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.
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:
<b>(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.)</b>
<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" />
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
>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.
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...
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.
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).