what's going on now?!!

The trouble with the present debate is that it's bound to be one-sided, since people who do not use these forums because they can't stand their form and/or function are not here to contribute, by definition. And while the views of regular users here are of course vital, the views of those who are not are of equal importance - like the Church, these forums exist primarily for those who are currently not yet members - for people who are going to need them in the future and have yet to encounter them.

So I've gleaned some views from the old Syntrillium forums, back in July 2003. This was before some changes were made here to reflect some of their criticisms, admittedly (I think the message entry box was made larger, for instance). But despite the passage of time and some changes here, I think it's still worth reviewing the reactions of some people who are used to more 'standard' forums, when first looking at what we have here.

Source of these selective quotes - http://www.audiomastersforum.net/synforum/13/topic-13236.htm - where there is much more to be read.

====================================================================

"I just checked out their forums and the format makes me want to puke. There's very little customability, no avatars or signatures with images, and it just looks...weird..."bland" even. Not because it's empty, I mean the format. I can't see how you can "subscribe" to a thread, and there aren't any clear email notification options. I don't know the format of Syntrillium's, but it's light years ahead of what Adobe is pushing. "

"I will probably keep half an eye on the Adobe forum, when it really gets going, but, although I'm happy enough with a primarily text-based system I find Webcrossing almost impossible to use intuitively."

"when I went over a few days ago, after being invited by DK, I had a really bad experience. I couldn't see what anybody else was saying, and when I found the other messages, there was no telling which came first. I then tried to stick an emoticon in my message. Didn't work. Tried webcrossings version of quoting, which was functionally absurd, and ultimately didn't work. I began to wonder if maybe my screen resolution was incorrect, maybe I couldn't see the layout ? I'm usually among the first to figure out code tricks, and general procedure, but, this was physically distressing. After about 4 minutes I got an absolutely excruciating headache, broke out into a running sweat, and, even now my temples begin to faintly throb just thinking about the event. There's just nothing there to grab onto to make use of. And the BOX you're supposed to work in. No, it's just bad software. Nobody can, or will honestly say that there is anything about the interface that is appealing. It's just that simple. There are no tricks to be figured out, features to be discovered, or benefits to be considered. All the wonder and neat things about and available on, the internet have been completely and deliberately removed from the picture. At every step, you're presented with the worst case scenario."

"And the effing rules ! No editing past 30 minutes without permission from someone ? Look, I have never edited anything here, if it has been responded to. If someone has responded to it I'll make any corrections in a follow-up post. That's just common sense. And nobody had to tell me that. And I've made plenty of corrections. No, I'm a reasonable guy, and I don't mind a challenge, but the resources just aren't there to effect a reasonable, livable environment. And this cannot be disputed. Whoever does move over there, will do so knowing full well that it sucks, but doesn't mind as much that it sucks. It's just bad, poorly designed, lifeless software. And it should never have been gone with in the first place. "

"Duuuuude...you hit it right on the head. I feel twice as bad about it; it's just a terribly designed forum. "

"I don't think I'll be moving there either. Graphics aren't the only thing that matters of course. But nobody can deny that they at least contribute a bit to the 'pleasure of posting'. With that I mean that it's more fun to be posting in a forum that has some options and looks good without being too heavy on the graphical side. It are those small things that make the difference. Like the avatars which make the whole thing seem a bit 'lighter' plus that it makes it a bit easier to see who has amswered. That way you start to 'recognize' people and it's a bit more personal maybe. Just plain text is kind of heavy on the eyes (I think). Then there's also the fact that the first post has another color. And the other post are alternatively grey and white. All of this makes it easier to read. "

"I just don't understand why Adobe has such horrible forums! I mean, it kind of reminds me of a dictatorship;) No excesses allowed (avatars, signatures,...) and the editing afterwards is also very limited. I like to be able to edit whenever I want. I don't use this very often, only when I made a big spelling mistake:blush: or something like that. Then I like to be able to change my post when I discover this the next day:)"

"The avatars and smilies, in my opinion, make this forum easier to read than the Adobe one but they don't detract in any way from the content. "

"My experience of the Webcrossing software is that it isn't easy - in fact it's quite tricky in places. Even simple things, such as formatting the text you are writing, are hardly intuitive. "

"In common with many here, I find the Webcrossing software dysfunctional and that's why I won't be joining you on the Adobe site. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect I will not be alone in this and I also suspect that Adobe will lose some of the best and most experienced contributors to this forum. "

"A small signature image, avatar, or emoticon gives posters individuallity that is much sought after in the world of the Internet, and makes posting (and reading) all the more enjoyable. Posters and readers start associating personalities to others and they become easier to relate to, thus propagating a community."

