I set out the new rendition of the new story index. I realize the index isn't quite right in as much as you can't pick out a date range and we want to add more features. It is currently set to the past 7 days.
Does this new rendition look ok? I would suggest putting your mouse over a story title to see, at least part, of the story synopsis.
Hard at work,
tal
New Story Page
-
colin (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2001 2:27 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: New Story Page
Tal,
I have tried it a couple of times with no problems whatsoever.
Well done (preferably with a little bit of garlic).
LOL
I have tried it a couple of times with no problems whatsoever.
Well done (preferably with a little bit of garlic).
LOL
-
Tomas (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 7:14 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: New Story Page
The new 'New Story Page' looks nice and works as it is designed to.
Reinstating the ability to spec other than a fixed 7 day view is a necessity since some folks don't wander in often enough for that to be useful (personally I need at least a 30 day look...).
Note also that the text displayed while 'hovering' over a story title does not necessarily 'wrap' in all browsers, so longer synopsis may extend off both sides of the screen... The possibility of newlines in longer ones might be considered. (I do not know if this is practical since there is no way for you to tell the 'max length' that would make sense for a line. Some users run rather narrow browser windows and users vary quite a lot on the size and style of text they use for display, and this is not something you could, or even should, override - users have reasons for their choices.)
The stories themselves can be selected for tabbed viewing (thank goodness) but, as on the main page, the dropdown menu selections cannot. This may slightly annoy some users.
(Tabbed browsing not only saves a lot of page download time for those on dialup, and re-draw time for everyone, but also can greatly reduce the bandwith requirements for a specific page since it need only be hit once rather than repeatedly hit by the browser as the user cycles back to, for example, an index.)
Overall a nice spring cleaning and the new furnishings look quite nice!
Take care,
Tom
Reinstating the ability to spec other than a fixed 7 day view is a necessity since some folks don't wander in often enough for that to be useful (personally I need at least a 30 day look...).
Note also that the text displayed while 'hovering' over a story title does not necessarily 'wrap' in all browsers, so longer synopsis may extend off both sides of the screen... The possibility of newlines in longer ones might be considered. (I do not know if this is practical since there is no way for you to tell the 'max length' that would make sense for a line. Some users run rather narrow browser windows and users vary quite a lot on the size and style of text they use for display, and this is not something you could, or even should, override - users have reasons for their choices.)
The stories themselves can be selected for tabbed viewing (thank goodness) but, as on the main page, the dropdown menu selections cannot. This may slightly annoy some users.
(Tabbed browsing not only saves a lot of page download time for those on dialup, and re-draw time for everyone, but also can greatly reduce the bandwith requirements for a specific page since it need only be hit once rather than repeatedly hit by the browser as the user cycles back to, for example, an index.)Overall a nice spring cleaning and the new furnishings look quite nice!
Take care,
Tom
Re: New Story Page
Thank you for your kind words Thomas,
I am still looking into some way of creating navigation that would work with tabbed browsers and fit into the new theme of the Archive, but have not found anything suitable yet.
Unfortunately the problem is having too many links which necessitates a large navigation display in order to give all the choices (which takes up a good chunk of space). Thus the change to the DHTML menu and thus you can't right click and add a new window.
If you have any suggestions, thoughts, ideas, please let me know.
Yes, I was a bit worried about the way the synopsis might look to some folks. I am not a "one size fits all" person and would love to render a page based on the users screen size, font preferences, etc. What looks good at 800X600, looks stupid at 1024X786, is unreadable at 600X400 (not to mention what the Mac and Amiga users see).
It would really be nice if there were a way for the server-side to know what settings the user has and then be able to render a perfect page to that user every time. Maybe in the future.
tal
p.s. to all aspiring web programmers out there, welcome to the world of confusion and compromise
I am still looking into some way of creating navigation that would work with tabbed browsers and fit into the new theme of the Archive, but have not found anything suitable yet.
