• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

FA Project: UI Overhaul

RailRide

The Real Wheels of Steel
thorndraco said:
RailRide: Most browsers now let you block specific images if you find them bothersome.

I don't find the banner bothersome, just that it didn't match the one on the default scheme. I wasn't aware the the banner displayed on the dark format was subject to not being changed if the monthly update "clashed" with it.

Soo... does this mean the monthly banner submissions are going to be bifurcated into seperate light and dark contests?

---PCJ
 

Firehazard

I can fix it!
Oofah! I forgot one! Be able to reply to shouts instead of having to shout back and forth.
 

Egypt Urnash

buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz
I'd like to see Textile and/or Markdown as an alternative to BBCode in descriptions. Either that or some HTML parsing because that's what tends to come out of my fingers by default.

In fact I didn't even know until flipping through this thread that descriptions (and comments?) parsed BBCode, because there's nothing that says 'BBcode will work' in the submit box. I've tried HTML and it doesn't work, and I never thought to try BBCode because I've never been a fan of it.

So it'd be nice to have every text box that supports BBCode have a note beneath it saying 'You can use BBCode' with a link that pops up whatever FA's BBCode parser will parse.

It'd be nice to have FA's particular tags documented there, too. How do I do the 'link to another FA user by their user icon'? I dunno. I can never remember how DA does it either because they don't have any kind of convenient 'here's the formatting we allow!' popup link on their text boxes either.

Also re: the people discussing .doc not loading on a Mac - I dunno what's up with that, I drop .docs into TextEdit all the time. It loses complex formatting and macros and stuff like that but can read the actual body fine. I refuse to spend money, or even disk space, on a word processor when my needs are more along the lines of 'text editor'...
 

Growly

Member
Egypt Urnash said:
It'd be nice to have FA's particular tags documented there, too. How do I do the 'link to another FA user by their user icon'? I dunno. I can never remember how DA does it either because they don't have any kind of convenient 'here's the formatting we allow!' popup link on their text boxes either.


To answer your question about linking to other user's icons, just type icon then the name, like :iconpeganthyrus: and an icon plus their name will pop up. :)
I think DA does it the same way.
 

lolcox

I'm kind of yell-y. Sorry.
Egypt Urnash said:
I'd like to see Textile and/or Markdown as an alternative to BBCode in descriptions. Either that or some HTML parsing because that's what tends to come out of my fingers by default.
Textile, yes, and I think I mentioned that a looooooong(cat is long) time ago, around the first or second iteration of FA to them, since I always thought that HTML in a place like this (which probably doesn't have a strong KSES filter anyhow) was bad, and I loathed having to download someone's doc file, pass it to AbiWord on my home computer then, and pass the result back to a browser. :)

As per Markdown, buttsex it in the eye, a.k.a. "no, thanks".

Egypt Urnash said:
Also re: the people discussing .doc not loading on a Mac - I dunno what's up with that, I drop .docs into TextEdit all the time. It loses complex formatting and macros and stuff like that but can read the actual body fine. I refuse to spend money, or even disk space, on a word processor when my needs are more along the lines of 'text editor'...
Eh, it's people who're making excuses on that.
Though, a real issue is that MS Word documents don't load on most mobile devices. Just the lucky 'tards who can spend $300+ on a Windows Smartphone of some sort can read stories, at that point.

Since I'm in a homeless shelter, I don't really have the option to NOT read stories on a little phone screen, and my phone, lovely as it is, doesn't support MS's Document format. :)

Text or Textile, please. :)
 

yak

Site Developer
Staff member
Administrator
Egypt Urnash said:
So it'd be nice to have every text box that supports BBCode have a note beneath it saying 'You can use BBCode' with a link that pops up whatever FA's BBCode parser will parse.
I believe that all text boxes on FA are being BBCode parsed

Egypt Urnash said:
It'd be nice to have FA's particular tags documented there, too. How do I do the 'link to another FA user by their user icon'? I dunno. I can never remember how DA does it either because they don't have any kind of convenient 'here's the formatting we allow!' popup link on their text boxes either.
My latest FA journal describes all the supported tags and features. But i see what you mean there, it'd be nice to keep a copy on these forums, or the Wiki.
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
yak said:
My latest FA journal describes all the supported tags and features. But i see what you mean there, it'd be nice to keep a copy on these forums, or the Wiki.

I will write up that into a document suitable for the wiki and/or forums, though realistically speaking, it could take a few weeks.

As it is, I just copy pasted your journal into here for the moment:

http://www.wikiffinity.net/index.php?title=Tags_and_Codes

The wiki needs a bit of a tweak I think. At the moment, clicking on "Site useage" takes you to a page called "Account management topics".

