Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Nao
7186
The Pub / [Archive] Re: Logo Madness
« on November 5th, 2011, 12:32 PM »
Post #722 (the usual one) has a few extra logo attempts which I made in the last week or so... I figure it's time to ask for opinions since I've cleaned up the attachment list and removed the logos that really don't cut it for me.
- Variations on the text, using an Helvetica. There's also another font (in the two *ca153.png), Candara Italic (which is as close as I'll get to a Serif font), which doesn't look great in large size but looks quite a bit better in small format, so I only uploaded the small format version.
- The two-petal logo, still not giving up on this one...
- blocesque - A new 'orange wedge' logo (using our typical brownish color to stand for an orange so that we understand it's a "wedge" not a "slice" :P), inspired by Bloc's submission from last September. (I redid it in vector graphics.)
Any opinions...? Any faves?
And completely unrelated, but... I'm pondering whether to simplify the sidebar by removing all backgrounds.
I like both... The complex version looks cooler on first look, but when the sidebar is very crowded, the simple version is probably easier to take. I can't make up my mind so... Maybe you guys have something to say about it :)
(BTW, the 'simple' version was done in two minutes. It can probably be tweaked.)
- Variations on the text, using an Helvetica. There's also another font (in the two *ca153.png), Candara Italic (which is as close as I'll get to a Serif font), which doesn't look great in large size but looks quite a bit better in small format, so I only uploaded the small format version.
- The two-petal logo, still not giving up on this one...
- blocesque - A new 'orange wedge' logo (using our typical brownish color to stand for an orange so that we understand it's a "wedge" not a "slice" :P), inspired by Bloc's submission from last September. (I redid it in vector graphics.)
Any opinions...? Any faves?
Posted: November 5th, 2011, 12:27 PM
And completely unrelated, but... I'm pondering whether to simplify the sidebar by removing all backgrounds.
I like both... The complex version looks cooler on first look, but when the sidebar is very crowded, the simple version is probably easier to take. I can't make up my mind so... Maybe you guys have something to say about it :)
(BTW, the 'simple' version was done in two minutes. It can probably be tweaked.)
7187
The Pub / Re: Wedge financial support
« on November 5th, 2011, 09:42 AM »
You lucky bastard :lol:
7188
Plugins / Re: Plugins I refuse to do
« on November 5th, 2011, 09:26 AM »
Well... After spending years on a 2GB computer that could crawl for hours until I got my 200 tabs loaded in Opera, I'm spoiled! I've never had any memory issues *again*. I'll probably be reaching a thousand tabs by next year :P
7189
Plugins / Re: Plugins I refuse to do
« on November 4th, 2011, 11:59 PM »
To each their own way of working... ;)
I also have ~200 tabs opened in Firefox these days, and about 50 in Chrome. (The latter because they recently disabled their tab sidebar. Sucks. Now I can't have more than 30 tabs without being fucking lost. Thank you Google...)
I also have ~200 tabs opened in Firefox these days, and about 50 in Chrome. (The latter because they recently disabled their tab sidebar. Sucks. Now I can't have more than 30 tabs without being fucking lost. Thank you Google...)
7190
Features / Re: New revs
« on November 4th, 2011, 11:14 PM »
rev 1148
(1 file, 5kb)
* The thought system now works correctly. Yay! Click the current thought (or the Modify link) to update it. Click the New link to insert a new one. Next: start work on replying/editing replies... (Ajax.php)
(1 file, 5kb)
* The thought system now works correctly. Yay! Click the current thought (or the Modify link) to update it. Click the New link to insert a new one. Next: start work on replying/editing replies... (Ajax.php)
7191
Plugins / Re: Plugins I refuse to do
« on November 4th, 2011, 10:56 PM »
I try to keep opened all of my unreplied pages for Pete on wedge.org... But even that makes for about 50 tabs at most.
I probably have around 100 tabs of web designs that inspire me.
Dozens of tabs on help with video games, programming, movie descriptions, Wikipedia stuff I haven't finished reading, etc...
I probably have around 100 tabs of web designs that inspire me.
Dozens of tabs on help with video games, programming, movie descriptions, Wikipedia stuff I haven't finished reading, etc...
7192
Other software / Re: Once upon a time...
« on November 4th, 2011, 10:18 PM »
Ah back when he was a spoiled brat! :lol:
7193
Off-topic / Re: jQuery 1.7
« on November 4th, 2011, 07:24 PM »
- Might be the case.
- Bit sad. Then again, even IE6 has a larger market share than Opera, 'depending on who you listen to'... ;)
- I don't see what would prevent them from offering alternative CDN links. I'm sure Google would be glad to provide them, considering they'd save them some extra bandwidth... Hell, even Google pays for bandwidth, sometimes :P
- I mean that if it's not HTML5-ready to begin with, I'm not exactly sure why they provided support for HTML5 tags in .html()... Unless it takes the same amount of code, of course.
Re: version number, we have to take one thing into account: the longer we stay 'behind', the more chances we have to see people complain about not being able to use jQuery's latest features in their plugins... OTOH, many websites still use jQ 1.4 or even lower, and coders are pretty much 'used' to its way of doing things...
