|
Feeds
- Downloads
- FAQ
- News
- Tutorials
|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kguske Site Admin
Joined: May 12, 2005 Posts: 876
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Here's a DHTML version:
BoxOver vs. DHTML:
Similaries:
compliant
require CSS changes
DHTML advantages:
doesn't require JS in HEAD section
degrades if JS disabled / blocked
links are regular HTML (not that you care about links to subscription sites), vs. in a link title tag (some search engines limit length of titles tags, but again, who cares about links to subscription sites?)
BoxOver advantages:
popup (not blockable) doesn't move contents on page |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guardian webmaster
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 364 Location: Vsetin, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
I am leaning towards DHTML, the alignment is much better and it looks like it has more of an advantage over the BoxOver - i.e. easier for installation as no extra jaba stuff required |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Actually, DHTML requires CSS changes, while BoxOver does not, so if you're already loading BoxOver for other reasons (and you would be for the help on the admin pages), it might be easier to install. And, we could change the alignment, too. I centered it on the popup, but not on the DHTML - do you like the left align better?
The user interface really makes the difference. If I can make the DHTML interface work like a link (and I think that's possible), that might sway a decision towards DHTML. I'll also look into inline CSS to remove the required CSS change (or required my_header change), although I'm not as sure about that.
Thanks for the quick feedback, Guardian! Any others? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
montego webmaster
Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 254
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guardian
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Seeing as BoxOver will already be included - it's used in the admin area from what you have said, then it might be better to stick with BoxOver.
I was under the impression that BoxOver requires js so if it is blocked at the browser, does it fall over completely or is there some default display setting?
DHTML collapsing menu's are normally fully open but use js to make it collapsible.
Yes I prefer the left aligned look purely on the basis that, using centered looks messy (to me) if the images are of different widths. Perhaps it's the German blood in me rising to the surface that keeps saying "structured, ordered" or maybe the guy that taught me when I was doing CRBN Seminars with his constant "presentation, presentation, presentation".
Hmm, need to give my head a rest, too many voices |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Guardian has a pretty convincing point. If js is blocked, BoxOver won't work. You'll still see the raw html as a title tag, but it won't be usable for links.
SO, if I can make the CSS inline... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:04 am Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
CSS is inline - no my_header changes required for that.
There will be some simple my_header changes required for using AJAX functions on the admin page and for LINK tags in the HEAD section to get live bookmarks (see example below).
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guardian
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Just realized I should probably add bbcode conversion to HTML to the Forums class... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guardian
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
kguske wrote: | Just realized I should probably add bbcode conversion to HTML to the Forums class... |
Yeah I noticed that too
I wouldn't even like to guess which of the forum options would be better 'latest posts versus latest topics' I think everyone might have a difference of opinion on that one.
A slow site might be better with latest topics as it will show up new threads but a busier site which may have more contributions to each thread (topic) may prefer to have the latest posts.
Playing devils advocate if it had to be one or the other I would probably play safe and suggest latest posts as this will show new 'content' regardless of whether a new topic is started or not. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
montego
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:10 pm Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Sorry, guys, I thought Kguske has said BoxOver was strictly title tag based. Although I have not had time to really digest the above, it is looking really good! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kguske
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Comments and suggestions for nukeFEED |
|
|
Obviously, the screen above uses posts. I think most sites would prefer topics, so I'll switch it to that. Other than adding the help text and additional content classes (so far, only news and forums), it's almost ready to test. I need to do some code clean up, too, but that's mostly in the content classes. Guardian and montego will probably receive the first test copies this weekend. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2008 phpBB Group
|
|
|