I think that should really be a sub category on a page called "Site usage". Then things like the TOS, tags and codes and other things can be put in their own category as opposed to being shoehorned into "account management". (I can't think where to put tags and codes in that)

I can't do that myself though, since it involves modifying the wiki sidebar. :(
 

Gronthar

New Member
Eh, I think the Layout could be cleaned up a bit. The things I seem to be clicking the most is the S for submissions, so I think that should be bigger. The banner is nice, but I just eats up too much space-- Cut it down to 100px high and use the extra space left over for the links in the sidebar. The sidebar only has two things - Navigation links and the donate button. The rest is just empty space... which is kinda pointless. Also if you broke the submission displays out of rigid tables, you could probably reclaim that space and let them stack up on their own, which is nice for people with wider screens. :3.
 
M

missdavies

Guest
Hmm...everything I'm looking for I think either will change when Ferrox finally appears or has been spoken for. But just in case, I'm going to put my two cents in.
====

  • The Search Returned to us
  • Front Page re organization (I find things way too cluttered between the recent art submission, music, poetry and writings all separate. Why not throw them all in one and let the search results filter what you're looking for?)
  • FA United/Donate buttons (too large and oddly placed. They make everything feel small and squishy, at least for me)
  • More space in the shout box. (I like to ramble :p)
  • The ability to turn administrator messages off. (After I've read it once, I hate it always lingering above reminding me of things I already know)

And yeah...I think that's it :)
 

TehSean

weasyl.com/profile/naoki
OC Event files depend a lot on the number of strokes, the general length of time anyway, that the session used up. So lengthier sessions will have more data recorded.

As an example, this session took about.. oh.. I'd say three hours? The dimensions were 2000 x 2000 pixels
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/504657/ (Need to be logged in, able to view Mature)
The replay file itself is 3.2 Megabytes.

Maybe sessions with multiple users could be put under a collaborations section that would display on all the involved artists' pages. Something like this: One person uploads the file and then specifies usernames of other FA members so that only one .wpe will be hosted on the server. Anyway, after specifying the usernames, those people will get a message asking if they want that file linked on their page as a submission. This way, you wouldn't get up to 4times the space usage. I dunno how hard that would be to implement, but I know for sure that setting rules and expecting people to follow them will not work totally.

In any case, OC replay files (.wpe) are, in general, smaller than most music files submitted to FA.
 

kjorteo

I have fuzz.
TehSean said:
OC Event files depend a lot on the number of strokes, the general length of time anyway, that the session used up. So lengthier sessions will have more data recorded.

As an example, this session took about.. oh.. I'd say three hours? The dimensions were 2000 x 2000 pixels
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/504657/ (Need to be logged in, able to view Mature)
The replay file itself is 3.2 Megabytes.

Maybe sessions with multiple users could be put under a collaborations section that would display on all the involved artists' pages. Something like this: One person uploads the file and then specifies usernames of other FA members so that only one .wpe will be hosted on the server. Anyway, after specifying the usernames, those people will get a message asking if they want that file linked on their page as a submission. This way, you wouldn't get up to 4times the space usage. I dunno how hard that would be to implement, but I know for sure that setting rules and expecting people to follow them will not work totally.

In any case, OC replay files (.wpe) are, in general, smaller than most music files submitted to FA.

I'm not positive this is a good idea.

First of all. 3.2 megabyte files are huge even if 1/4 the people upload them. I can already predict Preyfar's announcement for yet another new server fundraiser to try and handle the increased load. And a simple system that asks all parties involved is too prone to be ignored. Remember: people are stupid. Look how many people upload the same OC file as everyone else who was involved. If FA actually asked them first, I'm sure a lot of people would proceed anyway--to appeal to different people watching that particular artist, or just for the sheer vanity of having it on your page. I don't foresee a socialist spirit of communal goodwill suddenly and miraculously appearing just because .wpes are big.
 

TehSean

weasyl.com/profile/naoki
Dragoneer supports it, so that's a massive plus.

Most people are pretty quiet about voicing any concern, sadly. Most of the response has been in support of it though.

FA could adjust its ToS to force the communal link by explicitly stating that there will be punishment if the rules aren't read. How to make sure people read the rules? Have the rules appear EVERY TIME the option to upload a .wpe is selected. If they really wanted, with the rules so blatantly shown (though I imagine they'd have to make exceptions for people who don't read English well..) then you could have a two strikes or no strikes penalty removing that user's ability to use that function from then on.

I'm not very confident that the majority of admins and coders will want this though and that's a shame, but it a lot of people do seem interested in, at least when I went to FC2006, watching people draw and seeing how they work.