"A few lines and alternating backgrounds do wonders to demarcate individual posts. I'd be hard-pressed to find a more archaic looking forum than Adobe's anywhere on the web. "

"It took me a very long time to find the workround on the adobe site, the search engine was of little help and I had basicly to do a lot of browsing to find an anwser. Now this may weel be down to my ineptitude but frankly I don't have time to learn the finer points of somthing I may not use that much.

I have been hanging about here for a long time even though I don't post all that much, it's familir and the adobe forums feel ... different.... "

"If you are a bunch of designers, and you've made comments to Adobe about the forums, they either haven't heard you (no corporate interference AT ALL!) or they have taken no notice (second part of your quote), or you haven't actually criticised them at all - because you don't think that there's anything wrong with them ?????

Although I'm not one, I thought that the majority of Graphic Designers did what they do because they have a sense of visual 'flair', and an innate understanding of design elegance, and user convenience, especially on the eyes - a sort of visual version of what we try to do with sound. As far as the forums are concerned, what sort of an advert are they for Adobe, taking account of my previous paragraph? "

They were not taken over by MacroMedia. But MM had some technologies that were included and they want to justify the purchase. Flash and Dreamweaver are enough but they have been trying to make Cold Fushion work...I think I have this right. I'm sure someone here could correct me on this.

I don't know but I've had this theory that when adobe and MacroMedia Merged that it was Adobe that was taken over by MacroMedia. And they have been itching to have everyone conform to the Macromedia way. :-/

It's a brilliant idea, Cindy.

And it is the only sensible way to proceed.

So far, Adobe's proposed changes have received a 100% "Thumbs Down" from the regular Helpers in the Adobe Forums.

Last time that Adobe tried to mess with the Forums, virtually all of those people left.

Continue with your current proposals, and I am dead certain that the same thing will happen again.

Since whoever is itching to move these forums does not seem to have anything else better to do, I have an idea:

Take the Macromedia forums and experiment with them since they are already not too functional and are ugly. Test it out for about a year. When you get it all slick and happy then we can re-visit it and perhaps if WE find it is better than what we have here we can merge the whole thing at that time. Huh? Good idea?

Make it so good we want it. Until then, kind of leave this alone. Can you see the logic? Huh? Sure you can. Just suck it up and admit it. It's a good idea.

Oh yes, I'm not one of those demanding everything stay exactly the same. Just concerned that decisions are being based on wonky/partial/missing info.

>his looks like the worst kind of problem-solving method

no the worst kind is guesswork based on spreadsheets. i'm sure there were plenty of spreadsheets involved too. ;)

look as long as the speed and usability and a decent amount of user customization-ability is in place, you'll get used to it. or not.

but as others have mentioned, the key will be speed. especially if we're going to have to be clicking more to get through lists of topics.

Dorothy...

Email sent (check your spam catcher, maybe?)

In #95 I simply tried to summarize the basic points that have been the center of our debates. The screen shot John posted provided a good view that many have said we do not want. I would guess that many of those that want to keep the current look are the long time users that find it efficient for scanning and helping others. Those that seem to want a new form I might guess are not as regular. I would agree that the current format is probably not the reason for decline, but the aspect of need for information and such. It might even be that the Adobe link is not as obvious to new users as it used to be.

Waiting for it to get up and running is saying we should wait until the the posting just like the last fiasco. If we have major concerns, they should be fed into the system now (my opinion). If the new look becomes the norm, I will likely reduce my checking substantially. I look for efficiency, particularly since I primarily spend my time trying to help others. I do find useful info from others, but not to the extent that I try to help. Scanning for problems I see a very inefficient in the proposed format.

If it is at all possible, I recommend the format be a preference option. I like the current look and would use it immediately. Others have the other issues that I listed in #95. If we had some preference options, then the arguments about the proper format would go away.

DorothyK wrote:
> ...Let's all help to get it up and running... and save the griping and additional tweaking for after we have it humming along decently.

I must disagree with that statement. Once things get moving there will be increasing inertia which impedes any changes.

I repeat: The (partial) screen shot shown by John Cornicello shows a UI which is a gross waste of space due to all the eye candy.