- Bit sad. Then again, even IE6 has a larger market share than Opera, 'depending on who you listen to'... ;)
- I don't see what would prevent them from offering alternative CDN links. I'm sure Google would be glad to provide them, considering they'd save them some extra bandwidth... Hell, even Google pays for bandwidth, sometimes :P
- I mean that if it's not HTML5-ready to begin with, I'm not exactly sure why they provided support for HTML5 tags in .html()... Unless it takes the same amount of code, of course.
Re: version number, we have to take one thing into account: the longer we stay 'behind', the more chances we have to see people complain about not being able to use jQuery's latest features in their plugins... OTOH, many websites still use jQ 1.4 or even lower, and coders are pretty much 'used' to its way of doing things...
7194
Off-topic / Re: Yuck...
« on November 4th, 2011, 07:18 PM »
It's a matter of taste, but... Ugly?
7195
Plugins / Re: Plugins I refuse to do
« on November 4th, 2011, 07:17 PM »
I currently have 557 tabs open in Opera... (Have a nifty little plugin indicating that in the corner.)
They're all actually opened and actually accessible within a second by clicking them in the tab list. (I usually press F4 to open a vertical panel with a complete list tree and find them easily. Oh, and of course if I'm not sure where my tab is, I can just type a part of the URL or page name in the quick search box and it'll immediately filter the results...)
So, yeah, I can "deal" with micro-issues like this one... :lol:
Especially since the latest 12.00 alpha fixes most of said micro-issues.
They're all actually opened and actually accessible within a second by clicking them in the tab list. (I usually press F4 to open a vertical panel with a complete list tree and find them easily. Oh, and of course if I'm not sure where my tab is, I can just type a part of the URL or page name in the quick search box and it'll immediately filter the results...)
So, yeah, I can "deal" with micro-issues like this one... :lol:
Especially since the latest 12.00 alpha fixes most of said micro-issues.
7196
Features / Re: New revs
« on November 4th, 2011, 07:15 PM »
rev 1147
(6 files, 16kb)
* Okay, that members table is really too confusing... Reordered all fields thematically (PM, login dates, group memberships...), which should at least save me from a seizure in the future. (install.sql)
* The thought system doesn't work better than last time, but at least some of its code now makes more sense. (Ajax.php, index.template.php, script.js)
! Fixed an Opera glitch where browsing with a small viewport would trigger the resize event as expected, but return wrong dimensions. It seems that it needed more time to calculate it, so I simply call the function twice. I'm not sure it's worth limiting the second call to Opera, as it could be helpful to other browsers too. (index.template.php)
! HTML validation error in the thought postbox. (index.template.php)
! Fixed sidebar link colors and floated the avatar to the right, to fix erratic behavior. (index.css)
* Indenazi. (Post.php)
(6 files, 16kb)
* Okay, that members table is really too confusing... Reordered all fields thematically (PM, login dates, group memberships...), which should at least save me from a seizure in the future. (install.sql)
* The thought system doesn't work better than last time, but at least some of its code now makes more sense. (Ajax.php, index.template.php, script.js)
! Fixed an Opera glitch where browsing with a small viewport would trigger the resize event as expected, but return wrong dimensions. It seems that it needed more time to calculate it, so I simply call the function twice. I'm not sure it's worth limiting the second call to Opera, as it could be helpful to other browsers too. (index.template.php)
! HTML validation error in the thought postbox. (index.template.php)
! Fixed sidebar link colors and floated the avatar to the right, to fix erratic behavior. (index.css)
* Indenazi. (Post.php)
7197
Plugins / Re: Plugins I refuse to do
« on November 4th, 2011, 05:30 PM »
In one hour I barely have time to write a couple of lines of JavaScript... :whistle:
(Heck, I'm currently cursing at myself for not being able to make a decision. Opera doesn't like the back/forward buttons when I'm visiting Wedge in a small window -- it tends not to trigger the resize event when navigating this way. If I move the code to below the jQuery init code, it starts working normally. But it also means that the pages, when reloading, spend a tenth of a second with a full sidebar, and only then does the sidebar go away. In the current SVN, you don't get to see the stray sidebar at all. Meh.)
(Heck, I'm currently cursing at myself for not being able to make a decision. Opera doesn't like the back/forward buttons when I'm visiting Wedge in a small window -- it tends not to trigger the resize event when navigating this way. If I move the code to below the jQuery init code, it starts working normally. But it also means that the pages, when reloading, spend a tenth of a second with a full sidebar, and only then does the sidebar go away. In the current SVN, you don't get to see the stray sidebar at all. Meh.)
7198
The Pub / Re: Wedge financial support
« on November 4th, 2011, 04:41 PM »
Thank you, that's nice to know :)
We don't need anything for now, though, as can be expected!
Is the current (French) server slow for you, BTW?
We don't need anything for now, though, as can be expected!
Is the current (French) server slow for you, BTW?
7199
Off-topic / Re: jQuery 1.7
« on November 4th, 2011, 04:09 PM »
Well, as the primary front-end guy here, I'll have to say that 1.7 is a step in the right direction, with things such as simplifying event delegation and shortening function names (on/off).