So the event file's kinda like that. (Why not just convert the file into some other smaller format?) You lose too much quality. It's just that simple. There would be no point in uploading it if the people watching the compressed replay couldn't see what was specifically going on. There is no format that can offer any sort of compromise in image quality vs file size that I know of, or that any of the people who've discussed it already know of.

I would have suggested compressing the .wpe itself and putting it in an archive format since .wpe archives very efficiently, but that would very likely open the way for very deliberate attacks on the userbase.

Artist concern over art theft. Well, before you submit the replay, manually sign it so that the replay you submit is deliberately altered. Better yet. Draw a mistake in the image on purpose as a way to autograph your image. It's an ancient technique used by mapmakers to determine when their work was being stolen because the thief would copy the error as well.
Edit: And if you are still unconvinced and are still fretting about art theft and whatnot. Simply do not upload a replay file. Anyway, if the event file was with multiple people, I'm sure the thief will be unable to prove they are the original artist. Especially if they don't have any connection to the people you drew with. Personally, I wouldn't begin to worry unless you're uploading the replay files for work that you've got commercial plans for.

What else. My general confidence in this going through and being implemented is pretty slim to none since I was expecting a lot more support from people who expressed interest in it but not enough to register and voice their support of it.

So yes.

Summary
Allow .wpe (open canvas replay) as an upload option
Allow multiple users (Probably up to 4 as that's the network limit on vanilla OC) to share the link on that single upload
ToS change to force singular uploads
Change in UI to accomodate multiple people sharing the 'collab-link' to the .wpe
ToS change to allow admins to punish and remove .wpe submit option and also be voided from receiving any collab-link requests
Impose a limit on .wpe filesize (Up to Admins as I am unaware of bandwidth and space concerns)
Perhaps provide information in a public Help section on where to acquire OpenCanvas or simply host all the versions of OpenCanvas version1 (as that's the only version with networking)
 

kjorteo

I have fuzz.
TehSean said:
Dragoneer supports it, so that's a massive plus.

Most people are pretty quiet about voicing any concern, sadly. Most of the response has been in support of it though.

(snip)

.wpes are definitely cool. Don't think that I'm saying they're not. They're an awesome feature and FA would be awesome for having them, if it could afford them. The question is, can it afford them? I'm skeptical.

There are quite a lot of people who use OC all by themselves, just as their general art program. (I would have recommended GIMP if they wanted something art-y and free, but whatever....) Naturally, they may want to share their .wpes just for their curious fans. It would be unfair to say that you can only have one if it was a multi-session, after all. Of course, once you allow everyone, it's all over for the poor server. Remember, we're talking 3.4 megs or so per file, not per artist. I imagine that adding up very fast.

And all of this assumes that there aren't any attackers out there who would see this as a great opportunity to deliberately upload gigantic files to overwhelm the server....
 

TehSean

weasyl.com/profile/naoki
That's why I suggested that there be a limit to filesize that'd be determined by the admins themselves.

You know, by allowing people to upload any content at all, there's a guarantee that someone is going to be affected negatively by it, so there's not really much point in bringing up the fact that it's going to be abused in some manner.

When Ferrox is released as planned, it will be scrutinized closely by malicious users knowledgable of flaws in code and what can be done to exploit them, so your point that "oh the bad people are going to abuse it, so we should hold off on it" can be applied to *ANY* *SUBJECT*.

They'll release Ferrox and try to patch up the holes that'll be invariably discovered. If there are no holes or at the very least, no huge flaws that'll do stuff like uh.. Reveal all the users' passwords as had happened in the past, then hooray. Victory. It'll work as it was supposed to and nobody will complain and nobody will praise it either because people usually aren't overjoyed that something is working as it had intended, but now I'm getting off topic.

In any case, there will always be a level of risk involved and I don't believe the cons outweigh the benefit of free information.

I'm sure there are people out there who've already loaded half hour recordings of nothing but white noise as music submissions to FA. FA's still standing months after music was allowed to be uploaded, so it is not as fragile as you think it is.
 

robomilk

fruit bat at large
[size=xx-large]*[/size] [size=x-large]BIG QUESTION![/size] [size=xx-large]*[/size]

Is this "overhaul" actually gonna be "overhauling"?

Asked because I've become a bit confused with what's going on. The title says "overhaul," suggesting a complete website revamp. Yes so far most of the suggestions have actually been for relatively small scale edits to the current design.

Just wondering is all.
 

kjorteo

I have fuzz.
A good question, each answer with its own pros and cons.

