New Forum look, one thing...

[Stefan Fredriksson]

There probably is a topic for just this somewhere around, but I did not find it.

Before the remake of the forum - when I had visited a thread, it was marked in a different color than the others. That fine feature now seems to be gone.

If possible, I would like it back. It is nice to quickly and easily pick out the threads you want to follow.

[Kwazydog]

Hi Stefan,

Yes, I noticed that problem myself and it has been passed onto Matt. Im sure he will look into it as soon as time permits

Dan

[-E]

[Correct me if I'm wrong, but...] As I understand it (?) the new UBB version generates the html code on the fly for each reader, making each page, and it's not-yet generated links, "new" to the reader's browser each time the reader loads the main pages. The color of the already-linked is a function of your browser, but if all the links are _going_ to be brand new _after_ you click on them each time, it probably confuses everybody's browser. (i.e. you may've read a thread before, but it's going to be completely "new" if you try to read it again).

[-E]

But then again, it may be something as simple as finding where infopoop put the "Visited Link Color" in the style settings for the new control panel. ( Matt)

[Madmatt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by -E:

But then again, it may be something as simple as finding where infopoop put the "Visited Link Color" in the style settings for the new control panel. ( Matt)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, its a widely reported problem (from other sites that have upgraded) that we (and infopop) are working on it.

Madmatt

[Mattias]

It works! Great job Mad!

Subtle, but its there

M.

[Madmatt]

Well, it turned out to be just about as easy as what was said above after all although the colors I was specifying for visted links weren't being remembered at first. Resubmitted the colors and now you get white for a new link and this ugly piss yellow for a visted link. Yeah, I will see about using a better color when I get some more time.

As for the lightbulbs, I am not sure about those yet....

Madmatt

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Now it works again. Thanks.

And I like the colors. Looks better than before.

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson:

And I like the colors. Looks better than before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, colors do look much better now. Though one complaint I have is with the date color. When it's displayed on the green background, it almost fluoresces, making it difficult (even somewhat painful) to read. Could we go back to the deep burgundy color (#800000) instead? Thanks.

- Chris

[Michael Emrys]

My presently outstanding gripe is the unconscionably long time it takes for a page to load, especially when you are waiting to write a post (as I am doing now). :mad: We don't all have cable modems, you know.

Also, I notice that the Instant Graemlins always appear at the very end of a post no matter where the current position of the insertion point is. Not a game breaker as I can always type one in using the old method, but definitely odd.

Michael

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Pvt. Ryan]

It takes a long time even with a cable modem. FWIW, I find IE processes the forum more quickly than Netscape.

[Michael Emrys]

That's good. I'm using IE. Well, if you are having slow loadings even with cable, I guess it might be BTS' server, eh? If so, it's not the first time I've suspected them of substandard service.

Michael

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Re: Slow loading.

I must agree with Michael about the slow-loading times. At home I almost never access the forum due to the slow response-times (I have a 64k ISDN connection).

I simply do it from another place (no, of course not work... ehhh ).

But this was the case even before the new layout.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stefan Fredriksson:

Re: Slow loading.

I must agree with Michael about the slow-loading times.

But this was the case even before the new layout.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. It began when they adopted the Infopoop BBS format a couple or so years ago. But since the recent changeover it's gotten waaaay sloooooower. At least for me. And it does it under more circumstances. Sigh. There probably isn't a perfect answer (as usual) but one wishes that something a little better would come along.

Michael

[GriffinCheng+]

Warning: This is off-topic!

You may also notice that there is not longer a vertical line seperating the threads and the poster info. I think I can shed some lights on this issue.

When I am ripping Russel's FAQ, I find that each posting is now a table by itself more than just a row in the page table.

To be long winded: all the postings on a thread page are made up of actually 2 tables. The first table presents the topics bar and postings are in the "inner" table. In the old UBB, each posting is a row where the name is on left column and the message is on the right column. It is similar to the message format when you post a new reply (just like what I see right now). But in this new UBB, each post is containted in a row, but each row contains a third level table which holds the poster and the message. So if this inner-most table does not have border, you cannot see the vertical line seperating the poster name and the message any more.

An analogy: the thread page html structure is like a big box containing a smaller box with horizontal racks. The old version of the smaller box contains a central vertical wall in the middle of racks so you can put the name on the left column and the contents on the right. But now the new box does not have a central wall but rather, a even smaller boxes are put into the racks and these small boxes have two slots : one for the name and the other for the message.

Hope you get it.

Sorry for any typo and poor English.

Griffin.