb 19 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 19:24:46 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Vladimir Panteleev:

 This is a limitation of the format used to transmit mail and 
 NNTP messages over the Internet (not all clients create 
 messages with reflow information).

I have just done some tests, and I've seen that the lines I am seeing on the screen in various moments are shorter than the lines I see in Thunderbird, so this web interface is adding many extra newlines.

Please see RFC 2646. Not all UAs implement it.
Feb 19 2012
parent reply bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev:

 Please see RFC 2646. Not all UAs implement it.

I don't know what UAs means, acronyms don't help communication a lot. And it's not a matter of browser. The problem is: the design of those HTML pages doesn't leave enough horizontal space to the text area. Bye, bearophile
Feb 19 2012
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 20:34:48 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Vladimir Panteleev:

 Please see RFC 2646. Not all UAs implement it.

I don't know what UAs means, acronyms don't help communication a lot.

I assumed that someone who claims to have HTML design sense would be familiar with the acronym for User-Agent ;)
 And it's not a matter of browser. The problem is: the design of 
 those HTML pages doesn't leave enough horizontal space to the 
 text area.

The forum starts looking bad for me when I make the browser window smaller than 730 pixels in width. Sorry, but I don't think anyone designs web pages for resolutions lower than 800x600 today.
Feb 19 2012
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev:

 I assumed that someone who claims to have HTML design sense would 
 be familiar with the acronym for User-Agent ;)

That's named "acronym sense", I often fail at it on computer topics :-)
 The forum starts looking bad for me when I make the browser 
 window smaller than 730 pixels in width. Sorry, but I don't think 
 anyone designs web pages for resolutions lower than 800x600 today.

If you take a look at my screen grab, it's 1101 pixels wide. Probably my non-proportional font size is larger than yours. People more than 50 years old often desire to use a larger browser font (if they know how to do it). Bye, bearophile
Feb 19 2012
prev sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 19/02/2012 20:46, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
<snip>
 The forum starts looking bad for me when I make the browser window smaller
than 730 pixels
 in width. Sorry, but I don't think anyone designs web pages for resolutions
lower than
 800x600 today.

Mobile devices still have screens much smaller than this. Moreover, have you tested the site on Lynx or anything like that? Stewart.
Feb 20 2012
prev sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:53:55 -0000, Vladimir Panteleev  
<vladimir thecybershadow.net> wrote:

 On Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 16:16:29 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 I don't understand how you can claim that it takes up vertical space  
 when it's alongside the post. The only case where it would waste  
 vertical space is when the post is a few lines long.

I meant there is a empty vertical rectangle, it steals a rectangular surface. Doing so steals both vertical and horizontal space.

This layout is used by nearly all web forum software. It was chosen to be familiar to people used to those forums. How would you design the layout?

I've not see a web forum do this yet, but I guess ideally the message text would flow around the image as you often see in newspapers and magazines. That way lines of message text below the bottom of the image would be full width and not have a large image width margin on them, if you see what I mean. Regan -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Feb 20 2012
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 12:50:19 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
 I've not see a web forum do this yet, but I guess ideally the 
 message text would flow around the image as you often see in 
 newspapers and magazines.  That way lines of message text below 
 the bottom of the image would be full width and not have a 
 large image width margin on them, if you see what I mean.

I tried that. It was awful.
Feb 20 2012
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 19/02/2012 14:22, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
 On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 13:22:43 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 A screen grab:
 http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg

I'm not quite sure what browser or configuration you're using, but the screenshot does not represent the intended look of the forums.

An astute observation - it represents the actual look to the user who posted the screenshot. But it does seem that the user has disabled a handful of CSS features by some means. Of course, text zoom, font/colour overrides and disabling images are things that any web page design needs to be able to cope with. Switching off CSS completely is another circumstance in which a page should still come out readable and well-structured, even if it doesn't look very good. On the other hand, if someone wants to put crazy stuff in a user stylesheet like h1, h2, h3 { font-size: 0.5em; } p { border: 10px solid grey !important; font-size: 2em; } _then_ I suppose it's their problem when they find that no web page looks sane. <snip>
 I don't understand how you can claim that it takes up vertical space when it's
alongside
 the post. The only case where it would waste vertical space is when the post
is a few
 lines long.