I think an overhaul is needed, a lot of legacy code could be improved by just starting over, etc. However, small edits are more likely to actually happen. Ferrox is vaporware, and learning from that, I don't want to get greedy on how much we ask for and end up pushing all the lovely ideas here to the "maybe someday" list.
 

yak

Site Developer
Staff member
Administrator
robomilk said:
[size=xx-large]*[/size] [size=x-large]BIG QUESTION![/size] [size=xx-large]*[/size]

Is this "overhaul" actually gonna be "overhauling"?

Asked because I've become a bit confused with what's going on. The title says "overhaul," suggesting a complete website revamp. Yes so far most of the suggestions have actually been for relatively small scale edits to the current design.

Just wondering is all.
While the Ferrox upgrade is mainly affecting the core code and low-level functionality, the suggestions from this overhaul thread will be the fuel for the user interface/design/layout upgrade.

So there really isn't an need to limit the suggestions to the current possibilities of the website, since that interface will be running on a brand new, scalable and easily-extendable code - thus just about any feature you've seen anywhere on the web is possible - if considered to be required.

Basically, the purpose of this thread was to gather "all things good" about just about any website and see how can they be applied to FA and whether that will be convenient or not.
 

lolcox

I'm kind of yell-y. Sorry.
Mobile.
Friendly.
Interface.

I really can't stress that one enough, to be honest. I should take a picture of how FA looks on a phone with a 240px by 320 px screen, to elaborate...

but my battery is dead in the camera. To describe:

Looking at my user page, the Nav Links are fine: They fold in Opera Mini, because they are grouped together semantically.
The links that start at User Page, however, aren't: They don't fold, because they aren't grouped together, from what I can tell.

Looking at a random image that has lots of comments on it...
I really want that switch to turn off avatars.
Again, using Opera Mini, and on a phone that has an EV-DO connection... The page gets partitioned (by the Opera Mini proxy, to prevent overloading the phone's memory per page), simply because there's too much crap being sucked down at once, despite me using low quality image loading.
It goes to three partitions, if I return to High Quality image loading (which I usually browse at on this phone).

I'd like to turn off Avatars, or even better, both Avatars and Comments from users.

That would make me happy as a clam (simply because it'd be happy with me not eating it :p).
 

robomilk

fruit bat at large
yak said:
robomilk said:
[size=xx-large]*[/size] [size=x-large]BIG QUESTION![/size] [size=xx-large]*[/size]

Is this "overhaul" actually gonna be "overhauling"?

Asked because I've become a bit confused with what's going on. The title says "overhaul," suggesting a complete website revamp. Yes so far most of the suggestions have actually been for relatively small scale edits to the current design.

Just wondering is all.
While the Ferrox upgrade is mainly affecting the core code and low-level functionality, the suggestions from this overhaul thread will be the fuel for the user interface/design/layout upgrade.

So there really isn't an need to limit the suggestions to the current possibilities of the website, since that interface will be running on a brand new, scalable and easily-extendable code - thus just about any feature you've seen anywhere on the web is possible - if considered to be required.

Basically, the purpose of this thread was to gather "all things good" about just about any website and see how can they be applied to FA and whether that will be convenient or not.

Ahh! So it's all depending! Personally I think it could do with a full makeover. The current site isn't that good on the front end when it comes to code. A few code-side errors:

  • No DOCTYPE - The fact that no DOCTYPE is currently defined is what's causing many of the validation errors. Although the DOCTYPE is present in the code, it's a W3C requirement to have it as the very first thing on the page, whilst currently it is not.
  • Tables - Tables are considered bad design practice and greatly hinders accessibility and usability. CSS based layouts are now considered the industry standard way of formatting web content.
  • The tooltips system - Currently a tooltip is loaded into the top of the page before being displayed as a floating box. Although this method is invisible to people with a modern browser, it is not to people with CSS styling disabled, those using devices such as screen readers and older web browsers.
  • The navigation layout - The current method of formatting lists (like the main navigation and userpage navigation) is done through tables and formatting links that are coded straight into a navigational div. It is now common practice, as well as being much more accessible to use ul's formatted with CSS.
  • No skip links - Common accessibility practice, to provide links at the top of the page that are only visible to CSS-disabled browsers and screen readers, so they don't have to wade through the navigation, headers, etc to get to the main content.
  • Accessibility - The WebXACT accessibility survey throws out 6 errors (in 102 instances) and 38 warnings (in 278 instances) on the main page alone.

