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

The New Userpage Gallery

Project Dark Fox

The Sin of Wrath
If a person has different-sized images for their gallery and their favorites (chances are very high that they will be), the rows of tiny thumbnails looks like shit. I've more enjoyed the style of thumbnails used in SheezyArt or at the very least go back to what you had. How did it go, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
 

Narffet

How can this be.
I love the new style. Other features I'd like to see would maybe be a way to ad more Featured submissions in such thumbnail format.

Also, my friend Gichigami said something really cool, like Featured Favorites, for more networking and promotion.

Overall, fresh overhaul. I do like it.
 

CyberFoxx

Wait, what?
*Cough* I honestly didn't notice the layout change till I read people complaining about it. Then again, I don't view people's userpages for long anyway, just 1) Click on link to userpage 2) Click on gallery.
 

EphyuSikay

New Member
I'm also seeing posts about how FA is totally not badly coded, and all problems are currently server lag.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.furaffinity.net%2Fuser%2Fdragoneer%2F&charset=utf-8&doctype=XHTML+1.0+Transitional&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.606

'Kay.

Hell, even when you drop it from XHTML Transitional to HTML 4 Transitional you get:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...tional&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator/1.606

Keep in mind "Transitional" is the designation for "loose" HTML specifications. If they're trying to go for the "future" they need to get on the ball with getting everything to pass XHTML Strict.

Edit: Not sure if anyone's following, but this is just checking the quality of the HTML on the pages. If this is what's making it to the browser as HTML, imagine the server-side programming, and the Java and Flash.
 
Last edited:

capthavoc123

Master of Disaster
So......Will we get an explanation of why the change was made?

I mean, we should have gotten one at the time (or ideally before) the change was made, but I'd still like to have the explanation.
 

Quiet269

Member
I'm not a fan...

Mainly because the images load slower, it removes information I like to see, it slows down the whole site, and it doesn't really seem to add anything...
 

V_D_O

Thoroughly W.I.P.
Now that I've actually seen how it works, I'm comfortable enough with the change. If given a choice I would still use the old format, but this is mostly usable.
 

Hendikins

New Member
I'm really not a fan of this. Whilst I don't expect it will be revoked (or even made optional), some alternate text would be nice.
 

Dragon-Commando

Razor, a living wrecking ball!
If you have problems with load times, you need to do something about all the extra crap running on your computer. And thats twards no one in particular, it just seems to be a trend with people.

I keep my computer very clean and keep a very low system overhead, even DA loads in less than a second on my PC, even my laptop (an old Sempron) loads DA in about one to two seconds. I can't understand how anyone can have it load slowly.

Then again, I see alot of screenshots of people with desktops that have a million apps running at once, and then they wonder why flash, java or other scripted pages load so slow.

If you would keep your computer clean and optimized you wouldent have a problem, even closing one or two apps can make a big difference. And don't give me that bull about it taking long to restart it. If you didn't have so many apps running at once stuff would load faster.

I have a total of 24 processes running on my laptop at any time, and this is fresh from bootup, I don't have to close anything. If I can do it anyone can. People seem to packrat these things and have some kind of obsession with multi-tasking.

Now as far as the new design goes, I used to do web design. but the last time I did anything with a web page was around five or six years ago. Anyway, my opinnion on the new design is that they just have to tile the thumbnails, thats all. If the thumbnails where say five rows wide and two rows down, that would be perfect, it would keep the pages short and clean.
 
Last edited:

taklayyankovic

Tay for short
Others have said this already, but I hate it, too. Assuming the majority of folks here are on broadband while they are complaining about the speed, I'm on dial-up, so the site barely loads at all. (I also do not hoard programs, especially those that communicate through the Internet, for speed reasons, so I know it's not that.) I much preferred the previous design; I didn't see anything wrong with it.
 
Last edited:

capthavoc123

Master of Disaster
Dragon-Commando said:
Lots of stuff about system processes.

Hate to break it to you fella, but what is running on your computer has next to nothing to do with how fast a web page loads. I was running 64 processes on my computer when FA was in the old format, and it was loading in about two seconds. If it had anything to do with the amount of stuff running on my computer, that would not be the case.
 
Last edited:

Hendikins

New Member
Hate to break it to you fella, but what is running on your computer has next to nothing to do with how fast a web page loads.

Yes, no, maybe. CPU/RAM can be a bottleneck for script/image/content heavy pages. In fact, with the ready availability of broadband for many users, they can be the main bottleneck.

That being said, the performance is leaving something to be desired on this machine (dual Opteron 2378, 16 gig of RAM and a 30 megabit cable connection), so I'd hate to think how it performs for people with slow connections or PCs.
 

