What About Moderators in the New Forum?

Whoa! 85k is not a large image, but I have the forums set to display 50 topics and messages. With 85k per avatar, that would be a download of 4.25MB. On my old 56k modem that would have been 15 mins just to see the avatars and no useful content. I consider that to be a lot of extra wasted download time and waste of bandwidth. If I have an option to turn off avatars as I have suggested, then I have no problem for those that want them. A lot of the arguments are coming down to preferences and I have already expressed mine.

However, the best approach to the problem is to provide display options for some of the viewing. Why not allow a page to be viewed without the left and right columns and in the current format if that is desired (by others like myself), and with all of the pictures and extra download time and space for those that like that format.

Actually, setting up a sample forum with the new structure is a great idea. We could look and comment (hopefully constructively). It really does not matter who would design the page layout, some will be happy and others will be disgusted. Options provide the simplest solution to it all, though some extra programming.

In the meantime, I recognize what has been said about the need to move to new software due to problems that are arising on the Adobe forums. I have not noticed a lot of problems, but understand there are some that make it difficult to maintain. I thank John and others who have tried to keep us informed.

@pjones

I believe your assertions vis-a-vis JPG and GIF are incorrect, but I will not reply to them at this time since I don't want to further degrade the topic under discussion here. If you'd like to carry on this discussion privately, I'd be happy to explain why - you can reach me at -

forums at great-web-sights dot com

And by the way, it's JOOMLA.

> "on the first item you mentioned, 85K is not so excessive for a image that large. If I used a jpg image equal in size. it would be four times as large."

Ummm...WHAT!?

> "By the way that site link has been untouched or unaltered since it was created (some of the linked items have been changed but not the first page)"

Ummm...WHAT!?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http: //www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/
(Copy/Paste and close up the space after the 2nd "http")
Or, just click the short link: http://xrl.us/behvat (Link to web.archive.org)
(That original photo is a GIF-oppressed beauty!)

> "...with the program shown in the spinning ball icon at top of page. Look at the spinning ball at the top of that page. you remember when adobe sold that program?? That's how long I've been dealing with web pages."

It's a sad workman who blames his tools. JPEGs were available back then, too. I used PageMill to do my first real web junk as well. And I knew to save as JPEG for photographic stuff.

Sorry, dude, but you forced me to call you on the B.S.

Yes Murray I was referring to Joomula.

At the time the page on the Link at Kimbanet was created was in the day when the program reference in the spinning logo. At that time most people were still using a dial up connection and had computers with low resolutions. a Jpeg image would have taken a lot longer to download and the detail missed in using gif were not missed. There are still many that say if your going to upload images that will load fast use a gif images when possible. I prefer either to use jpeg. or if its something that is used a in MS Office document that is converted to use on the internet I use PNG because png is the most reliable format for Office.

http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b8142c was originally intended as a contribution to this discussion but I've made it a new thread.

Not to take us off topic, but pjones could it be that you are referring to Joomla?

And, a JPG image would be 10% the size of that image at http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/ and would seem to have millions of colors, not just 256. It is never appropriate to use GIF compression for a photo image. See how poor the quality of that image is? That's because it's a GIF.

on the first item you mentioned, 85K is not so excessive for a image that large. If I used a jpg image equal in size. it would be four times as large. By the way that site link has been untouched or unaltered since it was created (some of the linked items have been changed but not the first page) with the program shown in the spinning ball icon at top of page. Look at the spinning ball at the top of that page. you remember when adobe sold that program?? That's how long I've been dealing with web pages.

as to the second link: They have switched to an entirely new system on the web instituted by the State by the designer of the new site. They are using a new system called Jumula. Its a Java based system. I know how to make a hot link in DreamWeaver. I have since found out how to create a Link in this Jumula based system. This Jumula based system once learned and once permission given by use of Username and password anyone can change. So there really no need for a True Web Master Just someone to take charge of the required user names and passwords.

how about looking at http://www.phillipmjones.net

This is a more recent creation. Note the size of the images show are for the benefit of those how might visit the site mostly relatives. And you'll notice my image used is Smaller.

OK, Phil...whatever you say. I'm sure you think you know your stuff.

As much as I'm a stickler for language usage, I don't worry so much about typos and grammatical errors so long as I can generally understand what somebody is trying to say. For me, it's not really about that at all.

It's bad dog behavior for me to incessantly bust your stones so I'll leave it to others to decide.

http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/

Maybe someone can explain to me why it makes good sense that the photo of you on your site is served up as an 85 KB+ GIF image when it would look better and load faster if you'd saved it as a JPEG, even one as small as 8.5 KB.

I don't mean to pick on you, Phil, but when you so matter-of-factly trot out bad advice it doesn't do anyone any good to just let it stand without challenge, correction or clarification. And it doesn't help your case for you to argue for certain features when your whole premise is flawed.

And for now we'll just leave alone the question about your title of "Webmaster" when you're asking questions like this on your own organization's forum:

http://www.vpea.org/bboard/viewtopic.php?t=572

> Sorry, John, but I do think that it's ridiculous that people have such a "my way or the highway" attitude.

I did not post or even imply anything of the sort!

I was commenting on the Community labels.

Keep up please!

> MM dung heap

> MM (and their lousy programs)

Charm is obviously your speciality, Ann.

I doubt if we'll ever see you in the Dreamweaver forum, but you will be given a welcome reception there, as long as you don't start throwing your toys out of the pram. Just like you, all we want to see is a forum system that does its job as efficiently as possible.

As I understand it, the reason for the move is that the current systems (Adobe and former MM) are coming to the end of their useful lives. They were heavily customized, and the reason the previous attempt at upgrading the systems went so badly wrong was the desire to preserve a lot of the customization. This time, a tried-and-tested system is being used. It might not suit everyone, but if it provides a solid, workable basis, it can be improved with time.

You obviously regard the MM forums with deep contempt. Your views would sound more convincing if you didn't have the same contempt for the former MM programs and the people who support them. I have the highest regard for Photoshop and InDesign, and would love to learn more about them by visiting the relevant forums. However, I find the web interface and organization of the Adobe forums utterly confusing. You love them, because they're what you're accustomed to. However, I'm sure that many newcomers find them just as difficult to fathom as I do.

I will have no regrets seeing the old MM forum interface disappear, but what replaces both sets of forums needs to be something that anyone who wants help with an Adobe program finds intuitive to use. Insisting on keeping your current system unchanged sounds as though you want to keep your own little club exclusive.