taiga forum

2013-07-12 05:09:25 pm

Quote from Cool Matty:

Again, you're saying "can" when I'm saying "it'll look like crap".

That's where I disagree. Well, partly anyway, depending on what you mean. I disagree on that desktop sites on a 10 inch tablets looks like garbage, because it does not. If you lower the size (eg 7 inch), then yes, it will look too small.

Anyway, meh, I don't think we have so different viewports. We might just slightly disagree on some small details.
I will agree that a phone app/webpage for a tablet MIGHT look out of place (it certainly does on 10 inch), a desktop site MIGHT look out of place on tablet, but then again, maybe not. A 10 inch screen is enough for more desktop sites because they just aren't designed to take advantage of the full width of computer monitors these days.
I will concur that there should be at least 3 different categories with approximate sizes as:
7 inch-
7 inch - 15 inch
15 inch+
Of course, the more categories, the better experience, but then again, that makes for more work.

[quote="Cool Matty"]
Again, you're saying "can" when I'm saying "it'll look like crap".
[/quote]
That's where I disagree. Well, partly anyway, depending on what you mean. I disagree on that desktop sites on a 10 inch tablets looks like garbage, because it does not. If you lower the size (eg 7 inch), then yes, it will look too small.

Anyway, meh, I don't think we have so different viewports. We might just slightly disagree on some small details.
I will agree that a phone app/webpage for a tablet MIGHT look out of place (it certainly does on 10 inch), a desktop site MIGHT look out of place on tablet, but then again, maybe not. A 10 inch screen is enough for more desktop sites because they just aren't designed to take advantage of the full width of computer monitors these days.
I will concur that there should be at least 3 different categories with approximate sizes as:
7 inch-
7 inch - 15 inch
15 inch+
Of course, the more categories, the better experience, but then again, that makes for more work.

Cool Matty

2013-07-15 10:11:12 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Again you're using inches where you should be talking pixels. Web designers have no idea how big your monitor/tablet/whatever is. Moving on...

Quote from Mystery:

A 10 inch screen is enough for more desktop sites because they just aren't designed to take advantage of the full width of computer monitors these days.

And that is why you make a different version of the site for larger desktop screen resolutions (greater than 1280px or so). The only reason those desktop sites work on tablets is because designers use the least common denominator for site width (~960px). If you design a desktop site to more appropriately fit a larger resolution (1920px and greater especially), it's going to be hilariously tiny on a tablet. Tablets will even attempt to reflow the website to fix it, often to horrible results.

I'm glad you finally accepted the premise behind more categories, but the entire basis you think you don't need a tablet-sized layout is because designers have been too lazy to make their sites look good without wasting 66% of their monitor.

Again you're using inches where you should be talking pixels. Web designers have no idea how big your monitor/tablet/whatever is. Moving on...

[quote="Mystery"]
 A 10 inch screen is enough for more desktop sites because they just aren't designed to take advantage of the full width of computer monitors these days.
[/quote]

And that is why you make a different version of the site for larger desktop screen resolutions (greater than 1280px or so). The only reason those desktop sites work on tablets is because designers use the least common denominator for site width (~960px). If you design a desktop site to more appropriately fit a larger resolution (1920px and greater especially), it's going to be hilariously tiny on a tablet. Tablets will even attempt to reflow the website to fix it, often to horrible results.

I'm glad you finally accepted the premise behind more categories, but the entire basis you think you don't need a tablet-sized layout is because designers have been too lazy to make their sites look good without wasting 66% of their monitor.

Mystery

2013-07-16 07:18:40 am

Sure. It's just unfortunate that really few web pages take advantage of the extra width to put in some more rich content. Until they really take advantage of it, we probably won't need a "tablet" layout.
But keep in mind that the extra "width" is often filled with garbage, such as ads, or less-relevant things such as news, comments, related things, etc. Often this can be ignored and one can just zoom in on the actual content of the page, making it still look good on tablets even if the site when zoomed out looks really tiny.
But yes, as you say, if designers really take advantage of the all that extra space... then a tablet layout is going to be needed.
It's such a shame there's no way to tell the actual screen WIDTH from a web page...

Warepire

2013-08-29 03:55:08 am

Heavy Metal Powered

I hope this is the right section for this. If not, I am sorry and please put this in the right section.

