# SITE BUGS/REQUESTS: Consolidation Thread



## ScottW (Dec 18, 2005)

This is the offical SITE BUG Consolidation thread. This is the official thread to post issues related to bugs or requests. If a new thread starts that should be under here, moderators will merge it into this thread. After all, such reporting should be done here.

My GOAL is to tackle most of the bugs in the next two weeks. Most bugs are a result of the latest site change/mod/upgrade.

*TECHS - Post Volunteer Tech area bugs/ideas to the Volunteer Forum. They are off topic in this thread.*

Hopefully, we can re-hash and consolidate all issues into this thread and this will be the thread to keep track of those change/fixes and see if others are having the same issue.

--- GO HERE TO REVIEW BUGS AND POST BUGS OR REQUESTS ---
*http://www.macosx.com/forums/vbugs.php*

Thanks!


----------



## lurk (Dec 19, 2005)

I know you have poo-pooed the idea in the past but it would be nice to get away from the absolute sizes in the layout.  That would make both little screen and big screen people happy.   I just notice it because I run 50% mobile 50% cinema display and the fixed approach is just that little bit suboptimal on both.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 19, 2005)

http://www.macosx.com/forums/vbugs.php?do=view&vbug_id=13


----------



## fryke (Dec 19, 2005)

Hm. I think just adding a narrower theme would not do it justice... I for one am using a browser window-width of 924 pixels. Only a variable table width is _really_ gonna look good on that.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 19, 2005)

Variable width is not really an option. Im a sucker for experience. I can't control experience on self-adjusting layouts. I personally hate self-adjusting layouts. I think they are poor design.


----------



## Satcomer (Dec 20, 2005)

There is a Gallery problem too. Some users can see larger images in the Desktops Gallery while some user can view the larger pictures. To give you a specific the error says :



> Satcomer, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
> 
> Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
> If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.


----------



## fryke (Dec 20, 2005)

Hm. I think if you design them correctly, you _can_ control variable width designs. I'm a sucker for design, and I think fixed width pages are poor design. (They think in boxes...)  ... But I can always agree to disagree.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 20, 2005)

Name one thing, outside a browser window that is typically desgined by a designer that must be designed to expand and contract changing the physical layout of the design.

Print media? No
Video Media? No


----------



## lurk (Dec 20, 2005)

Funny I have done lots and lots technical print work and it was all based on expanding and contracting within the physical layout.  But it does take a certain familiarity to appreciate beautiful mathematics.

Also the web ain't print and it ain't video.  

Kids these days, mumble... mumble...


----------



## fryke (Dec 26, 2005)

Print and video are usually for FIXED RESOLUTION media. We're talking webbrowsers here. On Windows, you can safely assume that more than 50% of the users are using their browsers full screen at 1024*768. On Mac OS X (and we're basically only talking about the latter), people are using windows of any size, but practically _never_ at 1024*768. So, designing for one or two fixed sizes seems rather pointless.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 26, 2005)

Well, I know a bunch of folks with wide-screen TVs and unless they are watching a show in wide-format, it doesn't fit their screen. Makes NO SENSE why anyone would broadcast a fixed width video signal. What about the people without the wide screen, part of the picture is cut off.

What is going on w/ this world these days? Those fixed width and no-fixed width factions are just enraging the world.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 3, 2006)

argh! that's horrible! it's now all of a sudden very hard to read pages! change it back!


----------



## ScottW (Jan 3, 2006)

Patience is a virtue.  I am working on a thinner site that it will be better or at least a user selectable option.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 3, 2006)

but... don't we all have 30" widescreens? ¬_¬


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 3, 2006)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Variable width is not really an option. Im a sucker for experience. I can't control experience on self-adjusting layouts. I personally hate self-adjusting layouts. I think they are poor design.


Hmm. I hate to disagree, but....I REALLY disagree. As a user, I absolutely _hate_ it when web designers try to control my experience. It's an insult, and it just makes the design screw up for me, because I invariably have settings that the designer did not consider (window size, minimum font size, etc.). More and more pages these days are downright illegible for me, mostly because designers feel it's their right to micromanage the user's experience with absolute-positioned elements, fixed width, and hard-coded font sizes (which are overrided by my personal settings, thus causing major problems).

I'm happy to say that this site does NOT suffer from such extremes &#8212; it's perfectly legible. But I still object to the philosophy, and I still find it a little insulting. Computers, and by extension, web design, should be user-centric. (If I didn't hold that basic value, I never would have started using Macs in the first place.) When developers try to take control of MY experience away from ME, it's like they're saying "you and the way you work are not important".

There's a fine line between a "sucker for experience" (which is great) and a "control freak" (which is not).

