Q: Could This (new discussion format) Be Any Worse?

Scott Newman wrote:

 

 

The best that Apple Discussions ever was was two changes ago. The previous iteration was tolerable even though it was confusing for newbies.

Ditto this. I thought it COULD NOT get any worse than the Jive crap previously. I admit I was wrong - Tim WAS able to make it worse!

The ultimate goal of the redesign...

What was wrong with the former excellent, straightforward, easy-to-use design?

Actually, the version prior to the former was excellent; the former was ok; this one - well, I'll leave it at that.

The previous version's was no prize, but we got used to it. Its tragic flaw was that it could not support enough Users without collapsing under the load.

The new Jive-6 is staying up better. There are not many packages that can handle this big a load.

But when it stays up, you quickly realize -- it's horrible to work with -- the Interface is really un-intuitive and awkward (and that's what experienced users are saying).

New Users ? No problems, "Apple just won't help me and they all stink." (and that's why queries are way down.)

Isn't that what is happening all over with Apple?

New users just assume there never was a way to get things done on a Mac/iDevice and drift back to their PCs or Android device.

…or just give up.

notcloudy wrote:

 

Sometimes continuous complaining helps.

As I mentioned, continuous complaining did not help me in the slightest.

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

 

It just gets stupider when I Zoom Out.

 

Zoom out does not work for me. The text quickly gets too small to read, and the side margins get pulled way in as well. This does not get more information into a manageable amount of space, it gives me margins 3 inches wide on a window 10 inches wide on a screen nearly two feet wide. That is NOT a solution.

 

There is too stinkin' much white space, especially vertically. There has been no consideration of what the final output will be, each routine just adds its little bit, adds more white space, and that should be good enough!

 

... Except that it's not.

Grant,

There is no more white space than before on my 13-inch MacBook Pro. Is it possible that the site was optimized for this particular size of display? Or am I just lucky?

I've heard people complaining about having to do sideways scrolling, and I never have to do that (but I usually work with Safari in full-screen mode on this smaller display).

Vertical scrolling is not any worse than it was (knock wood).

Grant

It is my understanding from a look around at J I V E that Community Managers have a wide array of customization options - to my eye, this here joint haz bin dumd down qwite a bite. User support forum there talks about lotsa cool features

I wanna play with the REAL GUN Daddy!

CCC

-- All men are created unequal

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

 

The previous version's was no prize, but we got used to it. Its tragic flaw was that it could not support enough Users without collapsing under the load.

 

The new Jive-6 is staying up better. There are not many packages that can handle this big a load.

 

But when it stays up, you quickly realize -- it's horrible to work with -- the Interface is really un-intuitive and awkward (and that's what experienced users are saying).

 

New Users ? No problems, "Apple just won't help me and they all stink." (and that's why queries are way down.)

It's not staying up very well for me. I keep getting "Safari can't find the server."

And the load is dropping off (according to unofficial reports here), so that shouldn't be a problem in the future. It's why I'm wondering if this awful design is on purpose to drive away would-be users. (And maybe us old timers, as well.)

Ronda Wilson wrote:

 

Grant Bennet-Alder wrote:

 

It just gets stupider when I Zoom Out.

 

Zoom out does not work for me. The text quickly gets too small to read, and the side margins get pulled way in as well. This does not get more information into a manageable amount of space, it gives me margins 3 inches wide on a window 10 inches wide on a screen nearly two feet wide. That is NOT a solution.

 

There is too stinkin' much white space, especially vertically. There has been no consideration of what the final output will be, each routine just adds its little bit, adds more white space, and that should be good enough!

 

... Except that it's not.

 

Grant,

 

There is no more white space than before on my 13-inch MacBook Pro. Is it possible that the site was optimized for this particular size of display? Or am I just lucky?

 

I've heard people complaining about having to do sideways scrolling, and I never have to do that (but I usually work with Safari in full-screen mode on this smaller display).

 

Vertical scrolling is not any worse than it was (knock wood).

Secrets REVEALED!