This may seem like overkill, but it allows for a clean website that is available to anyone with a web connection, regardless of connection method, browser or disability. In addition it is also considered to be the standard that every website should follow. And possibly the biggest incentive of all... it's the law. [size=small](in some countries)[/size]
 
I would like you to be able to see the number of favorites for an image listed under the thumbnail in the user's gallery. Also it would be great if when that is clicked, you would also get a list of the people who favorited the image. Duncan suggested such a list, and I think it is a good idea, and this would be a good place to put it.

On the page for the actual image, you could also have the same list accessed by clicking on the number of favorites listed over in the box on the right.
 

lolcox

I'm kind of yell-y. Sorry.
robomilk said:
yak said:
robomilk said:
[size=xx-large]*[/size] [size=x-large]BIG QUESTION![/size] [size=xx-large]*[/size]

Is this "overhaul" actually gonna be "overhauling"?

Asked because I've become a bit confused with what's going on. The title says "overhaul," suggesting a complete website revamp. Yes so far most of the suggestions have actually been for relatively small scale edits to the current design.

Just wondering is all.
While the Ferrox upgrade is mainly affecting the core code and low-level functionality, the suggestions from this overhaul thread will be the fuel for the user interface/design/layout upgrade.

So there really isn't an need to limit the suggestions to the current possibilities of the website, since that interface will be running on a brand new, scalable and easily-extendable code - thus just about any feature you've seen anywhere on the web is possible - if considered to be required.

Basically, the purpose of this thread was to gather "all things good" about just about any website and see how can they be applied to FA and whether that will be convenient or not.

Ahh! So it's all depending! Personally I think it could do with a full makeover. The current site isn't that good on the front end when it comes to code. A few code-side errors:

  • No DOCTYPE - The fact that no DOCTYPE is currently defined is what's causing many of the validation errors. Although the DOCTYPE is present in the code, it's a W3C requirement to have it as the very first thing on the page, whilst currently it is not.
  • Tables - Tables are considered bad design practice and greatly hinders accessibility and usability. CSS based layouts are now considered the industry standard way of formatting web content.
  • The tooltips system - Currently a tooltip is loaded into the top of the page before being displayed as a floating box. Although this method is invisible to people with a modern browser, it is not to people with CSS styling disabled, those using devices such as screen readers and older web browsers.
  • The navigation layout - The current method of formatting lists (like the main navigation and userpage navigation) is done through tables and formatting links that are coded straight into a navigational div. It is now common practice, as well as being much more accessible to use ul's formatted with CSS.
  • No skip links - Common accessibility practice, to provide links at the top of the page that are only visible to CSS-disabled browsers and screen readers, so they don't have to wade through the navigation, headers, etc to get to the main content.
  • Accessibility - The WebXACT accessibility survey throws out 6 errors (in 102 instances) and 38 warnings (in 278 instances) on the main page alone.

This may seem like overkill, but it allows for a clean website that is available to anyone with a web connection, regardless of connection method, browser or disability. In addition it is also considered to be the standard that every website should follow. And possibly the biggest incentive of all... it's the law. [size=small](in some countries)[/size]

I gave up on preaching semantics to 'em a long time ago.
Did it in IRC, did it back in the first iteration of FA.

More effective to say it to a brick wall. :eek:
 

robomilk

fruit bat at large
lolcox said:
I gave up on preaching semantics to 'em a long time ago.
Did it in IRC, did it back in the first iteration of FA.

More effective to say it to a brick wall. :eek:

They have to listen! It's the law! (in some countries >.>)
 

lolcox

I'm kind of yell-y. Sorry.
robomilk said:
lolcox said:
I gave up on preaching semantics to 'em a long time ago.
Did it in IRC, did it back in the first iteration of FA.

More effective to say it to a brick wall. :eek:

They have to listen! It's the law! (in some countries >.>)

Yeah, if they were in the UK, they'd give a damn. But, since they're not, and since most of the world isn't...
That's why we get all this tag soup on the internets. Feel free to try again with 'em, and know that I understand your pain, but also know that the likelyhood of this stuff being implemented is unbearably low. ;-(
 

robomilk

fruit bat at large
lolcox said:
robomilk said:
lolcox said:
I gave up on preaching semantics to 'em a long time ago.
Did it in IRC, did it back in the first iteration of FA.

More effective to say it to a brick wall. :eek:

They have to listen! It's the law! (in some countries >.>)

Yeah, if they were in the UK, they'd give a damn. But, since they're not, and since most of the world isn't...
That's why we get all this tag soup on the internets. Feel free to try again with 'em, and know that I understand your pain, but also know that the likelyhood of this stuff being implemented is unbearably low. ;-(

Hell, I'll do the work if they want to. After schoolwork, housework, website commissions, my fanzine, art and spare time, I ain't got much else to do.
 
Top