Collapsing/Expanding posts

The expand/collapse all are potentially useful, but I do think that some consideration should be given to making expand/collapse a message at any level apply to the responses/subthreads attached to that message rather than making the expand/collapse mostly limited to one specific message.

I have to be careful here because I'm still having problems with my CNET account, so I can't test all this properly.

But on the occasions I can log in and navigate threads properly what I see is this;

I can still choose either Tree view or Thread view for a discussion. I used to prefer Tree view but then moved to Threaded. I can now mix and match.

I can expand/collapse a message at any level. But if I prefer to use Tree view exclusively and forget about the + or - signs then that is easy for me. They are off to the right and display properly for me, but are out of the way.

I'm not sure about James' problem stated later on in this thread. I would reply there, but I am unsure this present login I have will survive much longer. James seems to be saying he cannot see the +/- signs unless he scrolls right. That surprises me because my own monitor is not wide-screen and I still see the options, even with a browser window that isnot maximised, and I can drag the right hand edge of the browser window to the left quite a distance before I see the scroll bar. I suspect that problem may be a screen resolution issue.

Mark

I'm in a new account, hence the name change.

I can now see one problem I didn't expect, and may be that is what you and James have found as well.

Image of 'this thread': http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/9089/capturekb.jpg

In Collapsed view, none of the replies in the thread are clickable. To see any reply you have to click the + sign to the right of each post. If that is off-screen to the right, then you have to scroll right to click it.

In the old Tree view, all post headers were clickable, so we could choose which post to display and read.

I can now see James' difficulty much more clearly.

This is not something I expected.

Mark

That was my complaint. I can CTRL- till I can see the whole page, or I can scroll right in Collapsed view to get the plus signs WAY OVER THERE. I'm using a standard 3:4 monitor, not a 16:9 widescreen.

I see it now James.

My own monitors, (dual monitor setup), are 3:4 and not widescreen, but my resolution is 1280 x 1024. Is there a difference there with your own screen resolution?

Even so it surprises me. Are these forums now 'fixed width'? If so, that will be the problem.

However, I think the main problem is that the post headers are no longer clickable. If they were, then the right side Collapse/Expand option would not be so critical.

Mark

I've thought about getting a wider screen, but don't particularly like the aspect myself, been used to the "window" look for TV's and monitors too long I guess. What's next, panoramic? The 3 to 4 ratio has been with us a long time, also in paper. A 3x4 monitor or TV is 1.33 to 1 and a piece of typical letter paper is 8.5 x 11.5 inches which is 1.35 to 1 ratio. For some reason that ratio seemed to appeal to us, yet now we are expected/forced to change.

I don't know if you recall a few years back when there was a major upgrade to the previous forum software, there were a few complaints about the new formats for those who used the lower resolutions.

I think it was when they introduced the advert to the right of the first post in any discussion, (not seen if there was only one post, but as soon as there was a reply, the first post squashed to display an ad next to it, or an empty space if an adblocker was used). The forum width became fixed and post boxes right justified.

I don't see an answer to this. Clearly users who use 800 x 600 do so for a reason and I am not about to challenge that. But is there a way you could test your monitor resolution? Notch the resolution up a little, then in your browser use Ctrl+ to increase font size, just to see how well, or badly, these forums are affected. But I realise doing that affects everything else on your system as well.

Mark

I suspect that the biggest problem you face while visiting this web site is not the aspect ration but the pixel count/screen size. There is no way these web pages will display properly for you.
But you are almost certainly not the only person in that position.

CNET is designed for those with a 17"+ monitor and a resolution of 1024x768 or higher; that is the minimum resolution at which the full width is viewable without scrolling.

However, in the case of the forums, I can assist with that; if you float the left navigation column to the right, the main content will just fit the width at 800x600 so you rarely need to scroll. It's not possible with IE, but a little CSS in any other browser will fix it right up.

Let me know if interested.
John

That's what I'm doing now. Any resolution over 800x600 on 17" screen is a bit too small for me. I remember that 15" screen used to be the norm and felt good about having 17", which I then moved from CRT to LCD-TFT type. I don't care to get bigger monitors, especially since all now widescreen, because it cuts down on desk space. I already have enough things stored behind, or crammed underneath the monitor as it is.

Have you seen the monitors that swivel or rotate? Instead of widescreen, they can be used also as a longscreen. That actually appeals to me more, especially for internet where pages may be several standard page lengths long, or more. LOL, monitors that go up more aren't the problem, it's the ones that want to go sideways more that interfere the most with desktop space.

Yep, I could use a 800 wide by 1280 long rotated monitor. It's the real estate at top and bottom that gets taken most by browsers and various document programs. Anyone here tried Word 2007 yet? Whew, what a hog of space at the top of a document.