Under that user's settings, it makes the message bodies narrower, causing them to take up more lines.
 - The menu on the left of the page steals a large amount of space. The threads
are often
 long, while the D menu on the left is short, so there's often a huge amount of
space
 wasted on the page. The result is a too much thin space left for messages
text. In my
 screen about 54% of the horizontal space is wasted for things that are not
messages
 text. I suggest to fix this, I'd like to something more like 80% of it left to
messages
 text.

Viewing the forum in a modern browser will cause the menu on the left to be hidden when there is insufficient space to show the full width of messages.

Doesn't quite work for me as I try. At 1280px width and with text zoomed more than two or three notches, I get header text running into the border of the main body of the page, and the navigation column remaining on the screen and causing lines to break. Also, with CSS switched off, message lines are all run together. If you want preformatted text, use <pre>. It's what it's there for. Stewart.
Feb 20 2012
next sibling parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 13:19:30 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
 But it does seem that the user has disabled a handful of CSS 
 features by some means.  Of course, text zoom, font/colour 
 overrides and disabling images are things that any web page 
 design needs to be able to cope with.  Switching off CSS 
 completely is another circumstance in which a page should still 
 come out readable and well-structured, even if it doesn't look 
 very good.

OK, you're right. However, testing for all such combinations is tedious and time-consuming, so I'll need to rely on your feedback.
 Also, with CSS switched off, message lines are all run 
 together.  If you want preformatted text, use <pre>.  It's what 
 it's there for.

Good point, thanks.
Feb 20 2012
parent reply James Miller <james aatch.net> writes:
As a web-dev-for-food, I can say that trying to design a site that
works on all browsers, all the time, is an impossible task. You think
that a few odd settings producing this: http://tinypic.com/r/2ch9ykj/5
or this: http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg is horrible. Try using a
browser that doesn't properly support a certain CSS feature, or a
small javascript bug with some sites and they are literally unusable.

I get that "well other sites are worse" is not an excuse, but you've
got to judge it accordingly. If, under normal browser settings, the
site looks good, then that should be enough. If you then have
suggestions, present them as such, do not try to present the site as
broken and needing to be fixed. Web design is hard, trying to cover as
many bases as possible is a nightmarish task.

For example: "Long lines?" "They should be broken, otherwise it looks
bad"/"They shouldn't be broken because it looks bad." - Some lines are
broken by the software the person is using, other times the user has
done it deliberately because of the interface they are using and the
reflow has broken things.

There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations,
and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't
look right with an enlarged font size? Tough. Doesn't look good on
Netscape 2.0? Tough.

Of course you try to code to make it works as well as /possible/ in
browsers outside the Webkit/Firefox/IE trifecta, and you try to make
it flexible, but at some point, you need to sacrifice portability for
aesthetics, otherwise we're still stuck in the early nineties...

I'm pretty sure that making a website work in all browsers and all
configurations is a punishment in hell for IE developers...

--
James Miller
Feb 20 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-21 01:53, James Miller wrote:
 As a web-dev-for-food, I can say that trying to design a site that
 works on all browsers, all the time, is an impossible task. You think
 that a few odd settings producing this: http://tinypic.com/r/2ch9ykj/5
 or this: http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg is horrible. Try using a
 browser that doesn't properly support a certain CSS feature, or a
 small javascript bug with some sites and they are literally unusable.

 I get that "well other sites are worse" is not an excuse, but you've
 got to judge it accordingly. If, under normal browser settings, the
 site looks good, then that should be enough. If you then have
 suggestions, present them as such, do not try to present the site as
 broken and needing to be fixed. Web design is hard, trying to cover as
 many bases as possible is a nightmarish task.

 For example: "Long lines?" "They should be broken, otherwise it looks
 bad"/"They shouldn't be broken because it looks bad." - Some lines are
 broken by the software the person is using, other times the user has
 done it deliberately because of the interface they are using and the
 reflow has broken things.

 There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations,
 and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't
 look right with an enlarged font size? Tough. Doesn't look good on
 Netscape 2.0? Tough.