There are still a few quirks that bother me though:
- it still has the 'zoom' bug in Opera 12. I don't understand why they removed a function on the basis that it generated errors in Chrome's console log, but they're not fixing this one which does the same in Opera -- when it's a relatively easy fix. (It's even VERY easy if you use browser sniffing, meh... The only reason for that zoom test is to... test for IE.)
- it's larger than 1.5.2, obviously. Not by a wide margin... About 10%. But it's still 10%. Actually, I could have stayed with v1.4.4 which was smaller than 1.5.2 but wanted to have the 'perfect' Ajax code which they advertised. I'm not even sure this changes anything actually... I'd love for jQuery to re-release the 1.4 branch with UglifyJS compression. I'm sure it would be of benefit... (Or, yeah, I could recompress it manually, but the CDN version would stay as it is.)
- a good way to reduce size would be to release versions of jQuery where all deprecated functions are just *removed*... There is no reason not to do that. If you're the author of the JavaScript code that relies on jQuery, and you choose to use the 'light' version, you're bound to know not to use some functions like .bind() or .delegate().
- they're fixing HTML5 tag use in .html() but it still requires HTML5Shiv. I'm not exactly sure which is best here... They could go ahead and integrate HTML5Shiv, couldn't they? But then it would mean IE fixes waste bandwidth for other browsers. And then... And then you start wondering, how about they release modular jQuery versions targeted to a specific browser and version, and they let us choose the target...? So what, "it's not a good thing to sniff browser versions"? Who are we kidding here? The only browser that needs special treatment, 99% of the time, is IE... Just do a test for IE and call a custom jQuery for it!
- well, it's a first iteration. Remember how the release of 1.6 went..? It was a mess. Let's wait...
Other than that... Having jQuery 1.6 in Wedge was a no-no, but v1.7 is a bit better in that respect. If only they could take bandwidth into account...
There are still a few quirks that bother me though:
- it still has the 'zoom' bug in Opera 12. I don't understand why they removed a function on the basis that it generated errors in Chrome's console log, but they're not fixing this one which does the same in Opera -- when it's a relatively easy fix. (It's even VERY easy if you use browser sniffing, meh... The only reason for that zoom test is to... test for IE.)
- it's larger than 1.5.2, obviously. Not by a wide margin... About 10%. But it's still 10%. Actually, I could have stayed with v1.4.4 which was smaller than 1.5.2 but wanted to have the 'perfect' Ajax code which they advertised. I'm not even sure this changes anything actually... I'd love for jQuery to re-release the 1.4 branch with UglifyJS compression. I'm sure it would be of benefit... (Or, yeah, I could recompress it manually, but the CDN version would stay as it is.)
- a good way to reduce size would be to release versions of jQuery where all deprecated functions are just *removed*... There is no reason not to do that. If you're the author of the JavaScript code that relies on jQuery, and you choose to use the 'light' version, you're bound to know not to use some functions like .bind() or .delegate().
- they're fixing HTML5 tag use in .html() but it still requires HTML5Shiv. I'm not exactly sure which is best here... They could go ahead and integrate HTML5Shiv, couldn't they? But then it would mean IE fixes waste bandwidth for other browsers. And then... And then you start wondering, how about they release modular jQuery versions targeted to a specific browser and version, and they let us choose the target...? So what, "it's not a good thing to sniff browser versions"? Who are we kidding here? The only browser that needs special treatment, 99% of the time, is IE... Just do a test for IE and call a custom jQuery for it!
- well, it's a first iteration. Remember how the release of 1.6 went..? It was a mess. Let's wait...
Other than that... Having jQuery 1.6 in Wedge was a no-no, but v1.7 is a bit better in that respect. If only they could take bandwidth into account...
7200
Features / Re: Thought system
« on November 3rd, 2011, 11:19 PM »
You probably missed the PS I added after my post :)Quote from Arantor on November 3rd, 2011, 11:11 PM The list? It's probably a good example of how a good idea (gathering similar data saving into a single array for easier maintenance) gets blown out of proportion and becomes totally unmaintainable because of silly validation functions etc. It's documentation in the comments is even more confusing. As if it was all written to be maintained only by its original writer...Quote Good opportunity ;)Quote No problem, except for the saving of it.Quote Hmm alright...
Okay, going to bed early tonight. I'm tired... I think I've never spent so much time changelogging a feature. I must have re-re-re-reviewed the entire file list about 10 times in a few days...
Yeah, that one's pretty mindblowing to understand.Quote Some things like pm_prefs could be transferred, but they're set through a profile array that's pretty complicated and implies saving the variable to the members table itself... I'm not thrilled at the idea of tweaking that.
I will look at that, I never knew what the field did anyway.
It's created in one place, it's only used in one place, I'm not seeing what the problem is?
Yes... making files writable by default. Making an area of your space, that's going to be executable by live request, open to be modified by anyone else on the server.
Okay, going to bed early tonight. I'm tired... I think I've never spent so much time changelogging a feature. I must have re-re-re-reviewed the entire file list about 10 times in a few days...