Unfortunately the problem is having too many links which necessitates a large navigation display in order to give all the choices (which takes up a good chunk of space). Thus the change to the DHTML menu and thus you can't right click and add a new window.
If you have any suggestions, thoughts, ideas, please let me know.
Yes, I was a bit worried about the way the synopsis might look to some folks. I am not a "one size fits all" person and would love to render a page based on the users screen size, font preferences, etc. What looks good at 800X600, looks stupid at 1024X786, is unreadable at 600X400 (not to mention what the Mac and Amiga users see).
It would really be nice if there were a way for the server-side to know what settings the user has and then be able to render a perfect page to that user every time. Maybe in the future.
tal
p.s. to all aspiring web programmers out there, welcome to the world of confusion and compromise
Re: New Story Page
Talula,
Since we are now recognizing users based on their vBulletin login, at some point would it be possible to install in the menuing system a flag that would cause the menu code to be rendered in such a way that it (a) operates normally (the default) or (b) Opens the links on a new window (or tab on a tab enabled broswer)?
vBulletin will let us add custom profile fields that could be used to track the user's preference.
Since we are now recognizing users based on their vBulletin login, at some point would it be possible to install in the menuing system a flag that would cause the menu code to be rendered in such a way that it (a) operates normally (the default) or (b) Opens the links on a new window (or tab on a tab enabled broswer)?
vBulletin will let us add custom profile fields that could be used to track the user's preference.
-
An Onymus (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:48 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: New Story Page
Talula--
Since Vbulletin logs in a user, every time he accesses the site, why couldn't you just set things up, so that a user could enter his browser name and version somewhere, and then the software could channel the optimum version of the site to his browser at any time he logged in? Or maybe identifying the browser and version, isn't where the difficulty is.
My own website is pretty simplistic, and I don't bother with trying to accommodate everybody.
Since Vbulletin logs in a user, every time he accesses the site, why couldn't you just set things up, so that a user could enter his browser name and version somewhere, and then the software could channel the optimum version of the site to his browser at any time he logged in? Or maybe identifying the browser and version, isn't where the difficulty is.
My own website is pretty simplistic, and I don't bother with trying to accommodate everybody.
-
Tomas (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 7:14 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: New Story Page
(Let me first apologize for this being so long. It is a much more complex question than even hinted at in this post. Talula, keep doing what you are doing, it works fine. If something seriously breaks you KNOW we will let you know. 
)
Well, I'm not a page designer here at the EA, but let me add a bit of info from my view over here on the sidelines...
Many pages DO send "special versions" of their content to users depending on their browser and operating system. This can be good or bad, and can radically change what a user sees. (All current browsers identify themselves to the server if asked.)
One of the sites I use, for example, belongs to my power utility - I do not get bills in the mail, I instead am offered PDF versions of them on-line, and pay on-line. This works great for me.
In November of last year the utility switched to a new type of software, and the folks from the manufacturer of that software spent a lot of time (and money - the changeover has cost so far about $50 million...) working with the utility's folks setting things up and smoothing things out.
When they released it to the public one of the little 'things' the software maker had left in place in front of everything else was a browser "User-Agent" check.
It was looking specifically for MSIE 5.5+ and if you were not using MSIE 5.5 or newer you were totally blocked from entering the site (all you got was a warning page saying your browser needed to be updated and providing a link to the MS download page for the MS Windows version of MSIE). This was of little help to any Mac, Linux, or other non-MS Windows/non-MSIE user.
A few calls to the head of the utility's IT department, their webmaster, their customer service department head, and the mayor's office (the utility is owned by the city) got that changed within three days of it going live. The site no longer validated browsers and those of us not using MS Windows Internet Explorer 5.5 or newer could get to the site. (Aside: Microsoft has discontinued supporting MSIE on all Apple platforms - the last version was 5.2)
Everything worked great until April when the software company's people again descended on the site to "upgrade" some of it's features, including putting in a much more "sophisticated" browser validation that would return customized web pages depending on the browser and operating system being used.