 Of course you try to code to make it works as well as /possible/ in
 browsers outside the Webkit/Firefox/IE trifecta, and you try to make
 it flexible, but at some point, you need to sacrifice portability for
 aesthetics, otherwise we're still stuck in the early nineties...

 I'm pretty sure that making a website work in all browsers and all
 configurations is a punishment in hell for IE developers...

 --
 James Miller

I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support IE because more than 50% of the customers use IE. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 20 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 00:53:51 UTC, James Miller wrote:
 There are a potentially infinite number of possible 
 configurations,
 and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. 
 Doesn't
 look right with an enlarged font size? Tough.

So the joke about "standard font size" isn't a joke?
Feb 21 2012
parent reply James Miller <james aatch.net> writes:
On 21 February 2012 23:29, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:
 On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 00:53:51 UTC, James Miller wrote:
 There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations,
 and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't
 look right with an enlarged font size? Tough.

So the joke about "standard font size" isn't a joke?

Its more, if you are using a font with a massive difference in size, then obviously things aren't going to look right. However, if a website require pixel-perfect rendering, then it isn't going to work anyway once it hits a platform that isn't the one the designer works on. I'm not advocating that websites should be rigid, more that complaining that the site doesn't work under /your/ specific settings is really not fair to the developer.
 I'm pretty sure that making a website work in all browsers and all
 configurations is a punishment in hell for IE developers...


 --
 James Miller


 I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support IE
because more than 50% of the customers use IE.

if I have to type <!--[if IE 6]> ever again it will be too soon (we kinda support IE7, and actually support IE8+9) -- James Miller
Feb 21 2012
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"James Miller" <james aatch.net> wrote in message 
news:mailman.775.1329824618.20196.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...
 I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support 
 IE because more than 50% of the customers use IE.

if I have to type <!--[if IE 6]> ever again it will be too soon (we kinda support IE7, and actually support IE8+9)

Heh, I support IE7 largely because I can't stand IE8 and I can't even run IE9 on my (XP) machine. ;) Plus, it's a pain to have multiple versions of IE installed (if even possible), so may as well use the oldest one that I'd conceivably want to support (Although VirtualBox mitigates this a bit). Of course, that said, I'm not likely to bend over backwards for minor IE7 rendering issues, particularly on sites that aren't directed at the average-Joe masses (ie, the most likely ones to be using IE). I don't support IE6 though, and I also don't support versions of IE that have that short-lived "Click to activate this control" thing (I tried to, but it just wasn't worth it).
Feb 21 2012
next sibling parent reply "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 02:12:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 Plus, it's a pain to have multiple versions of IE installed (if

You don't need it! IE's compatibility mode is very good, including emulating old bugs. If you turn on compatibility mode you can tell pretty well if your site will work in the real thing.
Feb 21 2012
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:rloaxnvvdpjetpgudrga forum.dlang.org...
 On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 02:12:54 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Plus, it's a pain to have multiple versions of IE installed (if

You don't need it! IE's compatibility mode is very good, including emulating old bugs. If you turn on compatibility mode you can tell pretty well if your site will work in the real thing.

Really? I didn't know there was such a thing. Is this a setting in one of the (*cough*increasingly hidden*cough*) options screens, or something you add to the HTML?
Feb 21 2012
parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 02:21:22 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 Really? I didn't know there was such a thing. Is this a setting 
 in one of
 the (*cough*increasingly hidden*cough*) options screens, or 
 something you
 add to the HTML?

You can get it both ways. X-UA-Compatible in html (or something like that, bing it!) or hit the F12 key in the ui. This was added in IE8, though, you can get it as a separate download I think in 6 and 7. F12 in IE8 and 9 opens up the developer tools window, which has script errors, debugging, network stats, html and css browsers, and, compatibility mode as a button right there. Its awesome. IE9 is my fav browser ever as a web developer.
Feb 21 2012
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-22 03:11, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "James Miller"<james aatch.net>  wrote in message
 news:mailman.775.1329824618.20196.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...
 I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support
 IE because more than 50% of the customers use IE.

if I have to type<!--[if IE 6]> ever again it will be too soon (we kinda support IE7, and actually support IE8+9)

Heh, I support IE7 largely because I can't stand IE8 and I can't even run IE9 on my (XP) machine. ;) Plus, it's a pain to have multiple versions of IE installed (if even possible), so may as well use the oldest one that I'd conceivably want to support (Although VirtualBox mitigates this a bit). Of course, that said, I'm not likely to bend over backwards for minor IE7 rendering issues, particularly on sites that aren't directed at the average-Joe masses (ie, the most likely ones to be using IE). I don't support IE6 though, and I also don't support versions of IE that have that short-lived "Click to activate this control" thing (I tried to, but it just wasn't worth it).

