Post by: Nao on October 1st, 2010, 06:32 PM
Client side:
Opera 9 or higher, 12 or higher recommended.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or higher, 10 or higher recommended.
Mozilla Firefox 2 or higher, 17 or higher recommended.
Apple Safari 3 or higher, 6 or higher recommended.
Google Chrome (any version), 27 or higher recommended.
JavaScript is strongly recommended
Cookies are strongly recommended
Flash is recommended for media embedding
Server side:
PHP 5.3 or higher
MySQL 5.0.3 or higher
GD2 graphic library for PHP
Post by: Xarcell on March 28th, 2011, 02:44 AM
Have you guys looked at CCS3pie for IE(http://css3pie.com/) and jQuery png transparency fix for IE(http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:PNG_Opacity_Fix_for_IE6)
Javascript is strongly recommended
Post by: Arantor on March 28th, 2011, 08:23 AM
Post by: Nao on March 28th, 2011, 09:43 AM
I noticed that IE 6 is a minimum requirement, but how extensive will the support for it be?
Outside China, the IE6 market share is now <5%, so it's no big loss if it doesn't look good on these. It has, however, to work, since Opera's market share is not much different and I'm using it as my primary development platform. (A matter of logic, I'd say.) I'm not testing support for Firefox 1.x and 2.x though, ah ah. (<0.3%)
Have you guys looked at CCS3pie for IE(http://css3pie.com/) and jQuery png transparency fix for IE(http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials:PNG_Opacity_Fix_for_IE6)
Anyway, once we start releasing our files, I'll probably stop testing for IE6 myself. People will be able to report bugs and stuff that were introduced in new builds, but I won't change Wedge to make it behave perfectly in IE6.
Yes, SMF does it, but remember that SMF2 was started back in 2005, when IE6 still had a 90% market share. We're six years later and they're still treating IE6 support as sacred or something.
Is jQuery going to be used, or are you guys writing mostly your own?
We're currently using 1.4.4 because we don't need more, but support for the latest versions seems pretty much mandatory to me. Admins have the ability to choose whether to load jQuery locally or from a CDN (I would recommend the CDN, if only because you get the benefit of cross-domain caching.)
I don't really know what to do about the filesize all in all, but I know that I spent a LOT of time optimizing the source code and templates to actually make it faster to load Wedge than SMF. (Even with aforementioned 56k modem.)
I guess I still haven't found my peace with jQuery. It has some nice features, but nothing that we couldn't implement ourselves. Hopefully, v2.0 will be modular... But I suspect that even if they added some kind of modularity to it, it would still be bigger than the entirety of 1.4.x.
Post by: Xarcell on March 28th, 2011, 07:02 PM
I hate seeing js file sizes over 25k, but that's just me. If your capable of writing your own, that will work best, it's just more time and bug tracking involved. User's can still add jQuery manually, that's the route I would take. I see no point than have both. But I am a fan of jQuery, and can't stand Mootools...
As far as IE6 goes, it's good to hear it won't be babied like SMF does. People need to upgrade. Most of the current IE6 users are from businesses anyway.
Post by: Nao on March 28th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Wow, you really know your shit.(that's not sarcasm).
I hate seeing js file sizes over 25k, but that's just me.
Wedge automatically caches and gzips all CSS and JS files. It's a feature I spent a lot of time working on, it's working perfectly in all browsers and it really saves a lot of bandwidth if your server doesn't let you enable gzipping automatically on files. (Plus, you save the processing time for gzipping files in the first place, as they're only gzipped once and then cached, as opposed to gzipped on the fly each time the file is requested in SMF for instance.)
Anyway--
The main script file (script.js+theme.js) is 28kb in Wedge (compared to 50kb in SMF for the same data), and gzipped to 10kb, meaning script.js+theme.js+jQuery = 37kb in Wedge, compared to the original 50kb (uncompressed) in SMF. All in all, if your server doesn't support automatic gzipping, then you actually save 13kb of bandwidth per user per session, *and* they get jQuery in the process. (Plus, since you can load jQ externally, you really save a whopping 40kb and an unneeded extra hit :))
If your capable of writing your own, that will work best, it's just more time and bug tracking involved. User's can still add jQuery manually, that's the route I would take. I see no point than have both. But I am a fan of jQuery, and can't stand Mootools...
As far as IE6 goes, it's good to hear it won't be babied like SMF does. People need to upgrade. Most of the current IE6 users are from businesses anyway.
Posted: March 28th, 2011, 07:15 PM
Re: filesize, it's also less of an issue when files are loaded at the end. That's where perceived loading times come into play. The only thing that's slower in that situation is the execution of JS functions. But that only means your code should behave as if the browser doesn't support JavaScript for a couple of seconds, and then JS takes over. It's as easy as that. (Of course it's not really exciting to write fallbacks for non-JS but you can always simply skip that and just expect people NOT to click everywhere in the first two seconds of loading your website for the first time... Which is, let's just say it, totally unrealistic. The act of clicking so quickly, I mean.)
Post by: [Unknown] on June 19th, 2011, 11:04 AM
Why might Flash be required?
