I don't like it.

Report · Mar 17, 2009

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.

Report · Mar 19, 2009

I would not equate all young folks to that view either. My daughter is 30 and is still trying to figure out what all the teenagers see in text messaging. I guess it was not there when she was a teen and that may be the issue, the new whiz kids as you put it where there. I don't know how to classify John (his avatar does not look like a youngster at this point.

Report · Mar 19, 2009

John's actually 25, but he took his avatar photo a little bit after reactions to the new forum were first coming in, which experience aged him more than somewhat.

OK, I'm joking. He's older than that, and from his recent posts he seems to be feeling quite chipper about the whole new forum thing.

Report · Mar 19, 2009

I compared the views. The new view looks like it holds more only because of the fonts. If I increase the font size so I can see the page and not wear out my eyes in 10 minutes, then the Adobe forums come out on top. The new forum starts having columns that look about like the columns of a newspaper (narrow!). It is not just a width issue, it is a default font size issue combined with the width that are part of the issue. At the same time, several folks have commented that the blue backgrounds (though pale) make it hard to read. I have not had that problem, but the font size is an issue.

As I have said in the forums, Adobe seems to be making a lot of assumptions about the needs of the user and not listening when they say the page is hard to read, that code wraps and is difficult to decipher (particularly when the edit screen has no comparison to the size that the post will be. That also encouraging folks like me to keep typing. On this page, I tend to feel I should stop when I get to the bottom of the box!

Report · Mar 19, 2009

When you adjust the text size so folks like me can read it and move done into the posts (2 and beyond), the old forums display more results than the new forums. Font size is an issue as others have said. That makes the columns too narrow. Also brings us back to the line width issue that is not too short (if you can see it).

Report · Mar 20, 2009

Just took a look at the new format. I HATE IT! It takes up too much screen space, difficult to read comments rapidly, why have all the space for the author and avatar pic, and why it is so unnecessary to change an excellent forum format.

I know people resist change, but I don't feel change is justified if the main reason is to make it "new and improved".

Report · Mar 20, 2009

The biggest fault (which is NOT a matter of taste) is the inability to return to where you were on the last visit.

I know it's been said before but it can't be said enough!

Report · Mar 20, 2009

I would REALLY like to have a user-defined width for at least the actual message portion of the screen. There is currently too much wasted real estate.

Hmmm. I'll bet I already said that somewhere :)

Report · Mar 20, 2009

>The biggest fault (which is NOT a matter of taste) is the inability to return to where you were on the last visit.

With having to enter each thread at the beginning and wade your way to the last read post being a close second.

Report · Mar 20, 2009

graffiti, you can select the "X minutes ago" hyperlink to go straight to the last post.

Report · Mar 20, 2009

>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

Wasn't talking about the software (which seems to work perfectly good on my end, by the way). I was talking about the look. These current forums are the best on the 'Net. Adobe is taking a step backwards with the new look.

My point was that if they can't change what they want to change, and leave the look as is, then just don't change anything.

Report · Mar 20, 2009

>Here are views of the same content in both systems

You've just proved my point. The new version looks awful, more difficult to read, and slower to load.

Report · Mar 20, 2009

What I find astounding is that the Forum Development team seem to be unable to recognise just how UGLY and UNWORKABLE a monster they have created.

Or are they just more interested in guarding their backs and their paychecks?

Report · Mar 20, 2009

Folks, check this out:

Eric @ MCA, "Why not a flex-width forum?" #17, 20 Mar 2009 4:23 pm

Here are my comments on that post:

Ramón G Castañeda
- 11:57pm Mar 20, 09 PST

(# 23 of 23)

Awesome! Absolutely awesome!

Thank you very much, Eric @ MCA.

I installed the Greasemonkey version of the scriptas I already have Greasemonkey running afplonk! and it is an absolute joy.

If heavyboots is your alter ego, double thanks for this.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

> "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."

My Opinion:Bulletin Boards using phpBB look better.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Ramón:

I have already installed Eric's script along with the other script by Mark Boyd:

http://adobeforums.adobe.com/message/1617137#1617137

which renders the Avatars and those pompous self-satisfied "Community Expert" Badges invisible!

Isn't it odd that we are told that the Jive software does not support customization and two individuals can provide a fix with about 20 minutes work?

Adobe seem to have picked the wrong guys to create their New Forums!

8/

Report · Mar 21, 2009

>My Opinion:Bulletin Boards using phpBB look better.

For a local group of a hundred people or less? Perhaps.

But I don't think that you have the slightest inkling of a clue of the scale of operations that is involved here.

(I have seen the one that I think you are referring to!)

Report · Mar 21, 2009

I didn't say anything about the scale. Perhaps phpBB is under powered. I was commenting solely on the look.
What unique about phpBB (some forms) is that Background colors are customizable to a point. And if avatars are available , if not used that area collapses if one is not used. And If one is used minimum space only is maximum length of avatar.

Many user groups related to shareware applications such as TypeIt4Me, Default Folders Ambrosia (Snapz Pro X) and such use either phpBB or similar. The Adobe Forums (WebX) has been unique among Forums. Even Apple's Forums are similar looking, to phpBB.

I've never seen another forum that used this version of WebX.

Report · Mar 21, 2009

>I've never seen another forum that used this version of WebX.

And I have never seen another Forum that is as well designed, elegant and usable as this one.

God preserve me from Apple's Forums one of the ugliest, inefficient and worst thought-out ones on the planet (which is astonishing when you consider the outstanding clean design, proportions, shapes, elegance and sheer beauty of their hardware).

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Even the most half-assed forum scripts can provide more than one user-selectable "skin" or set of styles in a CSS, Phil.

And it's possible for those skins to look VASTLY different from one another.

And you call yourself a "Webmaster!"

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Webmaster? Noooooooooooo. Phil?

Report · Mar 21, 2009

>My Opinion:Bulletin Boards using phpBB look better.

I have no idea who posted that, since I only saw the quote in Ann's post. It must be one of the plonked posters. Without needing to check whom I may be offending, that quoted line is a throughly clueless, asinine statement. :D

Report · Mar 21, 2009

Ann,
>God preserve me from Apple's Forums one of the ugliest, inefficient and worst thought-out ones on the planet

Agreed. I can't stand them. When I do need information that can only be obtained by posting there, I always rely on email notifications to go back for answers. No way am I going to browse their forums.

Their search engine is useless too.

Report · Mar 22, 2009

>And you call yourself a "Webmaster!"

No I don't call myself that. That title which I didn't like was bestowed on me When I looked after the Vpea.org website for a number of years.

No am far from an expert. I was just commenting on the merits of the phpBB style.

And if its so easy, how cume it wasn't implemented in the new system?

:-)

Report · Mar 22, 2009

Report · Mar 27, 2009

>I've never seen another forum that used this version of WebX.

That may be why we've never seen another forum as visually pleasing as this one.