Microsoft provides free downloads of VirtualPC machines for testing websites with IE. One virtual machine for each version of IE, but you can't save anything on them for more than 90 days, or something like that: http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=11575 -- /Jacob Carlborg
Feb 21 2012
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 21/02/2012 11:43, James Miller wrote:
<snip>
 Its more, if you are using a font with a massive difference in size,
 then obviously things aren't going to look right. However, if a
 website require pixel-perfect rendering, then it isn't going to work
 anyway once it hits a platform that isn't the one the designer works
 on. I'm not advocating that websites should be rigid, more that
 complaining that the site doesn't work under /your/ specific settings
 is really not fair to the developer.

Exactly. FWIW read this: http://web.archive.org/web/20031231151206/http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Fix_the_wrong_problem <snip>
 I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support IE
because
 more than 50% of the customers use IE.


<snip> Indeed, if only M$ would retire IE the web would be a much better place. Stewart.
Feb 22 2012
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:ji31ut$172j$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 21/02/2012 11:43, James Miller wrote:
 <snip>
 Its more, if you are using a font with a massive difference in size,
 then obviously things aren't going to look right. However, if a
 website require pixel-perfect rendering, then it isn't going to work
 anyway once it hits a platform that isn't the one the designer works
 on. I'm not advocating that websites should be rigid, more that
 complaining that the site doesn't work under /your/ specific settings
 is really not fair to the developer.

Exactly. FWIW read this: http://web.archive.org/web/20031231151206/http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Fix_the_wrong_problem

OMG, I *LOVE* that page!!!
 <snip>
 I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support 
 IE because
 more than 50% of the customers use IE.


<snip> Indeed, if only M$ would retire IE the web would be a much better place.

Meh, that would just mean all the millions of people who don't know what a "browser" is would just keep using the final version of IE. Actually, one could argue MS more or less tried retiring it at IE6, and that's exactly how it turned out.
Feb 22 2012
prev sibling parent "Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 15:26:45 UTC, Stewart Gordon 
wrote:
 Try saying that in court when you're sued for disability 
 discrimination.

Tch... God damn America. On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 15:34:54 UTC, Stewart Gordon wrote:
 http://web.archive.org/web/20031231151206/http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Fix_the_wrong_problem

BTW, with recent browser technologies it's easier to keep frameset in sync and linkable, though MSDN shows that the huge navigation tree problem is solvable in a nice way, but it's so nice it's worth patenting, and another site with the same problem (DevExpress docs) doesn't adopt it, soooooo...
Feb 22 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 21 February 2012 at 00:53:51 UTC, James Miller wrote:
 Doesn't look right with an enlarged font size? Tough.

It's a question of gain per effort. Issues due to non-standard font sizes seem to come up often enough to warrant investigating, and I admit I've completely disregarded this during development (zooming in on my browser changes the size of px as well as em).
Feb 21 2012
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
On 21/02/2012 00:53, James Miller wrote:
<snip>
 There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations,
 and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't
 look right with an enlarged font size? Tough.

<snip> Try saying that in court when you're sued for disability discrimination. Stewart.
Feb 22 2012
parent James Miller <james aatch.net> writes:
On 23 February 2012 04:26, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:
 On 21/02/2012 00:53, James Miller wrote:
 <snip>
 There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations,
 and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't

 look right with an enlarged font size? Tough.

<snip> Try saying that in court when you're sued for disability discrimination. Stewart.

Unless you prevent the user from using the site because of the font size, then it isn't discrimination. At any rate, most modern browsers have zoom functionality, that preserves the layout as best it can, while presenting a bigger view (even if chrome has removed that configuration setting, chromium still has it).
Feb 23 2012
prev sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Stewart Gordon:

 But it does seem that the user has disabled a handful of CSS features by some
means.  Of 
 course, text zoom, font/colour overrides and disabling images are things that
any web page 
 design needs to be able to cope with.

