I don't like it.

[excited_Genie16B8]

Well, not surprisingly the Adobe team went and mucked up what I feel is the best forum on the Internet. They made it look like every other forum on the Internet, with just too much going on.

The clean, plain simple look of the current forums is superior to any other I've ever seen, and changing that is just not worth whatever new 'forum features' might come along. If you can't add new features with the current look, then just don't do anything.

Specifically, the original author of the post is a "who cares" type of thing. It's not needed in a message view. This is worse than what we now have.

Likewise the "views" and "replies" are not required information, and only serve to mess up the view. This is worse.

The message Subject has too little room to display, so it gets wrapped to a second line. This is worse.

Maybe it's not obvious, or not implemented yet, but I see no flags telling me there are replies that I haven't read yet. This is worse.

When you open a message thread, we have the familiar "forum look" which is very much worse than the very clean look we now enjoy.

Like the Home/End shortcuts, and the handling of subclips, Adobe went and 'fixed' something that wasn't broke, thus effectively breaking it.

[Bill12]

I had looked for some topics that were the same and could not find any (well, I did not waste a lot of time on it). Do you have one of the topics that can be found in both the old and new formats?

[D__McCahill]

> went and 'fixed' something that wasn't broke

Not true. The old software was badly broken. John Cornicello, who pretty much designed the look and feel of the current forums, said as much, and he is one person at Adobe I trust and believe. The old software is patchy and hard to work with ... that's why we can't get things like search and last buttons to work correctly.

The new forums are not as nice as I would like (I want to go back to the Compuserve model of the 1990s, dammit) but I think we will all learn to love them. Except maybe Ann, who will continue to scream about them as long as she stays around.

[Guest]

>and also viable

that's the subjective part oz. what's viable to us can be completely out of the question to corporate.

>Hands up anyone who knows enough about the practical criteria to say what other package would have (a) been better in function and form, however you define that, and (b) up to the job in terms of handling the load etc.

I know that when you don't know something, you find it out. (*) many times from someone who does, rather than from just manuals. i'm sure adobe has heard of and employed consultants. webcrossing sells services to help you tune, get going and learn.

> and so it goes. Praise pasta.

all glory to the noodly one! :)

(*)"Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell 'em `Certainly I can!' Then get busy and find out how to do it."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

[Guest]

> Were updating Adobe Forums with some new features to create a better experience for everyone.

Every time I see those words at the top of the page I start to grind my teeth.

Who are they kidding?

Why do today's whizz kids think that visual junk and clutter equals "A Better Experience"?

OK, change the forum software if you must, but don't try and dress it up as a "better experience" we're not all teenagers here!

[D__McCahill]

Come on John. When have you ever seen any marketing ploy that was honest. It's "new and improved" not "more expensive so we can pay out all those bonuses". Do you really think Adobe would refer to the new forums as "a confusing and awkward experience"?

[Tom_Murray_1]

>Why do today's whizz kids think that visual junk and clutter equals "A Better Experience"?

The youngsters like to have many things to click.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Absolutely.

Just click and click and click for flashy Flash rubbish anything but actually stopping to READ something or (horrors!) be expected to LEARN something.

Adobe have seriously miscalculated their Customer Profiles and Demographics this time.

People who ask questions in the Adobe Forums are, on the whole, highly educated, mature, motivated and discerning artists and they have come to the Forums in the hope of receiving serious and thoughtful answers from like-minded Professionals.

I can't see that too many of those " like-minded Professionals" are going to want to wade through the muck in the Polluted Paddling Pool of the New Forums.

[John_Cornicello_Photo]

Here are views of the same content in both systems (From the Photoshop Forum):

Jive:
http://adobeforums.adobe.com/thread/294915

WebX:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.59b806d3/0

[Cindy-]

Well John, Jive took about 15 sec. and Webx was instant. Nothing else matters.

[Guest]

Both Jive and WebX were instant on my machine.

[Cindy-]

> Both Jive and WebX were instant on my machine.

We are hearing a lot of slowness so part of it may depend on where you are. But for something that is supposed to work for people all over the world the speed simply is not working. It is very slow and for people who have fast machines.

[Jacob Bugge]

John, thank you for posting something directly comparable.

Jive only shows 10 of the 11 posts in WebX, takes up the same time, and the size of the actual effective post text is only 70%. I am afraid the text size will be a serious issue.

It is so nice in the present forums to be able to see the number/total number of posts.

[Guest]

I see your point Cindy.

[Curt Wrigley]

I wont say they loaded instantly, but they both loaded in less than a second. Equally fast for me.

Without adjusting the window; with the new forum I see 1.5 posts on the first screen. On the old forum I see not quite all of the first post. While the font is smaller on the new forum, it is easier for me to read a more pleasing layout and I see more content before I have to scroll.

[Cindy-]

But once you get all the headers out of there you can get more posts on your screen.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Re; #32

Jive took 3 seconds to open and displays 5.5 messages on my screen.

WebX took less than 1 second to load and displays seven messages on my screen when I zoom the type to the same size as that in the Jive site.

[Guest]

I think i'm in denial... it's not really going to happen.

[Ann_Shelbourne1]

Oh, that you were right; and that we would all wake up and find that it had all just been a passing nightmare not a real live permanent one!

[Guest]

grand illusion

[Andrew Yoole]

From Sydney Australia, Mac OS 10.5.6, Firefox 3.0.7

The Jive page takes about 7 seconds to load. The WebX page takes about 1 second.

There is certainly a speed differential from my location.

[Dirck]

They don't call it Jive for nuthin'. (Shucks)

[Cindy-]

I hope I find out I merged for nothing.

[Guest]

Melbourne Australia - Jive 11 seconds, WebX 2. Actually I didn't time it first time round, so whether local buffering of the content or whatever makes a difference the second time I don't know. The first time, Jive took much longer than 11 seconds fully to arrive - maybe towards 30.

Pentium 4 PC, FF3, broadband but not fast broadband (512/128 speed).

[Cindy-]

> broadband but not fast broadband (512/128 speed).

That should be adequate to load a reasonably sized page almost instant.

[Guest]

Tonight I'm changing over to ADSL2+ broadband - woohoo! But I hasten to add that's nothing to do with the arrival of the new forum. Actually it will be interesting to see what difference that makes to the new forum display time, given that all else here will remain the same.