Yeah, right.
When their new sophisticated validator saw my browser (properly identifying itself as a Mozilla/Gecko based browser called Camino, and my system as Mac OS X) it immediately took me to a page with links to download the MS Windows version of MSIE or Netscape. *sigh*
I then hit the URL using the Apple Safari browser and amazingly got a core dump from their server. (Their server puked on the floor.)
To make an already long story short as possible, over two month's hassle later they have much of the problem cleared up, including the over 104,000 core dumps they got from every time some specific browsers hit their server. (This should never happen. In a properly designed system there should be nothing an end user can do to dump the system.)
During the time their server was being battered into rubble, I was able to get in, view my bill, pay my bill, check my usage, etc. by telling Safari to identify itself as the MS Windows version of MSIE...
This proved several things, but most importantly, to me, that there was nothing wrong with my browser so long as it was not being "treated in a special manner." Making NO changes to my browser, other than the name it told the server, it handled the non-customized pages just fine.
There is a lot of this sort of stuff on-line. If you use MSIE on a Windows box, don't worry about it, you'll never see it (but watch out for gremlins, viruses, worms, and trojans).
There are others, though, who do not pay Bill Gates to be allowed to use the 'Web.
Some of them are even disabled users who use special browsers that 'read the pages' to them. Those were all blocked by this "upgrade" of the utility's systems...
The city politicians were able to recognize that a city owned public utility not following the federal ADA and 'Section 508' rules, could be in a VERY bad position - once they were suitably informed by constituants after little had been done to correct the disaster for most of April 2004.
That's one example of customizing pages for different browsers. I can personally vouch for it's accuracy from being in the middle of it.
Here's another, older one, even better researched and recorded. In it, one well known software company does what it does best to another: Howcome, April 2003. (http://deb.opera.com/howcome/2003/2/msn/)
There are many more stories, including some web page design software *cough*FrontPage*cough* that used to twist some things just right to purposely make them display incorrectly in browsers not made by the same company. (It's brother browser had little tweeks to handle those errors.)
Putting out specialized pages dependant on browser type is a losing battle: There are too many variations of operating system, browser, options, preferences, hacks, and vintages of all those, for it to be sensible.
It is MUCH simpler to just design pages that meet the W3C standards, and let the browsers sort it out by also meeting those same standards. Trying to put out special little tweeks for each of 40 or so OS/Browser combinations is insanity.
All I ask, for example, is that a page meets standards and anything my browser does that is strange is my browser's fault.
Another quick aside: My mum uses a Mac I got her, and uses the latest Safari browser from Apple Computer - it comes with OS X and is pretty good. Even her invocation of Safari and mine are quite different, though: Hers displays in 16 point type as it's default and mine in 12. My eyesight is a little better. (I believe the factory default is 10...)
Trying to account for the myriad differences in individual systems is just not possible. Designing to standards and the default settings of typical client software is all that can be done and remain sane.
Take care,
Tom
)Well, I'm not a page designer here at the EA, but let me add a bit of info from my view over here on the sidelines...
Many pages DO send "special versions" of their content to users depending on their browser and operating system. This can be good or bad, and can radically change what a user sees. (All current browsers identify themselves to the server if asked.)
One of the sites I use, for example, belongs to my power utility - I do not get bills in the mail, I instead am offered PDF versions of them on-line, and pay on-line. This works great for me.
In November of last year the utility switched to a new type of software, and the folks from the manufacturer of that software spent a lot of time (and money - the changeover has cost so far about $50 million...) working with the utility's folks setting things up and smoothing things out.
When they released it to the public one of the little 'things' the software maker had left in place in front of everything else was a browser "User-Agent" check.
It was looking specifically for MSIE 5.5+ and if you were not using MSIE 5.5 or newer you were totally blocked from entering the site (all you got was a warning page saying your browser needed to be updated and providing a link to the MS download page for the MS Windows version of MSIE). This was of little help to any Mac, Linux, or other non-MS Windows/non-MSIE user.