In that screengrab there are images, images are not disabled. And I think I have not disabled CSS features (on purpose). Bye, bearophile
Feb 20 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Thursday, 16 February 2012 at 13:22:43 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 - All those thick boxes inside boxes waste too much screen 
 surface that's better used for the actual messages text.

I just noticed that the dlang.org style was updated some time in the past few months to have less borders and margins. I'll update the forum tonight with the same style changes.
Feb 19 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "dbulletin" <dbulletin gmail.com> writes:
I can't Private Message you so I'm just going to say it out loud.

If you guys are planning a forum software solution. And your
emphasis is on "d" I would buy dBulletin.com It's for sale to the
highest bidder.

I originally found this domain from this site:
http://www.webmarketingtalk.com/


So get in there and negotiate!
Feb 21 2012
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"dbulletin" <dbulletin gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:nvmhanxzfuqgnrrjiibd forum.dlang.org...
I can't Private Message you so I'm just going to say it out loud.

 If you guys are planning a forum software solution. And your
 emphasis is on "d" I would buy dBulletin.com It's for sale to the
 highest bidder.

 I originally found this domain from this site:
 http://www.webmarketingtalk.com/


 So get in there and negotiate!

If money's going to be spent on D, I'm sure there are far better places it can go than paying a domain ransom.
Feb 21 2012
prev sibling parent "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
Now I like the forums. I am posting this message with the new 
interface.

I have three more suggestions:

1) When I read posts in the basic View mode, I often want to see 
the last posts of the thread. So I suggest to add the "Last >>" 
link at the top of the page too.

So maybe replacing this line:
View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help

With:
View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help 
· Last>>

-----------------------

2) I sometimes copy & paste messages from the site to text 
documents for various purposes, to send them in emails, etc.

With the older system the copy was something like:

Subject 	Re: dereferencing null
 From 	Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com>
Date 	Mon, 05 Mar 2012 05:39:57 +0100
Newsgroups 	digitalmars.D

On Monday, 5 March 2012 at 03:24:32 UTC, Chad J wrote:
 News to me.  I've had bad runs with that back in the day, but
 maybe things have improved a bit.

Strangely, I've never had a problem with gdb and D, ..... With the new system the copy is: Re: dereferencing null Adam D. Ruppe Gravatar Posted in reply to Chad J Reply On Monday, 5 March 2012 at 03:24:32 UTC, Chad J wrote:
 News to me.  I've had bad runs with that back in the day, but 
 maybe things have improved a bit.

Strangely, I've never had a problem with gdb and D, ..... So is it possible to improve this in some way, to give a better copy of the important information about the post? ----------------------- 3) This is less important, but it's a simple thing. Regarding the page number links at the bottom of the page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … - - - - - - - - Or: … 7 8 9 10 11 - - -- -- There is plenty of space there, so I suggest something like this, that shows the last page number too: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 - - - - - - - - -- That becomes like this when you are in the middle of a sequence of many pages (and here I have added one more space between page numbers, to click better on them): 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 … 22 - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bye and thank you, bearophile
Mar 06 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nathan M. Swan" <nathanmswan gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Could you change the link Forums on the sidebar of the dlang website to this?
Feb 16 2012
parent "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 20:52:46 Nathan M. Swan wrote:
 On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/
 
 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the
 forums.
 
 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Could you change the link Forums on the sidebar of the dlang website to this?

I would think it would be better to have a page which is similar to what's there now (though a dlang.org page rather than a digitalmars.com page which includes unnecessary C++ stuff) but make the http web interface link point to the new stuff (and maybe something else to make it more obvious). We don't want to hide the newsgroup information, only make it easy to find the web interface. - Jonathan M Davis
Feb 16 2012
prev sibling parent "Wayne Anderson" <wanderon comcast.net> writes:
Fabulous!  Great work by Vladimir.

Go D!

On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 at 22:00:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
 http://forum.dlang.org/

 This should replace the old miserable web interface to the 
 forums.

 Thanks to Vladimir Panteleev for an awesome job writing this!

Mar 03 2012