Forum Software Upgraded Again - 26th Aug

[Dan]

I've upgraded the forum software again to the latest version.

If your account allows you to, you'll have a couple of new small features.

One being the ability to tag threads.

No need to go mental with them. But say all the threads about 17th edition had the tag "17th edition" you could click the tag and find all the threads related to that tag. So it's a handy quick way to get to other related threads.

I'll introduce you to more small feature changes when you've got used to existing ones. It can be a bit overwhelming finding them all out at once.

And..... WHO WANTS AN ARCADE SYSTEM?!? Hands up if you do!

 

[Spoon]

:gru2:

 

[Lou]

I do I do!

 

[happysteve]

Me! Me! Me!

 

[Darkwood]

Super Mario Brothers ????

 

[Dan]

Super Mario Brothers ????

There might be something a bit more 8-bit available yeah.

 

[happysteve]

Whilse you're tinkering (and I don't want to distract you from providing arcade games)... is there a setting somewhere where you can change how read and unread threads are distinguished? Unread threads are a teeny tiny bit bolder, but I can't really tell the difference from a quick glance... not on my computer screen at any rate. A very minor irritation that's not worth more than 30 seconds trying to fix, but if it's easy...

 

[Pete999]

:gru2:

And Me

 

[Dan]

Whilse you're tinkering (and I don't want to distract you from providing arcade games)... is there a setting somewhere where you can change how read and unread threads are distinguished? Unread threads are a teeny tiny bit bolder, but I can't really tell the difference from a quick glance... not on my computer screen at any rate. A very minor irritation that's not worth more than 30 seconds trying to fix, but if it's easy...

If you click "new posts" and a thread is showing in the list. It has new posts for you. If you click the link into the thread. It takes you to the first unread post for you.

So therefore different threads and different posts get shown for every single person on that page.

If you go into a forum category and scroll down, the top ones have the new posts, they're in date order.

Does that help?

 

[happysteve]

Yeah, it's relatively clear when you're looking at new posts. It's when you're watching a couple of forums (e.g. Arms and Trainees). Are they both bold? Neither? Then you go in to one that looks bold (so, unread posts). Is it a sticky with an unread post? It'll be at the top. No? Need to scroll down below the stickies then... scroll scroll scroll (now I'm looking at the right side of the screen at the pins, not the left at the thread titles), no, missed it, up a bit (eyes to the left again). It's do-able, sure... but it's so, so subtle, the difference between bold and not-bold.

Anyway, never mind.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, it's relatively clear when you're looking at new posts. It's when you're watching a couple of forums (e.g. Arms and Trainees). Are they both bold? Neither? Then you go in to one that looks bold (so, unread posts). Is it a sticky with an unread post? It'll be at the top. No? Need to scroll down below the stickies then... scroll scroll scroll (now I'm looking at the right side of the screen at the pins, not the left at the thread titles), no, missed it, up a bit (eyes to the left again). It's do-able, sure... but it's so, so subtle, the difference between bold and not-bold.

Anyway, never mind.

Oi don't think I'm not listening you bugger. I am.

Tell me what you think would work.

That difference between the bold and not bold, if that was a bigger difference, so perhaps underlined only with the bold say, would that help you guys do you think.?

 

[happysteve]

- Different colour text
- Different colour background
- Underlined
- Bolder

One of those?

It's a fine line between having a lovely, clean, modern-looking house style that's a bit hard to use (form over function), and having summat that's easy to navigate but takes us back to 1997 style-wise or... well... the old forum software

And I know you're listening the only reason I said never mind was I figured you'd already expended 30 secs of effort with your reply, and I figured that was about the investment in time this problem was worth!

Happen it's just me, anyway...

Cheers