OK - we have a new thread view, which should be much more efficient than the last. It only send each poster's data once, which also means that it only looks up each poster's data in the db once. Server output files are now much smaller, often less than half the size, and that should also help the server cope with peak traffic. Look at the source of this page to see why.
paulhodson wrote:
I see the signatures are back too- just
(positing this now in the proper place) I don't have a probably with haveign the signatures and equipment lists shown, generally, but it should probably be limited to 2, maybe 3, lines. I've seen some that add about 15-20 lines of equipment from their profile which really just wastes a lot of space on the page. It really gets in the way of the flow of the thread (even when gray-ed out -- which is think is the right way to do it),
Well - if you look at the message you just typed there is about 2 centimetres between the "that?" and the line under the message - plus another 1.5 cm for the buttons beneath that. I just thought if the thing was condensed slightly it would speed up scrolling down the page. (far from important though )
paulhodson wrote:
Well - if you look at the message you just typed there is about 2 centimetres between the "that?" and the line under the message - plus another 1.5 cm for the buttons beneath that. I just thought if the thing was condensed slightly it would speed up scrolling down the page. (far from important though )
I think that the "depth" of the each post much be at least as wide as the information and avatar of the poster, which is to the left of the post. If the poster only write one line, there will be space beneath it due to the minimum space necessary for this information
paulhodson wrote:
Well - if you look at the message you just typed there is about 2 centimetres between the "that?" and the line under the message - plus another 1.5 cm for the buttons beneath that. I just thought if the thing was condensed slightly it would speed up scrolling down the page. (far from important though )
Yes, I agree with that. It seems like cellpadding or cellspacing is a little to much. At least bigger than before.
72chevelle454 wrote:
Did the reply date move to the top right sorry if I missed this I know my brother is getting a weird looking site using opera.
I will download Opera right now. I used to test this browser and I know this page was compatible with it before but I didn't test the new format on it yet.
Fred
The problem with the Opera browser is that it's showing the first post and the login box right after it breaking the page. After the login window the second and remaining posts are shown.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The problem with the Opera browser is that it's showing the first post and the login box right after it breaking the page. After the login window the second and remaining posts are shown.
That sounds about right.... from what he has told me.
rico wrote:
Why does FM now require Javascript to view the left column of threads?
I am glad you asked that question! A huge portion of the data in this page is iterative, i.e. repeated. Using pure html, the server must serve up the same layout code, button code, colour code over and over again. Meanwhile, bandwidth from the server is clearly a problem, many pages contain images hosted on the server, and those pages are popular. There are often hundreds of people connected at any one time. Javascript allowed me to condense the source of page 14 of this thread to 44 kb from 106 kb. That page is not atypical. Every single forum page will yield on average the same 60 kb saving per hit. Javascript allows us to send repeated data only once, and have your web browsers build the page by re-using small building blocks rather than waiting for reams of pointless data.
The percentage of visitors to this site who are using a no-javascript browser is absolutely miniscule. My last four phones have been able to correctly execute the level of javascript used in this page, and I deliberately avoid any platform specific or browser-specific code when writing javascript.
It is just as easy to code broken html as it is to code broken javascript, and most of the layout difficulties in this page arise from the borked html, not the javascript.
It is also worth noting that these pages were fairly dependent on javascript already. For example, the jumpto menu couldn't work without it, nor would the rollovers, and probably a grip of other features.
What are your reasons for preferring sites with no javascript?
Edited by brainiac on Jan 17, 2008 at 05:31 PM GMT
sorry if I missed this 