site change

-
gotta say it again --
adapt or perish... sounds like it was this new software or no site at all... I'm pretty old school/hate change myself - but this isn't bad at all.. betcha it could have been worse.. imagine losing the site all together!!!

Well, it wasn't that dire --- but on that path. I was having a hard enough time just trying to keep the old site from being hacked because it used such old security protocols. It didn't work right on some mobile phones, there were all kinds of problems.

There are a variety of little bugs right now, but we'll get most of those ironed out.
 
id just like to see a full page when read a thread. the advertising takes up half the page and im stuck seeing only half the video and cant select out of it etc... makes it a horrible experience from this side.

fwiw i am all for the new tech...as long as it works fluidly and is enjoyable to be a part of.
 
yup the biggest android phone ever the samsung mega. also known as a fablet. lol screen is 6.5" so i usually see things well. with this new site setting i cant see anything.
 
yup the biggest android phone ever the samsung mega. also known as a fablet. lol screen is 6.5" so i usually see things well. with this new site setting i cant see anything.

OK, I'm going to have to look into why its doing that on phones.
 
Overall, IMO better than some other bulletin boards.
Navigation isn't that different (however I always start on the page that shows the subforums, which is different than some of the otehrs who commented here).
The font is a bit harder to read, but the font size and background contrast is good.
It is a shame to lose screen width (content), but it's to one side. It's not as distracting and as hard to read as another well known site has become.
Definately still some issues
- seems to be some issues with sizing (some emicons are HUGE, others are normal; and some avatars like mine are now enlarged, pixalated and cropped)
- Graphic symbols aren't showing up, nor a text equivalent. Maybe a cross platform or backward standards compatibility issue? Screen shot attached as example. (Firefox/seamonkey browser, XPsp3 OS)

FABO-reply-screenshot.jpg
 
The font is a bit harder to read, but the font size and background contrast is good.

Once I get a handle on things -- I am going to upgrade 2 other styles with different color schemes. That way everyone should be able to find something.

It is a shame to lose screen width (content), but it's to one side. It's not as distracting and as hard to read as another well known site has become.

That will shrink a little after a bit. Not a lot, but somewhat. I am going to have the vendors use a different size ad which will save some side space. Also, Gold Members will be able to pick and choose what will be on the right, or be able to close it all if they want.

Graphic symbols aren't showing up, nor a text equivalent. Maybe a cross platform or backward standards compatibility issue?

Did you try another browser? Anyone else seeing this?
 
Just took a quick peek on most current firefox 37. ESR Didn't log in, but the avatars and emicon size issues are same as with the older seamonkey version. So that's not it. Let me know if you need a screen shot of that.
 
not the emoticons -- the menu bar is what I'm worried about. the emoticons are suppose to be different sizes
 
Well I'm still trying to get used to things. I guess it's OK. Do we have Likes instead of Thanks know? How do we undescribe to a thread?
 
Well I'm still trying to get used to things. I guess it's OK. Do we have Likes instead of Thanks know? How do we undescribe to a thread?

There are likes, thanks, agree, disagree. Look at the bottom right of a post.

How do we undescribe to a thread?

go to WATCHED THREADS on the menu bar. Then click Show all watched threads.
Now, check the boxes of the ones you don't want to watch anymore -- and there is a dropdown menu at the bottom of the list that will give you that option
 
not the emoticons -- the menu bar is what I'm worried about. the emoticons are suppose to be different sizes
Got it. Understandable.
FWIW on my Profile page all the avatars are normal size, but not in threads.

OK. in the Firefox 37 ESR, the menu bar icons DO show, although they take two lines.
 
Sure,
Your icon-avatar looks pretty normal, but some others (photos) including mine do not.
In the first attachment, you can can see the difference most clearly.
Second attachement is the profile page. On the top left, everything is correct. In the others, the size seems to be about the same as it was, but the image has not been scaled up or down. I know in HTML there's different ways to define image sizes and to force or not force fits such as tables that adjust to percentage of screen width versus those defined by pixels or other fixed dimensions. I'd assume similar coding options exist with css and scripts.

FABO-thread-screenshot2.jpg
FAB)-profile-screen.jpg
 
Ok, but the avatars In the posts are all the same size right? -- The member panel I'll look at, and the other page those look appropriate. Your right, the images are resized based on where they are being used, what browser the reader is using, etc.
 
Ok, but the avatars In the posts are all the same size right? -- The member panel I'll look at, and the other page those look appropriate. Your right, the images are resized based on where they are being used, what browser the reader is using, etc.
Yes, but they aren't right internally. The profile ones are a bit better. Let me try to describe what I mean about the ones in the posts and click on my first attachment above as an example since apparently its not happening to you.

When I look at JimHarvard's post, he's missing the top of his head. Click on his picture or screen name and the version in the black box he gets his whole head and even his hat!
Similarly, in Mycuda's posts, the image is of a car from the windshield back. But when viewed in the black box, the whole car is there.

So it seems ALL the post avatars have a fixed frame dimension of W x H. Lets say its 120 pix x 120 pixels (I'm just making up numbers as an example). I know my avatar jpg was 80 x 58 pixels to meet the old rules and look OK. It looks like the height, 58 pixels, was expanded to fill the 120 pixel frame height, and the 80 pixels was expanded proportionally, so the jpg became 160 wide. But the frame is is only 120 wide, so 40 pixels of width are cut off.
Again that's just to explain what it looks like is happening. It cant be the correct explanation or JimHarvard wouldn't be losing his hat!
 
When I look at JimHarvard's post, he's missing the top of his head. Click on his picture or screen name and the version in the black box he gets his whole head and even his hat!

see that's because his photo is actually tall and narrow -- so the system makes it fill the space as best as it can. Had he posted a square pic, it would be fine
 
Will the N&P and Blue forum be isolated as they were before?? I'm also curious about the birthday box on the home page, I liked that feature!!
 
-
Back
Top