Go to Jive's own forum. What do you like and dislike?

Report · Feb 22, 2009

Have a look at Jivesoftware's own Clearspace (that's the name of the proposed new forum software here) support forum. You might even want to create an account so you can access everything any other user would.

http://www.jivesoftware.com/jivespace/community/support/clearspace?view=discussions

What do you like?

What do you dislike?

How would you make it better?

Don't spare the words, be specific and clear in your assessments and suggestions.

Report · Feb 22, 2009

Phos,

>Doesn't work in I.E 6 or older?

>Offer a polite "tough cookies" to those users and expalin to them that they need to quit living in the coal-fired, insecure past.

Does any post coal fired secure future browser offer saving complete web pages as default?

Report · Feb 22, 2009

If I understand what you're saying, Jacob, Firefox 3 has the option of saving a page, complete, but I don't think you can set that as the default saving method: (Addendum/Clarification: Firefox's "Save As..." option defaults to what you used the last time you saved something. So, "Save As..." a complete web page one time, and each subsequent mashing of the Command + S shortcut that will be the option that shows in the drop-down menu.) <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=13tlvWRzP2ej9XZh6mgiZ7VfR1XKNq" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/13tlvWRzP2ej9XZh6mgiZ7VfR1XKNq_thumb.png" border="0" />

Report · Feb 23, 2009

Thank you, Phos. I have tried it earlier in FF, and it gave me one of the other options every time regardless, so I had to redo a number of saves.

Report · Feb 23, 2009

Jive has a preference for the indented "shrinking boxes" (use flat not threaded). There does not appear to be a preference for the print preview (which gets rid of the right column). The shrinking boxes plus empty right column sure makes me twitch!

The roll-over popups are not bad - they only load if you invoke them (they are not preloaded). Just don't roll over the avatar; you won't get them.

I got 3 seconds from an email link to this adobe forum thread. 14 seconds for the Jive page to open (from the link in post 18), and 4 seconds for a thread there to load. That site did not seem slow. But such tests are way to limited to mean much.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

There's a huge amount of wasted space between topics. Having people's pictures at the side is unnecessary and causes some of the wasted space. Going into a topic... why the skinny width allowed for messages? Allow the messages to run the full width of the page or again it's wasting a whole lot of space down the right side (I guess they thought breaking it into a smaller column would be better). I'd rather have the page readable across the full width because it means less scrolling down the page. If I wanted skinny columns, I'd just resize my browser window.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

No to have it span the width , people would lose interest in reading.

you want it no more that the width of 8.5 width sheet of typing paper with 1/4 inch margin at tops 7.5-8 inches wide.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

Inches????? Why not rods poles and perches? ;)

Report · Feb 24, 2009

Plonkable, Kath.

Don't forget that.

:)

Report · Feb 24, 2009

http://www.forum-software.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software_(PHP)

http://www.invisionpower.com/community/board/features.html

I guess these are a list of features the folks have to decipher and figure out on what they want. This is an example of those features...

http://www.boonex.com/products/dolphin/features/

so realize all, that there are a lot of issues and items to look at.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

One "issue" being that the Boonex link fails to open at all?

8/

Report · Feb 24, 2009

I was explaining the reason for not having text ended the full length of the page. you want the text width regardless of page width to amount to no more than 72-84 Character width regardless of how much magnification used.

7.5 to 8 inches width on a piece of typing paper amount to about 72-84 Characters (this includes white space on the line.)

In any event you want to extend no more than 2/3's the screen width.

example:

Report · Feb 24, 2009

>No you don't.

Yes I do.

>No to have it span the width , people would lose interest in reading.

Has the ADHD gotten so popular these days that line widths must be shortened or we risk people missing the excitement of jumping down to the next line?

Report · Feb 24, 2009

Percentage widths for pete's sake or related to people's browser prefs - does nobody employ proper web designers any more?

Report · Feb 24, 2009

>does nobody employ proper web designers any more?

Kath:

It would seem not.

Or not in Adobeland anyway if this terrible re-design project is permitted to proceed.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

Its not a problem of ADHD.

It the problem of the ability to read fast and take in.

It customary regardless whether text based, or html based to you at most if even on a PC 100 character (96 standard on PC) and 72-84 on Mac. People can read and taken.

It throws people's concentration off whether they have ADHD or not.