Eidy

New Member
It looks nice, but it seems to load slower. I prefer the timestamps, it lets me know how often someone posts, if at all, and lets me know how much a fave-whore they are. I also like to go directly to an artists page if I see something I really like. If their was a way to add those elements back in I might be swayed, but remember the rules of K.I.S.S. Simplicity, and function or fashion, please!
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Staff member
Site Director
That being said, the performance is leaving something to be desired on this machine (dual Opteron 2378, 16 gig of RAM and a 30 megabit cable connection), so I'd hate to think how it performs for people with slow connections or PCs.
The performance right now has nothing to do with your PC. At all. It is all server side.

The system has to re-cache and re-size over a million image thumbnails.
 

Devious Bane

No faith for this site
Banned
Considering that my computer is literally falling apart, I don't like it. For starters, I think it takes a bit more out of the computer to run the scripts(and FF already has a good footprint).
Definitely better, for the last one occasionally stuck to my cursor and basically blockaded my view until I hit F5 or switch pages(Yes, I'm serious).

I like it, but I'd prefer an option to turn it on or off. Because not all computers are in good health, mine included. With prior use of similar looking script, this is why I normally have Task Manager opened 24/7 to nuke FF.
 

Dragon-Commando

Razor, a living wrecking ball!
Hate to break it to you fella, but what is running on your computer has next to nothing to do with how fast a web page loads. I was running 64 processes on my computer when FA was in the old format, and it was loading in about two seconds. If it had anything to do with the amount of stuff running on my computer, that would not be the case.


You fail to realize that the new system runs on scripts, the old system didn't need nearly as much client side processing time as the new one does. That is why the new one is slower, it has everything to do with how much crap is running on your computer.

Even multi-threaded processors have to put stuff in queue, and the more stuff you have running the longer that queue gets.

To put that into perspective, say the old one had 3 individual tasks to complete before the page could be displayed, those would be put into the queue in three seperate locations, as the processor cycles it will get to those and complete them, but if it has alot of stuff to do it will have to take more time between each of them to do other stuff. Now if the new page with all of its client side scripts gets loaded, that may have say, 20 things to do before the page gets loaded, and now you should see where that adds up. Its got to do all 20 of those and run everything else all at the same time, not to mention it might have to disk swap to keep everything in memory.

Before the change my laptop would load a user page in much less than a second, now it takes about a second to load. I still have 24 processes running, but the scripts do take alot more power to load than the original system. However, even on a single threaded and admitantly underpowerd CPU I can still load the pages without a problem, where as my friends dual core PC with a 50+ processes running struggled to load the pages before, and I can't imagine now. And this is running from MY internet.
 
Last edited:

BigPuppy_Stuart

The Husky Wusky
The Longer Load time and ungainly layout have left me somewhat Displeased. I also find the removal of the timestamps irksome.
overall It was a nice idea to try but the implementation is poor.
 

Timmy_Ramone

New Member
Don't like it. The thumbnails are so small as to be useless as a preview medium. And, yes, userpages now load slower. A definite minus.

Now, if the image title and timestamp were included along with the thumbnail, that might make it more useful.
 

thebeast76

Just a friendly robot
I'm going to be brutally honest here.

I think it sucks. Hard. It makes the pages load a hell of a lot slower. It looks awful. And I really liked being able to tell at a glance when the submissions were uploaded.

I feel the same way. It was fine the way it was. All that needed to be done was maybe change the way images were displayed when your mouse went over it is all.
TL;DR I LIKED THE OLD VERSION, IT JUST NEEDED TWEAKING
 

Nishi

Member
Ooooh yeah! I forgot about that. :) That why it's so slow? ;P

I think it's pretty... but I did like having a good idea of how often people submit their stuff. And you could always hover for previews too... the previews we get are a little too small to really notice anything anyways. :B
But there's no other way to see how often people post, aside from clicking on each picture. It was kinda neat. :)
 

Blair_McKain

Chubby Red-Headed Mutt
K, just throwing in my two bits about this whole thing. I don't like it one bit. The previous system that we had before worked just fine, with the time stamps, the mouse-over much bigger preview, and not causing any more server strain of having to re-cache everything. As a very old and wise saying goes "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." I'm all in favor of returning to the previous format as it also did look much nicer and more streamlined.
 

Swampwulf

Verbose Senior Bitch
Yay!
Something to eat more bandwidth. ( I assume that loading those 'midsized' thumbnails is going to eat a good sized chunk )

and absolutely *nothing* for the site users that aren't graphical artists.
No love for the writers.
We're still stuck with tiny little images to act as 'book covers' and nothing other than .rtf will display on the site itself.

Lets balance things out a bit. Writers have to use really basic formatting?
Have every piece of graphical art uploaded dithered down to 16 colors.

Not especially impressed with the new look.
It's not especially 'shinee' and really pooches a lot of functionality.

Sorry, hate to be all negative but, well... I'm not real impressed.

Red
 
Top