 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 301 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no edit button rules. that way, if you post something stupid, you can't go back and change it later on ha, me, more than anyone should understand the accountability of that concept, ROFL. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
QUOTE dave_g "I dislike the design of message boards which have multiple seperate sub forums, it's too divergent. For example, I want to scan down for a topic from yesterday. I can't search for it because I cannot remember what it was (this is hypothetical), however I will recognise it when I see it. quote dave gOn a single forum, I scroll down from the latest post until the posts from yesterday, and I will see it. On a multi sub forum one, I potentially have to do that on all the forums. Also unless you look at each forum, you could miss a good topic, wheras on here, it is pretty obvious because it's all on one page." er...there's this button called "view new posts" also the QUOTE function allows you to respond point by point to one or many posts as opposed to the rather limiting FOLLOW UP feature. also how can "too many features" be a problem? if you don't want to edit/quote/upload files/add images etc... then don't personally i think WATMM is a far more enjoyable/easier to use forum format... i also think the graphic design here is dated, restrictive, uneconomical and slightly amateurish. However - i don't let these points bother me into making snidy comments about it...these are just honest observations |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
huh!? you mean watmm's layout IS economical? what? in what sense? there's more space for pic/banners/sigs/avatars/and whatnot *does not compute* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ie..it hasn't got a big useless grey panel over there>>>> <<< in fact even the last couple of inches of the text panel is unused |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
<<<< also..that post came out totally wrong so i am having to post again rather than use a superfluous "commercial" edit function |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or an unnecessary user list over here <<<< again this sentence has mysteriously disappeared from my post between typing and posting...so here is a 3rd attempt |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not even going into a discussion here. whatever reasons you have, if you prefer watmm's lay-out, by all means go ahead. but saying watmm is more economical...eh...i can read two posts over there without scrolling (the posts contained no more than 3 words TOGETHER). if you say that's more economical...well... are you sure you're not just trolling? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
those who cant edit learn to do it right at first |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"it was developed with a larger testbed of users than XLT will ever have" Exactly! And therein lies the problem! I'm sure you have some kind of childrens story wherever you live about a guy trying to simultaneously please everyone. Does that ever turn out good? NO! Xltronics layout and functionality is made with its actual users (and not all potential ones) as testers. This makes it waaaay more effective for its purpose (which is.. ta-da! being the xltronic.com messageboard). If Phobia is missing a feature, he can add it because he (or rather tunemx) made the code for the board. If you are missing a feature and no-one has made some silly "add-on" for your version of invisionbb or whatever, you're stuck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
follow up to 2 DIFFERENT MEMBERS OMG godel: regardless of how much scrolling you need to do (oh your poor fingers) WATMM utilises all of the available space on screen, regardless of the fact that the space may feature large signatures (not something i go in for) or linked images etc. the posts on here must take up no more than 40% of the available screenwidth....economical? stefano: the first error i put down to myself somehow accidentally deleting a sentence while clicking on reply the second time i made sure it was still there when i hit reply and somehow, for some mysterious reason the sentence disappeared again. even the preview feature could not help me this time. The sentence regarding the unnecessary (imo) user list on the left hand side finally appeared 3rd time lucky. This bizarre error, however, was somewhat serendipitous as it does suggest the benefits of an edit function. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I prefer to use the definition of "economical" which is to be found in a dictionary: ec·o·nom·i·cal [ek-uh-nom-i-kuhl, ee-kuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. avoiding waste or extravagance; thrifty: an economical meal; an economical use of interior space. 2. economic. [Origin: 1570–80; economic + -al1] —Synonyms 1. saving, provident, sparing, parsimonious. Economical, thrifty, frugal imply careful and saving use of resources. Economical implies prudent planning in the disposition of resources so as to avoid unnecessary waste or expense: economical in budgeting household expenditures. Thrifty is a stronger word than economical, and adds to it the idea of industry and successful management: a thrifty shopper looking for bargains. Frugal emphasizes being saving, sometimes excessively saving, esp. in such matters as food or dress: frugal almost to the point of being stingy. —Antonyms 1. wasteful, extravagant, spendthrift, prodigal, profligate. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
offf Stretching text out over a too large space makes for more stressing reading. I'm on 1600x1200. Set your screen to that resolution and try reading, for instance, . The fact that I haven't been able to find a post spanning more than two lines over at WATMM doesn't really help its case (I've only clicked the link to that page somewhere back there, though). Also.. signatures.. and image ones at that.. SUCK! your message, if I am correct, disappeared because you wrote lots of <<<< s in front of it, possibly making the thing that removes unwanted html tags kick in. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so in this sense economical would be: more text in less space |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i just had a look thru all the new messages in this thread... and despite my efforts on telling you how much xltv2 will differ from this version (dated 2001 btw) a few of you still complains - but some of the comments are hilarious and do nothing but strengthen my believes in this subject. if a 5 year old messageboard (without any significant development since then) still is able to compete with new, large forum-software then i take it as a compliment. :) anyway, there is a reason why xltv2 is being developed - and that is to make xltronic even better. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
