deskthority

matt3o wrote:

DerpyDash_xAD wrote: 1) bad coding in most solutions, esp. open source

This is so untrue

Anyway the most complicated thing of a custom system is probably users/roles management.

depends on the size of the project TBH. Small ones don't have the man power for proper bug checking. But I misphrased that - I meant to say open PLATFORMS - where you can individually build optional code. These have little to no management stopping poor, bug-ridden code from reaching the market.

But we don't need full user support - all we need is writer and (optionally) editor.

We could very well do it with just a htaccess to a folder with a PHP text editor/file manager.

oh right, and upload/gallery management. that is important too.

I wouldn't rely on simple auth, though. Let's see what I can come up with quickly.

matt3o wrote:oh right, and upload/gallery management. that is important too.

I wouldn't rely on simple auth, though. Let's see what I can come up with quickly.

we could use the wiki image system.

All we need is somewhere we can upload images where
1) they won't be taken down for bandwidth etc
2) they aren't restricted in size too greatly
3) they have stable permalinks


Also, I don't think htaccess is good enough either, I'm just using it as an example for how simple the system could be.

I host all my images straight on Deskthority's attachment system. If the blog's articles are to all be mirrored here, it makes sense just to use that. The 1 megabyte size limit is no problem for any sensible illustrations, I've never had availability issues, and the permalinks are all perfectly perma and linky!

E.g.

I was thinking that, but most forms don't allow image viewing without registration and I figured it wouldn't work.

DT isn't most forums. I really appreciate the simple way we handle images here, without javascript and other nonsense. They actually load full resolution, automatically, in place. Which is perfect on touchscreens and retina displays. If only the whole web was still as useful!

Muirium wrote:DT isn't most forums. I really appreciate the simple way we handle images here, without javascript and other nonsense. They actually load full resolution, automatically, in place. Which is perfect on touchscreens and retina displays. If only the whole web was still as useful!

There is nothing I hate more than script-covered websites, like Gawker etc.

They are so painful

Even Wikipedia is making things worse, with the new way they're handling images. Boo! What is the point in getting in between the browser and the freaking image!? I can understand why turds like Flickr want to obstruct you, for branding purposes, but please!

Muirium wrote:Even Wikipedia is making things worse, with the new way they're handling images. Boo! What is the point in getting in between the browser and the freaking image!? I can understand why turds like Flickr want to obstruct you, for branding purposes, but please!

I wasn't aware they were handling them differently - I always use my phone. But the images, and rendering them, is the browsers problem. Give it an image and let it render - don't make it fade in/out, or any of that gimmicky crap.

This is why Deskthority comes off so professional - it doesn't screw around.

Here's an example. A perfectly appropriate deus ex machina, in fact…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_ma ... 09)_07.JPG

I guess they may be browser sniffing. I'm on desktop Safari, and it's as if Yahoo just bought the Wikimedia Foundation.

It just forwards to the page on mobile - I had to try on my PC. And dear lord it is horrible. It exemplifies everything wrong with the internet, this addiction to gimmicky code, even on the most (historically) minimalistic and FUNCTIONAL pages.

ooh that's so touch-generation.

Touch, my arse! (Important comma that…)

Notice how native iOS apps let you stretch and zoom the image directly… just like DT! There's nothing worse than javascript "can't touch this!" image loaders on tablets. Try browsing ebay on an iPad! It's so hideous to zoom into automagically vanishing pictures that hardcore evil genius must surely be at work.

badly designed, I give you that, but still touch-generation.

DerpyDash_xAD wrote: we could use the wiki image system.

All we need is somewhere we can upload images where
...
3) they have stable permalinks

Are wiki image URLs confirmed permanent? I rarely hotlink to images on the wiki simply from having no proof that the image URL won't change.

matt3o wrote:ooh that's so touch-generation.

I far prefer my phone with a REAL keyboard to my Nexus 5, even though it has no apps.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk ;P

Daniel Beardsmore wrote:

DerpyDash_xAD wrote: we could use the wiki image system.

All we need is somewhere we can upload images where
...
3) they have stable permalinks

Are wiki image URLs confirmed permanent? I rarely hotlink to images on the wiki simply from having no proof that the image URL won't change.

I don't know - I figure they are, because non permalinks are hard to implement on a wiki type site - if non-permanent, you have to keep track of them, where it would be far simpler just to use perm.

It's like we have a mechanical website or something. Proven, resilient, reliable. Whatever next? Don't improve!

Muirium wrote:Even Wikipedia is making things worse, with the new way they're handling images. Boo! What is the point in getting in between the browser and the freaking image!? I can understand why turds like Flickr want to obstruct you, for branding purposes, but please!

Don't worry. They have a page dedicated to hating on it http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Mult ... dia_Viewer

Just reading the itemised contents is a laugh riot! I like the one about seeming broken on the iPad. "Touch generation" indeed. Sure, and war is peace.

I think all we have to do is be our natural curmudgeonly selves, and whatever we make will be all the more stunning in its simplicity and power with every passing year. How apt, as the same is true of our keyboards!

Muirium wrote:Just reading the itemised contents is a laugh riot! I like the one about seeming broken on the iPad. "Touch generation" indeed. Sure, and war is peace.

I think all we have to do is be our natural curmudgeonly selves, and whatever we make will be all the more stunning in its simplicity and power with every passing year. How apt, as the same is true of our keyboards!

We are trying to evolve interface design but you know what? Firefly was right. We'll still be tapping away at mechanical keyboards 500 years from now. They'll just be vertical instead

edit: bad photo but you can see the keyboard so oh well

what were we talking about?

Um… Hel…vetica?

ok let's find a domain name and I'll put this thing up (but default font should be monospace )

matt3o wrote:ok let's find a domain name and I'll put this thing up (but default font should be monospace )

Monospace is the best <3

This is a simple mock, how do you guys like it?

The sidebar will be fully populated with links, and if possibe, the links will be infinite - like the page links at the bottom of google - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - loading the next as you pass.

Also, to smooth autoloading, we could load the next article with the title in the sidebar. That would guarantee 5 articles of overhead.

In regards to loading/displaying only new articles, we could use a cookie with date/time which updates automatically, and a url like /new which displays old->new articles selected using mysql greater than cookietime.

In a word: no. Nice try, though. Hopefully Matteo was kidding about the mono…

Besides the typeface, the design needs to be more its own thing rather than trying to be a clone of the forum. Too similar, and they will be confusing; because functionally they will be quite different.

Maybe pick a Wordpress theme which is closest to what you like, and where what you don't like can be patched by css, which keeps it simple.

Muirium wrote:In a word: no. Nice try, though. Hopefully Matteo was kidding about the mono…

Besides the typeface, the design needs to be more its own thing rather than trying to be a clone of the forum. Too similar, and they will be confusing; because functionally they will be quite different.

Hmm... I get what your saying, but functionality-wise, what about that?

I'm not exactly a web designer, or any designer, so I'm not surprised it's not to your liking - I more intended it as a visual aid to the features we discussed.

If you want something to stay at the top of the page, use position: fixed. A lot of sites hack around it with JavaScript by making an object attach itself to the top of the window as you scroll down, and this retarded slidy thing tends to jolt when they miscalculate the number of pixels remaining at the top of the window. Just make it stop. Infinite scrolling on serious sites can die in a fire too -- Google Images does that and that jolts so hard when it loads the next batch of images that you lose your place completely.

So much fail.