Since 2 days ago I have been getting a lot of these Warning boxes in FireFox when browsing the forum and closing a tab. The tab doesn't close for 20 or so seconds, then that box comes up.
The actual line seems to vary every single time the box comes up, but as far as I can tell it's always that script.
As the tab is trying to close, I also see a little loading indicator circling the arrow that opens/closes the online users column.

Running Windows XP x64 Professional SP2 (Custom skin, hence the unusual looking box design and color), FireFox 23.0.1, the problem did not show up in connection to a browser update.

Attachment:

sdajserror.PNG

Alko

2013-08-29 07:28:52 am

Caution: This user contains Kana ^_^

I'm browsing these forums on WinXP (Home x64, SP3) FF 23.0.1 and Win7 (dunno exactly, I assume 64 bit, though) FF 22.0, and with neither have I gotten that kind of error message or latency. Then again I don't use tabs, I open new windows whereever others open tabs …

nate

2013-08-29 08:27:06 am

yeah, i changed tf so that you actually say "i'm leaving" when you leave the last page of a thread. that way you don't miss any messages that happen to be posted before the automatic 5 minute timeout that forces you to leave. unfortunately i just realized that if you open more than a certain number of tabs (i think it's something like 5 in most browsers), after that you won't be able to close a last page tab because your browser already has the max number of connections to forum.speeddemosarchive.com and it just sits there waiting for a new connection. i can probably "solve" this by putting in a ~2 second timeout for the leaving connection. i doubt you will actually leave then but the browser just sitting there is not acceptable, so it's the lesser of two evils. hope to have time to do this and also fix a different bug this weekend.

btw if you want to increase the connections limit, you should google it for your browser. in firefox it's about:config and then network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server. i use 24.

yeah, i changed tf so that you actually say "i'm leaving" when you leave the last page of a thread. that way you don't miss any messages that happen to be posted before the automatic 5 minute timeout that forces you to leave. unfortunately i just realized that if you open more than a certain number of tabs (i think it's something like 5 in most browsers), after that you won't be able to close a last page tab because your browser already has the max number of connections to forum.speeddemosarchive.com and it just sits there waiting for a new connection. i can probably "solve" this by putting in a ~2 second timeout for the leaving connection. i doubt you will actually leave then but the browser just sitting there is not acceptable, so it's the lesser of two evils. hope to have time to do this and also fix a different bug this weekend.

btw if you want to increase the connections limit, you should google it for your browser. in firefox it's about:config and then network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server. i use 24.

Warepire

2013-08-29 09:49:09 am

Heavy Metal Powered

It's not irritating me too much since I often browse 5 or 6 websites simultaneously, I just felt that I should point it out in case there was a bug, so for my sake it is not required to be fixed quickly.

I updated the connections limit to 24, maybe it will help a little until this is solved. Thanks.

ais523

2013-08-29 07:00:22 pm

Probably related: my browser gets quite unresponsive when I have many SDA forum tabs open, and sometimes takes something like a minute to close a tab. This is quite annoying because I frequently open an SDA forum tab for each unread thread I'm interested in, and because the when the browser locks up I can't do anything in other tabs either (Firefox 23.0 for Linux, x86).

nate

2013-08-29 10:37:32 pm

if by "other tabs" you mean taiga forum tabs then raising the connection limit should totally solve it. if you mean general system performance then you should try using a faster browser/better computer. the webkit browsers such as chrome seem the fastest to me right now. but personally i can't get off of firefox due to things like rikaichan and tf's open in tabs, even if it is noticeably slower.

Alko

2013-08-30 06:36:41 am

Caution: This user contains Kana ^_^

This is a mystery to me … when there are new posts in the 'SDA Exposures/Mentions' thread and I click on the green circle on the unread topics page (first unread post), I get a page looking like the first attached image file. If I open the thread by clicking the link, and then go to the last page, it looks like the second attached file. I'm sure Nate knows what when wrong here?

Attachments:

LastPost.png

TopicItself.png

TheMG2

2013-08-30 07:01:48 am

...So it ISN'T just me.

nate

2013-08-30 08:34:16 am

seems that a deleted post remained marked unread. thanks for reporting.

kwinse

2013-08-30 04:53:05 pm

The old bug where a forum would display new posts even after reading everything isn't completely dead- I still get it on the Verification Forum. Or it's a new bug with similar behavior. I'd guess it has to do with the Public Verification subforum.