The new design is to accomodate iPhone4 display (*tested* on the page in the example)

"A" = Width of Browser Window = 1280 pixels (16:9 aspect ratio) desktop display

"B" = Margins of static  content area (OUTSIDE this area varies with display, resolution and aspect ratio)

"C" = display area of iPhone4 at default zoom (in pixels) *this cannot zoom OUT (that I know of) like Mac/PC browsers*

Have not tested iPhone5 or iPad (plain or retina) - cuz I don't have access to 'em - but iPhone5's wider aspect and iPad's more traditional 4:3ish aspect would probably still have the same cropping effect. maybe not - but kinda irrelevant - clearly designed to this least common denominator.

pardon my ignorance of proper terminology regarding iPhone actions...

iPhone4 requires zoom IN (reverse pinch finger motion) to read any small fontSize text at all - when zoomed one can't read an entire line of text without flickScrolling the screen

In the old days, this visual design was termed "NTSC/PAL safe"

CCC

-- Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet. -- Bugsy Siegel

Ronda Wilson wrote:

Vertical scrolling is not any worse than it was (knock wood).

Are you sure about that? Compare (for instance) this "WayBack Machine" archived page of the Apple Support Communities > Desktop Computers > iMac (Intel) overview page to the current default or even highly customized closest equivalents.

How much scrolling (& clicking) do you need to do now vs. then to get to the info you want to see, preferably on a single page?

R C -R et al,

Perhaps these PhotoShopped illustrations will provide visual clarity... You all be the judges, but it doesn't really seem that much different

BOTH are CMD+SHIFT+3 snapshots from Firefox where browser is zoomed OUT where there is no bottom scrollBAR

Background is current "Using ASC" page

Foreground is archived "iMac (Intel)" page  - Inverted colors @ 50% opacity

Sooper02 = 200% zoom

The NewSite has somewhat LESS whiteSpace vertically and considerably less horizontally

IMHO, the evidence may not support the assertion

CCC

-- Cheops' Law:  Nothing EVER gets built on schedule or within budget.

R C-R wrote:

 

Ronda Wilson wrote:

Vertical scrolling is not any worse than it was (knock wood).

Are you sure about that? Compare (for instance) this "WayBack Machine" archived page of the Apple Support Communities > Desktop Computers > iMac (Intel) overview page to the current default or even highly customized closest equivalents.

 

How much scrolling (& clicking) do you need to do now vs. then to get to the info you want to see, preferably on a single page?

A little more scrolling, maybe, but the slightly larger font size is worth it to me. I have been using a trackpad on a portable Mac (first iBooks, then MacBooks, and now MacBook Pros) for 12 years, so two-fingered scrolling makes it very easy to zip right along as far as scrolling goes. Minimal effort. I've nearly forgotten how to use a mouse.

As far as getting info I want to see on a single page, that's usually tough on a 13-inch display. Scrolling is a way of life. But I'm not having to do horizontal scrolling as many are complaining about having to do. It just isn't happening for me. (Knock wood again.)

I usually (nearly always) use Safari full-screen.

Ronda Wilson wrote:

 

R C-R wrote:

 

Ronda Wilson wrote:

Vertical scrolling is not any worse than it was (knock wood).

Are you sure about that? =SNIP=

 

A little more scrolling, maybe, but the slightly larger font size is worth it to me. =SNIP==

 

I usually (nearly always) use Safari full-screen.

Ronda

Fonts are equal  - in my illustration above, see 200% zoom SooperImposition's First line of text. Same font & size. The archive has greater line-spacing value, which is why the lines diverge as you look down the page.

I'll just come right out and claim that NewSite has LESS white space than archived site - both vertically and horizontally*. The picture does not lie.

*The Cascading Style Sheet(s) make up the general display aspects of all the sites pages.

The Content Area of the page is meant to simulate a piece of paper laying on a tabletop. You can see the paper edge defined by a light grey vertical line both left and right. The reason for the width of the paper is that the just the paper displays on iOS devices (in particular, least common denominator iPhone4). The Tabletop area (left and right of the paper edges) will vary with desktop/laptop display screen resolution and aspect ratio (4:3, 16:9).

IMHO, the reduced and confusing functionality of NewSite has had a psychological effect of Transference... folks are mad about the function and transfer  that anger to the graphic design as well. I say again, picture does not lie.

CCC

-- Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.