Page 26 of 31

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:21 pm
by mdvaldosta
By uncomplete.... first of all how many typical forum members are going to know html or have their own html editor lying around? And then even if they can get ahold of an online editor, how many know what CSS is? Then, why is their a place for you to type the backround color... wouln't that just be done in the CSS or the html :/

On top of that, theirs no image included for the website icon so it's broken, theirs no link for people to click in their profile to create the mod. The web address should be done with the username instead of user number (mod_rewrite is NOT needed for this, only a simple php function).

Bottom line is that this mod is not user friendly, although it could be. If someone knows enough html to build this page, then they most certainly would just have their own website instead. This mod needs to be made for newbies, not webmasters.

Bettye, I looked at your website and there wasn't even a link anywhere on there to make a web page... and when searching through your memberlist - EVERYONE I saw that had one simply left it blank. Why? Because it's too damn hard for a newbie to figure out. I could do it fine, but 99% of the members of my site would look at it and say... duh I that's just too complicated.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:56 pm
by Peter77sx
in functions_website.php look for:
$image_link = "<a href='" . append_sid("website.$phpEx?id=" . intval($user_id) . "") . "'><img src='/templates/CricketMX.com/images/icon_website.gif' border='0' /></a>";


not sure why it's like that, but that's probably why you can not see the image in viewtopic.php

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:59 pm
by Kirsty1
It's a shame it could make it boardname.com/username instead - i installed it and my members said they would use it if it was like this, but it's not :) Or a name of their choice...

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:33 am
by intelliot
Is this mod still being developed? I might create a simpler version of it and just allow more customization of the profile page (and make it appear for boardurl/username).

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:32 am
by battye
intelliot wrote: Is this mod still being developed? I might create a simpler version of it and just allow more customization of the profile page (and make it appear for boardurl/username).


Now that the Ultimate Quiz MOD is in the MOD DB, I will have more time to devote to this MOD. I am rewriting it from the ground up, to allow more features such as multiple pages, and detailed FAQ's to go with the MOD.

mdvaldosta, a lot of people are using this MOD just fine. Yes, it has a few problems, but these are well known and users have posted fixes for them many times (thanks to everyone that does, and to Peter77sx for posting it again just recently).

If users do not know HTML, then they can make a simple site with bbCode instead. And the reason that CSS is optional, is because as you said, a lot of people do not know what CSS is.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:07 pm
by mdvaldosta
Then there should be options for enabling and disabling the CSS box. You know, I think if you had a WYSIWYG editor or BBCode editor (like posting) and the ability to switch between the three (html, bbcode, wysiwyg) then it would be much more user friendly.

Bettye, you can't deny that it's daunting for a new user to figure out - your own website and the lack of your members using this mod is evidence enough of it's shortfalls. This is a great mod, but userfriendlyness doesn't seem to be a concern although it should be.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:34 pm
by _ollie_
As he has already pointed out he is re-writing this mod. And im sure he will take into account some of comments. Cut him some slack, if you can do better then go ahead.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:55 pm
by Peter77sx
Also, remember that members can choose a custom template. a member who has no clue what the difference between CSS and HTML is, will most likely choose a custum template made by the webmaster... assuming if they even want to create a webpage in the first place.

You can find decent templates here. they give you the CSS and HTML. http://www.createblog.com/skins/index.p ... order=desc

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:14 pm
by battye
Thanks ollie & Peter :)

mdvaldosta, as Peter pointed out, you can create your own ready made templates for your users. This will quite easily allow them to make a simple page, by replacing basic prompts (eg. in the template have <b>{INSERT BOLDED TEXT HERE}</b>).

And as _ollie_ said, I am re-writing this MOD soon, and I will be changing it quite a bit to make it more user friendly.

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:44 pm
by clubchill
battye wrote:
intelliot wrote:Is this mod still being developed? I might create a simpler version of it and just allow more customization of the profile page (and make it appear for boardurl/username).


Now that the Ultimate Quiz MOD is in the MOD DB, I will have more time to devote to this MOD. I am rewriting it from the ground up, to allow more features such as multiple pages, and detailed FAQ's to go with the MOD.

mdvaldosta, a lot of people are using this MOD just fine. Yes, it has a few problems, but these are well known and users have posted fixes for them many times (thanks to everyone that does, and to Peter77sx for posting it again just recently).

If users do not know HTML, then they can make a simple site with bbCode instead. And the reason that CSS is optional, is because as you said, a lot of people do not know what CSS is.


battye.. you're absolutely right. HTML doesn't have to be the first option. It could be the second option.. i.e HTML ENABLED just like enabling html for forum posts where the difference is W3C HTML 4.0 is enabled by default. I don't know why that guy was blasting you. But you're doing a good job. If you want some good ideas, take a look at what Community Connect Inc is doing with their user webpages on blackplanet.com and migente.com sites. Its very basic and millions of users use it, and they LOVE it. The default options accepts plain text and gives the users some font size options OR if the user wants he can enter HTML code.

