Wedge

Not only were you one of the first to be there -- probably registered on the first day -- but you're also the only one who stayed until now! There are others who haven't actually 'left', but they haven't posted in many months, and thus they don't qualify for this special prize. :PIt's been a lot of fun. And it had its share of disappointment, too.

Including the fact that I'm... Not... In... My... Bed... Right... NOW. :ph34r:

So I have a bit more done on it, giving all the navigation that is needed. (first screenshot)

The only problem is that in other languages, the longer terminology makes it wrap - see second screenshot. Personally I'm not *that* bothered but I thought I'd outline it anyway just in case anyone was curious what it looked like in that situation (and might have other ideas)

Wait, you think I was joking? I don't have any plans other than for some specific improvements I'd like to do...

*cough*

So those of you following the permissions discussion will know that I've been experimenting with various things, but my last idea didn't work out. So I'm trying something else.

Ignore the fact the wording at the top is wrong. Ignore also that a lot of things should be checked but currently aren't.

The idea is that if a user is allowed to do something, the allow box will be ticked, if it is denied the deny box will be ticked and if they don't have the permission (but aren't denied), neither is ticked.

This works well in other contexts so I don't see why it wouldn't work here for us.

Would appreciate thoughts on it before I spend much more time hacking the template about.

Let's say, purely hypothetically of course, that you could put banned users into a group (and replace their primary group with this new group while banned)

Let's say, also purely hypothetically that you want to add some more formatting options to that group.

All purely hypothetical of course. Except for the attached which is not a mockup but actual proof of implementation. :niark:


(As in, you can create a Banned group, and use this to format it so you don't need 'Slashout Banned Members' if you want to do that.)

Actually, it's two mods on the list that aren't needed any more. Still hundreds to go though.[1]

1.

Yes, I have a list of every SMF mod, complete with the state of whether Wedge has it built in, whether Wedge should get a similar mod (or whether it's already been made), or not. There are still 297 'Yes', 526 'Maybe', 103 'to be core', 181 'already core'. Though I add my own todo as 'to be core' so it's not entirely accurate.

This is of course an example of a really bad user. Normally you wouldn't get this in a real forum situation, at least I hope not.

Thanks :)

Though there is more to see yet ;)

I didn't vote in any direction for this. Let me explain my take on it.

1. Most users don't care about what's under the hood.

2. Some users will. Some of those will be mod authors, some will be those people doing crazy things.

3. The users who care about what's under the hood (or claim to do so) are the people who bang on about OO being a good thing. (As opposed to be a tool for a job, like Dragooon. The people who see it as a tool for a job are sane. The people who bang on about it like the Second Coming of the Great Prophet Zarquon are not.)

4. The problem is that the group of users in 3) who are not 'entirely sane' IMNSHO are also the people who will shun a software out of snobbery.

5. OOP is actually a marketing tool. IPS recently sent out a newsletter for IPS Social Suite (IPB 4, essentially) and they're actively using things like 'design patterns' as promotional vehicles.

6. Without rearchitecting Wedge (which is not even a 2.0 task, but realistically a ground-up rewrite), we can't really go 'fully OOP'. I'm not convinced it would be a good idea either. But I am concerned that not doing it would make it that much harder to sell Wedge as a paid system. Remember, the competition then isn't SMF or MyBB but vB, IPB and XenForo - and the standards are higher, even if a given system is more feature complete..

7. If we take the view of paid software, that also ties us into what people want us to make, rather than what we want to make. It also commands more time on UIs and so on so things like hidden settings and things of that ilk (I remember the debate about the front page, for example), need to stop being reliant on programmer mentality.

I hate to say it but even with the key stuff I see us doing in the next few weeks and having that done, I don't realistically see us properly able to compete with the paid software any time soon. Not because we're not lesser-capable, but because I don't see us being in a position to properly market it, or for that matter in a position to actively pursue feature requests the way paid users expect.

Yes... but...Most users are not up to the task of having custom style sheets, not even most site owners. If one were provided for them, that's another matter entirely.Oh, it's certainly not just dyslexia at all. Font size I'm a bit more iffy about seeing how easy it is to change font size in a browser (ctrl + scroll mouse)