I read and post in several forums and it takes a while, to read and post in those groups. Adobe Forums is but one. If the number of characters per line are too much that slows down my reading.

I have a a life besides computers. and I want get on, read, post an answer if necessary, then get out and get on with the rest of my life.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

Ann - agree there server is slow today but link opens for me, but it was only an example of what a list of typical features would look like for forum software.

pj- I agree that one would not want more then 2/3rds screen. Here on this page, it is hard coded at 700 px. I have a monitor screen res at 1920 x 1200. Even on my laptop, 1680x1050 half my page is white space.

I just don't think one should hard code a page that should flow. The user can always resize their browser to not be full screen. Heck, they can have two browsers side by side.

But I think the over all look should be retained. We have all been spoiled with a clean white look. A list of threads. The ability to come back and visually see which threads you recently viewed - though many felt the difference in the blue tones was too subtle.

The new flags being used. Etc...

No avatars, banners, boxes, borders, but more of a typical Craigslist with multi threads and css. With the high volume of topics, it has been nice to see no clutter. Most php can let the user set the size of the page and even the font size. Its on the fly css changes. Not hard but uses cookies. And something I would think MM could do. Then anyone can decide their own choices. They should be able to dictate what they want their page to look like. White or black, blue or red, white fonts or yellow.... it isn't hard to do this in today's age.

The real question comes down to how much time are they willing to put in to make this happen and how much time have they already invested. And are they committed to really making a change. The more the user can control the look of the page, the more it will be accepted. That or stay with the basic white package.

I don't think most here want avatars and features that don't add to the meat of the forum. We aren't teenagers looking to hook up next Friday night with our friends to go see High School Musical 3.

We want to just ask or answer questions as part of a community that uses the same product. In and out.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

The current page-width displays 85 characters per line on my computer and provides excellent legibility for fast reading.

You can always adjust your font size in your User prefs. if your experience is different you don't have to inflict your requirements on the rest of us.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

>Here's my worst nightmare (this is from Luminous Landscape):

Not a good idea to try to make a point with an image which is not constrained by the width of the browser (or are you just trying to be tricky?). Of course, using a browser, your line width would be as wide as you want to make it, something that a screengrab does not make apparent. Having said that, I would much prefer it as I said - full width, let me decide whether or not and by how much I want to contract the line width.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

I was commenting only to the notion that people that didn't want the text to span the entire width of the screen are ADHD candidates

Report · Feb 24, 2009

>And frankly, of all the forums I've seen, this is the one that squeezes the most information into the screen space, and it does so without being visually intrusive. In fact it's very elegant.

Agreed. 100%!

So let's keep it that way.

PLEASE

Report · Feb 24, 2009

Ann - I am not blind. I do not need to increase my font sizes. And I am not trying to inflict anything. You seem to be. The thread was what and how we felt about forums. My reply was that in today's css world, it is not hard to allow the user to make the width to his or her choosing.

You my dear want to keep with what you like, the 85 character width which apparently works fine for you on your monitor. Lord forbid I say that there is a way to please more people...

Geez. Inclict??! WOW.

Later.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

> So let's keep it that way

I was surprised and was just posed to type that the current forum is already the way randallqueen recommends. Then I realized that the scaling I was doing was in the email I was reading from and not in the forum. (My preference is for reading emails, but posting in the forum.)

What randallqueen is recommending makes it completely possible for a person who wants 85 to have it. But it also allows a person who wants to zoom in to 65 to do that. And using the browser option to enlarge text runs the text off the page. Current expectations for accessibility can not be met in the current pages.

FYI, jive does not scale at all.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

As was mentioned, setting a character width is not that great in a web design form, but rather use % of width. The point I have been trying to make in these forums is that I like as it is, but would find a preference setting to leave it alone or add in avatars as desired should be an easy aspect to add (unless you are getting locked into something because of a stupid piece of software).

Report · Feb 24, 2009

>unless you are getting locked into something because of a stupid piece of software.

That is exactly what I think they are doing! And letting the Vendor ride rough-shod over them!

If Jive wants Adobe's business (and my guess is that they almost certainly do in the current economic climate!) they need to be made to dance to OUR tune.

There has not been a single voice among the USERS of the Adobe Forums in favour of your proposed changes; and only some half-hearted support by a couple of your Forum Hosts.

Report · Feb 24, 2009

>Plonkable

mercifully.