A few calls to the head of the utility's IT department, their webmaster, their customer service department head, and the mayor's office (the utility is owned by the city) got that changed within three days of it going live. The site no longer validated browsers and those of us not using MS Windows Internet Explorer 5.5 or newer could get to the site. (Aside: Microsoft has discontinued supporting MSIE on all Apple platforms - the last version was 5.2)
Everything worked great until April when the software company's people again descended on the site to "upgrade" some of it's features, including putting in a much more "sophisticated" browser validation that would return customized web pages depending on the browser and operating system being used.
Yeah, right.
When their new sophisticated validator saw my browser (properly identifying itself as a Mozilla/Gecko based browser called Camino, and my system as Mac OS X) it immediately took me to a page with links to download the MS Windows version of MSIE or Netscape. *sigh*
I then hit the URL using the Apple Safari browser and amazingly got a core dump from their server. (Their server puked on the floor.)
To make an already long story short as possible, over two month's hassle later they have much of the problem cleared up, including the over 104,000 core dumps they got from every time some specific browsers hit their server. (This should never happen. In a properly designed system there should be nothing an end user can do to dump the system.)
During the time their server was being battered into rubble, I was able to get in, view my bill, pay my bill, check my usage, etc. by telling Safari to identify itself as the MS Windows version of MSIE...
This proved several things, but most importantly, to me, that there was nothing wrong with my browser so long as it was not being "treated in a special manner." Making NO changes to my browser, other than the name it told the server, it handled the non-customized pages just fine.
There is a lot of this sort of stuff on-line. If you use MSIE on a Windows box, don't worry about it, you'll never see it (but watch out for gremlins, viruses, worms, and trojans).
There are others, though, who do not pay Bill Gates to be allowed to use the 'Web.
Some of them are even disabled users who use special browsers that 'read the pages' to them. Those were all blocked by this "upgrade" of the utility's systems...
The city politicians were able to recognize that a city owned public utility not following the federal ADA and 'Section 508' rules, could be in a VERY bad position - once they were suitably informed by constituants after little had been done to correct the disaster for most of April 2004.
That's one example of customizing pages for different browsers. I can personally vouch for it's accuracy from being in the middle of it.
Here's another, older one, even better researched and recorded. In it, one well known software company does what it does best to another: Howcome, April 2003. (http://deb.opera.com/howcome/2003/2/msn/)
There are many more stories, including some web page design software *cough*FrontPage*cough* that used to twist some things just right to purposely make them display incorrectly in browsers not made by the same company. (It's brother browser had little tweeks to handle those errors.)
Putting out specialized pages dependant on browser type is a losing battle: There are too many variations of operating system, browser, options, preferences, hacks, and vintages of all those, for it to be sensible.
It is MUCH simpler to just design pages that meet the W3C standards, and let the browsers sort it out by also meeting those same standards. Trying to put out special little tweeks for each of 40 or so OS/Browser combinations is insanity.
All I ask, for example, is that a page meets standards and anything my browser does that is strange is my browser's fault.
Another quick aside: My mum uses a Mac I got her, and uses the latest Safari browser from Apple Computer - it comes with OS X and is pretty good. Even her invocation of Safari and mine are quite different, though: Hers displays in 16 point type as it's default and mine in 12. My eyesight is a little better. (I believe the factory default is 10...)
Trying to account for the myriad differences in individual systems is just not possible. Designing to standards and the default settings of typical client software is all that can be done and remain sane.
Take care,
Tom
Re: New Story Page
Tomas (imported) wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:41 pm (This should never happen. In a properly designed system there should be nothing an end user can do to dump the system.)
Talula will recall that I did this to the Archive some years ago. All I did was hit ONE key on my machine here and hit UPLOAD. POOF...no more Archive for several hours!:(