Also when I go to close tabs sometimes the scripts spin their wheels until Firefox 23.0.1 pops up the script not responding dialog, where I can kill it and the tab finally closes. I cleared my cache in case it's on my end though, so we'll see if it pops up after some more unread threads build up.

Fake edit: Forgot to post this, and a couple threads that popped up in the meantime did take longer to close but they didn't time out.

nate

2013-08-31 07:27:05 pm

i worked on the last-page-tab-locked-open-on-close thing quite a bit today. i tried two different approaches still inside the onbeforeunload handler. with the first one i changed the part ajax request to asynchronous and then spun the cpu for two seconds. unfortunately spinning the cpu prevents the ajax request from beginning (at least in firefox). then i tried setting the timeout parameter of the ajax object. unfortunately this is forbidden by the standard when using a synchronous request. some browsers don't throw an error when you try to set the timeout but it doesn't work nonetheless.

i'll keep thinking about it. in the meantime if you're seeing this just increase the max connections per domain setting in your browser if you can.

go to about:config and then increase network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server. i use 24 since i can't imagine having more than 24 tabs open at a time.

Quote from kwinse:

The old bug where a forum would display new posts even after reading everything isn't completely dead- I still get it on the Verification Forum. Or it's a new bug with similar behavior. I'd guess it has to do with the Public Verification subforum.

so it's turning green when there are new posts in the public verification board? if so then that's intended behavior. otherwise you couldn't tell at a glance whether there are new posts in any subboards.

i worked on the last-page-tab-locked-open-on-close thing quite a bit today. i tried two different approaches still inside the onbeforeunload handler. with the first one i changed the part ajax request to asynchronous and then spun the cpu for two seconds. unfortunately spinning the cpu prevents the ajax request from beginning (at least in firefox). then i tried setting the timeout parameter of the ajax object. unfortunately this is forbidden by the standard when using a synchronous request. some browsers don't throw an error when you try to set the timeout but it doesn't work nonetheless.

i'll keep thinking about it. in the meantime if you're seeing this just increase the max connections per domain setting in your browser if you can. [hidden="instructions for firefox"]go to [b]about:config[/b] and then increase [b]network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server[/b]. i use 24 since i can't imagine having more than 24 tabs open at a time.[/hidden]

[quote="kwinse"]The old bug where a forum would display new posts even after reading everything isn't completely dead- I still get it on the Verification Forum. Or it's a new bug with similar behavior. I'd guess it has to do with the Public Verification subforum.[/quote]
so it's turning green when there are new posts in the public verification board? if so then that's intended behavior. otherwise you couldn't tell at a glance whether there are new posts in any subboards.

kwinse

2013-09-01 12:33:45 am

No I mean, sometimes it's green even with 0 unread posts. Here, managed to grab a screenshot: link. Refresh doesn't fix it, but going into one or both of the boards does or marking all as read does.

I tried changing the setting, we'll see how that works.

Alko

2013-10-01 09:49:15 am

Caution: This user contains Kana ^_^

I'm confused. <insert adjective here>* when a first post of a thread gets edited, it turns up on the unread threads page, with all posts of said thread listed as unread (example being the speedrun request thread, which has some 2080 unread post iirc whenever the first is updated). I like that behaviour, because that way I see modified first posts.
Now I just realised yesterday, that the first post of the Crystals for Life 2014 marathon thread had been updated numerous times within the last few weeks, but never have I seen the whole thread marked as unread (I would have remembered). How come that one didn't show up, while other ones do?

*I was going to write 'usually', 'normally' or something similar, when it occurred to me that I can't say that, because I have no damn clue how many topics do not show themselves all unread. I can only catch those which do mark themselves, so they seem to be in the majority. I only noticed C4L by chance.

nate

2013-10-03 09:57:51 pm

do you have the thread and/or board on ignore, is there another unread post in the thread, or were you listed as currently viewing the thread?

Alko

2013-10-04 05:04:58 am

Caution: This user contains Kana ^_^

Definitely not ignore. I don't know my on- and offline times well enough to check whether I could have been marked as viewing. There is a high probability of other posts marked as 'unread', though. I just found out, that the SpeedDeathsArchive thread behaves the same way.
Does that mean, if a new post is added to the thread (thus marked unread) and later on the opening post gets edited, that only the new posts at the end get marked on the unread page?

nate

2013-10-04 08:15:59 am

that's right. unread is "first unread", not "latest unread".