The alignment need not be an issue if the design were done properly. Instead, it appears the designers opted for a problematic solution that runs counter to what most of us are accustomed to in any number of other contexts.

This solution was designed by Lee, with the goal of maintaining some semblance of forum views and the original tree structure while integrating it with the typical threaded/flat format if most other forums. Given the limited number of members using Tree view, largely mods and senior members, it was a small victory that Lee found a suitable replacement that TPTB approved of.

However, new functionality and a new layout is coming in Phase II, so suggestions are quite welcome. What specifically would you change, and how so?

John

I recognize that I am in the minority here. I never used anything but the original tree structure until the page loading problems forced me to switch. I'm still not sure what the attraction of the flat/threaded view is supposed to be, and I suspect most users never changed from whatever the default view is/was (most may not have known it could be switched) though that is pure speculation.

CNET uses a page layout that forces part of the page off the side of the screen for some users who use large text sizes. I think it is a result of the way CSS is used but I'm not sure. In any event, that means the expand/collapse controls are not always obvious for users. Users are not conditioned to look for them on the far right, and even a fairly experienced user like James failed to note them at first - that should be a clue regarding the 'user friendliness' of the layout. I don't recall seeing ANY other sites that put controls there. My GUESS is that users who are new to CNET will have similar frustration.

I have seen some variation in how sites handle expansion of trees, but I do not recall seeing any other site in which collapsing a portion of a thread does not also collapse the sub-threads. Why would I WANT to collapse a post and thus make it in accessible while reading the responses? OTOH, I CAN imagine reading a post and deciding that I don't care to read the responses so collapsing the entire sub-thread at once DOES make sense.

As far as the alignment issue is concerned, I agree that it would be harder to keep a left side display that shows the tree structure and also keeps the expand/collapse controls aligned. But why would that matter? If you are just going down a list expanding messages then it is far simpler to click 'expand all'. If you are trying to expand the messages in a specific sub-thread then it seems to me it would be easier to use controls that show you where you are in the thread structure. Furthermore, in terms of ergonomics, it makes sense that the expand/collapse control should be located in the same general area as the graphical display of the tree structure. When I see something in the tree I want to look at, it is natural to click something where I am looking as opposed to clicking something on the other side of the screen that (in some cases) may not be visible.

I don't know, maybe I'm strange, but I mostly like the way Win XP displays folder structure in Windows Explorer, and that sort of interface is far more common in the threaded interfaces I have seen elsewhere. I DO NOT like the way Win 7 does the hierarchical display but that's a bit off topic.

I noticed mark put in a link that didn't go live until he put in another post using BB coding.

I'm testing this permalink.
http://forums.cnet.com/7726-7598_102-5000626.html

If you precede any link with a colon and a space you kill the link.

without the colon and space;
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

with a colon and space
: http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

with just a colon
:http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

with a colon and two spaces
: http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

with a colon and three spaces
: http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

with a colon and four spaces
: http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

with two colons and a space
:: http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

colon, dash and a space
:- http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

smiley and a space
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

sad face and a space
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

colon, 5 dash, a space
:----- http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

colon, dash, space, dash, space
:- - http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6622_102-500395.html

yes, definitely some problems there.

If you start a line with a link you can put anything after it and the link stay live. If you put a link on a line with anything in front of it, the link is dead.

hi James

or this?




,.

His post did mention that it was still possible to create links using BB codes. Prior to the change, most text strings that appeared to be URLs were automatically converted to links but it appears that functionality works differently now.

Hyperlinks seem to work OK. It's pasting links directly into a page that's the problem, unless you start a line with the link first. I wonder if Jonah's hyperlink, the second one, originally was on the same line as "or this?" , or did it get kicked down to a new line since it was the last item on a line. If so, then that would be yet another anomaly to the links problem.

They plan on adding the ability to click on the message indicator on the left to perform the same action as the plus/minus on the right. That means both preferences will be accommodated in the near future.

John

My win2000 computer sees this post differently than my XP Pro computer, even those both are using same FF version, although not exactly the same addons perhaps. On my win200 computer it shows the text changed to italics, as I did on part, but I also bolded that text and it doesn't show as bolded. In XP Pro it shows as both italicized and bolded.

===============
OK, just checked it again, but this time used CTRL++ to make the page the same size as the XP computer and then it appeared as bolded also. I guess the font used didn't have a bold text in it that small.

=====================

At least if they put the plus sign or something with same function on the left side I won't have that problem in future since I can expand the page back to normal size and quit leaning in and squinting at the screen.

I've asked so that in the collapsed view, clicking on the subject line will expand the post.

Bill, sorry for the inconvenience, we are going to do our best to get this in place for folks who have this issu, but as you can see there are few higher priority bugs they will need to be taken care of first.

Thanks for you patience.

-Lee

And much better now the fix has been done.