As for video.....let's keep it relevant. Obviously video is not dynamic content, so obviously it must be a fixed size. If you're using TV as your inspiration, then you might as well make a whole web page &#8212; text and all &#8212; a giant JPEG. TV is by nature a developer-centric medium. (And aside from that, most DVD Players DO allow you to change the size of movies to fill your entire screen. It's usually stupid, since it goes against the nature of the medium, but the option is there for users, and that's a good thing.)


As for the new look of the pages, I'm still on the fence. I do find it hard to read now, but that could just be because I haven't gotten used to it yet. I'll have to give it time.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 3, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> but... don't we all have 30" widescreens? ¬_¬



If you don't, you should upgrade.  I guess I should too if I want to eat my own words.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 3, 2006)

i have to say, after a good few hours, my visual training is still telling me that there is far too much horizontal stuff.  the eye has to search the page much more intensively for the content that is relevant (the post) and seperate it from the content which is a lot less relevant (the user info) than the standard way.  the bars drew the eye to the post, letting you actively decide if you want to see the member's post count etc, whereas now you have to conciously _ignore_ it.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 3, 2006)

The previous layout of the threads before this seemed to flow much better when reading through them.  Now with the user information on the top taking up most of the page it seems to break up that flow.  Personally, it's quite obtrusive and I'm hoping that it does go back to the previous state.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 3, 2006)

You can now decide if you want the horizontal format or vertical format. horizontal is the new default format, vertical is considered a legacy format.

It's in the "Edit Profile" bottom option in the UserCP.

While I agree, vertical is much better on the wide-format... I am preparing to do away with the current wide format in favor a thinner view. I hate having two themes to support and so I just decided it was best to go thinner.

(see I listen)

Anyhow, obviously, some folks will be upset at this, but whatever. Down the road maybe run two. But not now.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 3, 2006)

Ahhh..much better.  Well, I'll enjoy it while it lasts.  Thanks Scott!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 4, 2006)

no, that's still not good, it's still got the inherent visual literacy problems, but now it's awkwardly squashed, too!

please, scott, please put the user information back in the left side bar, like every other forum of the net!  the width is not the problem, it's just difficult on the eyes, the eye physically has to 'search' down the page for the posts.  it's awkward, and backwards.  forums default like they do for a reason, it's the way it works, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

i'm not ungrateful, you keep this site on top form, but you need to stop modifying it.  it works! really well! and then it changes and doesn't work properly for a couple of weeks.... and then it's back to normal, and then a month later it changes again! it really doesn't need changing.  (well, at the moment, it needs changing back ¬_¬)

why do you want this 'wide format' anyway?  can't you just make the old style go wide as well without it being really horrible?


----------



## ScottW (Jan 4, 2006)

Changed back to what? I am confused.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 4, 2006)

sorry.  i'd not found the right checkbox.... ¬_¬

thank you! it's fine now.  please don't delete this setting though.

<3


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 4, 2006)

I'm glad to have the old way back. I think you ought to move the option into the "Options" section. The first thing I did when I saw the new way was look for an option, but I never would have found it under "profile", because...well, it has nothing to do with my profile!


----------



## kainjow (Jan 4, 2006)

Scott, I love this new tighter look! It works much better than before on my eyes. It's also much easier to read the text on the page. I'm also glad you gave us an option to use the column view for threads. Thanks!


----------



## Satcomer (Jan 8, 2006)

Well I guess the Gallery full screen problem will never be fixed.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 8, 2006)

Whats up w/ the gallery? Exactly?


----------



## Satcomer (Jan 8, 2006)

I posted the problem on the first page of this thread. I will say it again. When most users go to the "Desktop Backgrounds" of the Gallery and try to view larger images, this error comes up



> Satcomer, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
> 
> Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
> If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.



This happens only in the "Desktop Backgrounds" part of the Gallery.


----------



## Satcomer (Jan 9, 2006)

Well the problen in the Gallery has now been fixed. Thanks Scott.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 22, 2006)

Here's the worst case yet of overlapping text. Same setup as I mentioned before: Safari, 10.4.4, minimum font size 15. See attached image.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 23, 2006)

I can't help it if you modify your browser to display the page in a way it was not designed. 

Here is how it looks on ALL browsers with default settings.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 23, 2006)

You also might want to send a similar complaint to news.com, as when I increase my font size in my browser their site looks horrible.


----------



## Mikuro (Jan 23, 2006)

ScottW said:
			
		

> I can't help it if you modify your browser to display the page in a way it was not designed.


Well, I didn't 'modify my browser'. I configured a standard option in Safari  an option present in all modern web browsers. Do you really think it's okay to demand that your users all use the same settings YOU like to use?

news.com looks just fine on my end, because it has some reasonable wiggle room in its design, as every site should. It's very frustrating that you and many designers are so reluctant to take the minor effort to accomodate your users.

It's just not reasonable to expect a user to change so much just for _your_ site. The web is user-centric by nature.

And I'll say it again: Text is made for reading. 