One of the really appealing things about xltronic is actually the way it looks and works. No other forum has done that for me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no matter how much you copy and paste from online dictionaries, the fact remains that only around 80% of the text panel is utilised (or approx. 40% of the whole screenwidth). the WATMM image you post as an example is irrelevant in this regard. A one word post is a one word post regardless of where it is posted. If you were using it as an example of the intellectual levels of WATMM posts then OK. But hey it's WATMM. If I want to discuss Loop Quantum Gravity vs. String Theory I can go to the lycaeum.org. Also I notice you have WATMM set to default (thin) skin I prefer the IPB default wide version. Maybe that explains our minor quibble over appearances. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yep, that's what I always thought of xlt too, and I visited several messageboards. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok but whenever you break your scrolling-finger, don't come here crying about the poor scrolling/text ratio over at watmm. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*weeps* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I seem to recall it was you that was complaining/crying about your poor scrolling finger a few posts back. I also seem to recall you proving yourself wrong with that "Definition of Economical" post. Are you one of those people who just argues the opposite of what anyone says even if it's the opposite of what you yourself just said 5 minutes ago? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmmmmm.... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't think you got my point. but it doesn't matter anyways. if you want to think watmm's layout is more economical, please go ahead. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Chaosmachine said: >so why aren't sessions validated against ip addresses?.. if >the ip has changed since the session was created, you should >be required to log back in.. 1) Chaosmachine, wtf are you talking about, WATMM doesn't do this. Hypocrite. 2) This sucks. Nothing does this. Not Gmail, not yahoo, not any forum software, not anything. 3) I have dynamic IP that has a tendancy to change every 15 minutes or so. I was too damn lazy to log off of my Phobiazero session. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
7Pd, might as well make fun of planet mu while you're at it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Joyrex: What's the use to spread your thoughts around here? You know you only stir up the situation.. You should know better. Is it because you like to have fun? or do you need some attention? or maybe jealously? well, I don't know but I certainly do not get you. Please go and have fun on your own forum if you only are here to stir things up. If you are going to nag about my English, go ahead, I don't give a damn. As long as you get the point it's all good...but I doubt you will. As I told in my previous post towards you. I know you won't give a fuck about what I have to say, it's all good. I heard it's good to clear one's mind by writing it down. So I actually wrote this for myself. Peace |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe this argument is not down to economical proportions, but down to aesthetics. Your argument is weak in my eyes, who said message boards have to be more economical? I believe if this was architecture perhaps your spacial functions would be more valid due to the fact that you are holding something tangible in phyiscal space, but in a messageboard who fucking cares about the amount of space used. its called design. walmart is economical but I would rather shop somewhere that looks pleasing to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
aesthetics has final say what say you, aesthetics? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm down with it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
case closed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i love happy endings |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
indeed...my original post said this... "personally i think WATMM is a far more enjoyable/easier to use forum format... i also think the graphic design here is dated, restrictive, uneconomical and slightly amateurish. However - i don't let these points bother me into making snidy comments about it...these are just honest observations" Yes it is an Aesthetical issue and it is still MY OPINION that WATMM/invision is preferable. GoDel picked up on the "uneconomical" bit and turned it into an argument about forum spacial economics yet twice provided irrelevant or logically flawed points. At the end of the day WATMM IS more economical with regards to the amount of text per space. This is not a particularly important feature as you say. This is the internet and it's not gonna run out of room. Godel was simply wrong and I assume his argument was based on his preference for Xlt which is fair enough. My response to him is merely a refutation of his flawed logic and in no way a defense of WATMMs use of space versus Xlt's. Surely we both realise that it is a matter of taste. Oh and Elusive... Yes I do dislike the Mu Board Layout. But that doesn't mean I dislike Planet Mu. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oops ...sorry to spoil that happy ending Mods you may now delete this thread - or rather - Phobiazero, you may now delete this thread |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
joyrex is brave and phobie is bold but when the two come in from the cold it's fisticuffs at dawn! come on! have at 'em! (but seriously boys take it over to watmm) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
right. *now* can we move on? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
very well said, it is indeed a matter of taste and I in no way meant to seem as If I was attacking your personal taste, just the argumental preface itself |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
x for now |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