Its an either-or situation. Not like the dude who blast you was trying to suggest.

Also check your PM's.. I sent you something. :)

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:15 pm
by clubchill
mdvaldosta wrote: Then there should be options for enabling and disabling the CSS box. You know, I think if you had a WYSIWYG editor or BBCode editor (like posting) and the ability to switch between the three (html, bbcode, wysiwyg) then it would be much more user friendly.

Bettye, you can't deny that it's daunting for a new user to figure out - your own website and the lack of your members using this mod is evidence enough of it's shortfalls. This is a great mod, but userfriendlyness doesn't seem to be a concern although it should be.


You bonehead.. users don't need a wysiwyg editor. This isn't for users to write complex websites. Its just for a page, where more than likey they'll be using it as a hodgepodge for self-expression and to hotlink to offsite pictures. In fact.. a wysiwyg editor may potentially CONFUSE the average or less-advanced user, who'll become overwhelmed by alot of buttons. Its the same reason why you don't see the FCKEditor in wide use, because its looks too confusing. If users sees buttons on an editor, then that means they have to figure out what each button does. So instead they run due to laziness in having to figure something out. Users are LAZY... remember? They want computers to be easy! They don't want to figure anything out.

So they don't need an editor to make things more complex, just to do simple <i> and <u> and <b> tags. A small HTML-enabled box does just fine, just like on the Community Connect Inc websites, where regular text is accepted for those who don't know HTML, or basic tags are accepted for those who know a little HTML, or where full W3C HTML 4.0 is accepted for those who know advanced HTML. In other words, ONE BOX accomodates everyone. A wysiwyg does not accomodate everyone as you suggest. It actually alienates the less-advanced whom you ironically are trying to help.

If you leave out the editor then everybody benefits.

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:06 am
by Kalipo
^well put.

As far as CSS, why wouldn't you use it? I'm sure all the horrible security holes it presents really puts your site right at the top of the "must hack" list.

The reason why it confuses them is because they don't know of/about it. Heaven forbid a site Admin/Moderator actually helps their users with a feature they've added.

Since this MOD restricts users with just a basic template with zero java, zero php & limited HTML, at least give them something they can use to improve their webpage. Jesus, that's like giving a child an ice cream cone with no ice cream :!:



But hey, it's your site.

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:58 pm
by clubchill
Kalipo wrote: ^well put.

As far as CSS, why wouldn't you use it?


Who said I wouldn't use it? CSS is supported by HTML 4.0. So natively, you don't need anything extra, all you need is the <style> tag. In fact you can design entire 3-column, 2-column, or quad layouts just with the <style> tag, classes, ID's, and <div> tags. If a user knows how to do that, then good, if they don't then so what.

You shouldn't have to introduce a seperate interface for something everybody is not going to use. Your analogy of the icecream cone is wrong. They are getting icecream (its html "enabled" .. remember?)

They're just not getting a napkin and a spoon.

My only suggestion is that the mod writer filters stlye elements that cover the default footers (or headers or whatever.

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:11 am
by Kalipo
clubchill wrote: Who said I wouldn't use it?


That was a general comment not intended to be directed at you personally.
CSS is supported by HTML 4.0. So natively, you don't need anything extra, all you need is the <style> tag. In fact you can design entire 3-column, 2-column, or quad layouts just with the <style> tag, classes, ID's, and <div> tags. If a user knows how to do that, then good, if they don't then so what.


Exactly, but where do you suggest to place the rules? Actually, hold that thought, I'll get back to this later.
Your analogy of the icecream cone is wrong. They are getting icecream (its html "enabled" .. remember?)


Actually, I believe I hit it right on the head. Using basic HTML tags is hardly "sweet" since it's inferred their usage would be available (afterall, it's a basic webpage MOD). Anything beyond that would be the "bennie".

Taking away something that allows a much greater degree of layout and display control is frankly inhumane. "Because some won't use it" is hardly justification to scrap it since there are others who would take full advantage of it. Let's face it, one additional text area when adding/editing your layout won't throw off many.

Skip CSS directly for a second since there's a bigger picture.
You shouldn't have to introduce a seperate interface for something everybody is not going to use.


No, but there should be a seperate interface for different areas of the document. If the blocks were renamed "head of the document" and "body of the document", this wouldn't be an issue. Per the first quote, the first block doesn't need to be just for CSS, rather any other allowed tags within the head.

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:41 pm
by clubchill
those are all good ideas... but just from my experience running very active communities.. the majority of users are dumb as all heck.. u can put a button in the main menu, and they won't see it unless you make it blink.

I mean users are so dumb, you can actually RENAME your entire site, and they won't notice it unless you sticky an announcement at the top of the main forum saying "HEY!!! I RENAMED THE SITE!!!!"

Then they'll go, "wowwww... ohhhh I didn't know that"

So speaking to them about headers and footers and styles and CSS in my opinion is useless. I would do just like Community Connect Inc does and give them a litte box 200 x 125, a submit button, and call it night.