Edit: I hope you don't think I'm singling you out with this kind of complaint. I do indeed send similar reports to just about any site that has such problems. The latest that springs to mind is fulltiltpoker.com. Some have since fixed the problem to accomodate such "unknowns".

All in all, the problems that arise from this incompatibility on this site are pretty minor. It's just that I am, as I say with every post I make, a crotchety UI nitpicker.  I love this site, and I greatly appreciate the effort you put in. We just have very different philosophies when it comes to web design.


----------



## ScottW (Jan 23, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Well, I didn't 'modify my browser'. I configured a standard option in Safari  an option present in all modern web browsers. Do you really think it's okay to demand that your users all use the same settings YOU like to use?



These debates never have an ending, that is for sure. 

I think it's interesting that last week they came out and said that in less time than a blink of an eye, people judge a website. When they feed through the same websites to people in the course of the test... they will judge the websites the same way as they did previously.

What they learned, is that there is no obvious reason why people chose what they did like or didn't. It didn't really line up with anyone else in the test. There observation was, everyone was different and it why we don't all drive the same cars, have the same type of house and interior design.

Obviously, I am going to design something that I personally like. Not everyone is going to like it. I can take feedback, such as "the site is too wide" and consider those things when I rebuild the site. Some things are done purely based on personal preferences, some are limited by the requirements of what is to be displayed on the page and outside input on previous designs.

As for it being a "standard" option in every modern browser to set your font size, yes, you are correct on that observation. Just as it is a option on every iMac G5 system to adjust the performance of your CPU. The last thing Apple wants to hear, is someone to complain the machine is slow when they run it at the slower speed. Why? Just because it's an option, doesn't mean you have to use it.

Some people have various requirements for increasing font sizes, this could be because of visual impairment or personal preference. While what you do with your browser is your choice... realize that expecting everyone to conform to your preference or impairment is nothing short of rude. If I am on a low-carb diet and a bunch of guys want to go to get Krispy Creams... it would be very rude of me to say... Hey, Im on a low-carb diet, we ALL can't eat there. This is not fair to everyone else. I can either choose to go and not eat, or not go at all. I surely won't file a complaint with Krispy Cream on their lack of low-carb options.

Anyhow... I hear what you are saying... I just sometimes don't understand the motive. For me, understanding motivation is 90% of the issue. If I can understand why someone feels the way they do (even if I disagree) I can at least empathize with them. If I can find logic in the motivation then I find it hard to relate.

For example... people get upset when I send out emails announcing this or that with the site. They say... "If only you'd put up a link or something to notify us, that would be much better." Well, the motivation for the email is not because I like spamming people (I'd rather not) but the motivation in doing so is a simple link doesn't work - sending out an email to the mass, does work. While you may disagree with me sending out a mass email, you would be hard pressed to deny what the numbers show.

Many have said, If *I* was President, I would have made a different choice. The fact is, if you where indeed the President and had access to the same information that he did at the time he did and the advice he was given, you very well may have made the same decision as the President. Hindsight is all 20/20. 

Anyhow. I am way off-topic... but again... thanks for your input.


----------



## texanpenguin (Jan 31, 2006)

The spelling of "Cocoa" in the explanation section of the Software Programming & Web Scripting forum is incorrect ("Coco").


----------



## Thank The Cheese (Feb 14, 2006)

The unordered list feature doesn't seem to work properly. 

When you click the button, the window pops up and [ LIST ] in the text box. But as soon as you type the first list item and click OK, the [ LIST ] is _deleted and replaced_ with the first item. Then when you type tyhe second item in the window and click OK, the first item is deleted and replaced by the second, and so on. 

using Safari 2.0.3


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 19, 2006)

Well it looks like you have a bug (Warning: MagpieRSS: Failed to parse RSS file. (not well-formed (invalid token) at line 58, column 15) in /home/httpd/vhosts/macosx.com/httpdocs/includes/rss_fetch.inc on line 238) on the MacOSX.com title page.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 24, 2006)

Well since my last post the problem was fixed. That is until today March 24. The same RSS error is back on the title page.

Update: About 25 minutes later the error at the top of the page went away again.


----------



## Gig' (May 18, 2006)

The result I get when going to the gallery as nothing to do with what I used to get, furthermore I am unable to click any part of it like : last upload; last post; images and so on ?

Am I missing something ?


----------



## ScottW (May 18, 2006)

Yes, the site is broke in a lot of places. Instead of putting bandaids on everything, I am working on fixing everything and we should have a new code base live on the site by June 1.


----------



## Gig' (May 18, 2006)

Tks a lot Scott for your prompt reply and the great work done 

Looking forward to accessing it in June and contribute by uploading new pics


----------



## Lt Major Burns (May 25, 2006)

whoops a daisy.


----------



## earthsaver (Jun 8, 2006)

Perhaps due to various site changes this week, the RSS feed with new questions has been down all this week.


----------