We included jQuery but mainly for user interest. i.e. we don't actually need it ourselves, but we figured that since it's the de-facto library for developers, many would be happy to see it included by default, avoiding the need to include the library separately (potentially breaking other mods using it in the first place.) Everything is taken care of for them. However, early versions of $ had a reasonable filesize. Now, v1.4.4 is about 24kb after gzipping, which is scandalously big. It pretty much makes it hard for 56k modem users to run a site that uses jQuery. And the newest 1.5.x branch is even worse (I suspect v1.5.3 will finally reach the 30kb limit.)
I guess I still haven't found my peace with jQuery. It has some nice features, but nothing that we couldn't implement ourselves. Hopefully, v2.0 will be modular... But I suspect that even if they added some kind of modularity to it, it would still be bigger than the entirety of 1.4.x.
Re: filesize, it's also less of an issue when files are loaded at the end. That's where perceived loading times come into play. The only thing that's slower in that situation is the execution of JS functions. But that only means your code should behave as if the browser doesn't support JavaScript for a couple of seconds, and then JS takes over. It's as easy as that. (Of course it's not really exciting to write fallbacks for non-JS but you can always simply skip that and just expect people NOT to click everywhere in the first two seconds of loading your website for the first time... Which is, let's just say it, totally unrealistic. The act of clicking so quickly, I mean.)
-[Unknown]
Post by: Arantor on June 19th, 2011, 06:43 PM
Why might Flash be required?
So, there's a full blown media manager/gallery in the core now, and it's going to be tied in deeper. If you have a media management system, it's not illogical to replace conventional attachments with it too, and since media items can be embedded with bbcode, you get the ability to place 'attachments' wherever in the post you want them - great for blog entries, for example.
But since it is a media manager with video handling, it does often have to handle things that HTML5 can't, plus the player currently in use for uploaded MP3 files provides a nice graphic equalizer, which is all Flash implemented.
Post by: Aaron on June 19th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Post by: Dragooon on June 19th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Post by: MultiformeIngegno on June 19th, 2011, 08:08 PM
Post by: [Unknown] on June 19th, 2011, 08:33 PM
When I buy a game and don't see fancy shadows, it's not because my video card doesn't meet the minimum requirements... it's because it doesn't meet the recommended ones.
-[Unknown]
Post by: Dragooon on June 19th, 2011, 08:51 PM
Although I agree, Flash being a requirement is ridiculous even when the general shift is against it. It being recommended is totally reasonable though.
Post by: snoopy-virtual on June 19th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Every time I want to see something made with flash I need to open Windows 7
It is OK in Linux 32b but my main computer uses Linux 64b and flash doesn't works well there. Every now and then it works for a while, but as soon as Adobe make an update that's it. Gone again.
What's the point on having computers with so many Gb of RAM if they don't care about 64b systems?
Post by: Arantor on June 19th, 2011, 09:16 PM
Though if you're using the video embed option (a la embedding YouTube from a link) it will also use the Flash version IIRC. It's not *required* but it's a bit past *strongly recommended*.
Post by: Nao on June 19th, 2011, 09:35 PM
Post by: Nao on June 21st, 2011, 06:56 PM
link=msg=262645 date=1308474250]
I wouldn't waste my time with the Chrome 1 requirement. You would be surprised at how hard it is to lock Chrome to a single version. I don't think it's worth worrying about older than 6 or 8 or something at this point, and even probably not that far back.
I expect Jaeger and V8 and etc. to get optimized for jQuery, so it's probably going to become a standard. If it keeps getting more popular, I suspect it'll be bundled and detected at some point by browsers for further perf wins (since we're currently in a perf war.)
I'm wondering if querySelectorAll was among them... Hmm, maybe at least native qsa implementation in browsers was sped up with the growing popularity of jQ.
Post by: xrunner on May 4th, 2013, 07:42 PM
In the future when I want to try out this software it says I need the following -
Server side:
PHP 5.2 or higher
MySQL 5.1 or higher
GD2 graphic library for PHP
I verified the first two, but I can't see any tool in Cpanel to check if the GD2 graphic library for PHP exists. Do I need to worry about that (is it a basic package that should be there)? How do I verify it's there?
Thanks.
Post by: Arantor on May 4th, 2013, 07:43 PM
If you have SMF installed and SMF can resize avatars, you have GD installed. (The 'version check' page will tell you for certain)
Post by: xrunner on May 4th, 2013, 07:55 PM
The installer will validate it anyway.
If you have SMF installed and SMF can resize avatars, you have GD installed. (The 'version check' page will tell you for certain)
Post by: ziycon on May 4th, 2013, 07:58 PM
Post by: Arantor on May 4th, 2013, 08:59 PM
Post by: ziycon on May 4th, 2013, 11:43 PM
Post by: Nao on May 5th, 2013, 06:02 PM
Good to hear. I don't hate flash but try to avoid it were possible. :)
It's not a priority for me, though... At least, it doesn't bother as much as when I was working on Aeva Media full-time.
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 10:27 AM
I hate opera mini.
Post by: Nao on May 7th, 2013, 02:57 PM
Wedge should look fine on Opera Mobile, though!
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 04:52 PM
Wedge should look fine on Opera Mobile, though!
Post by: Arantor on May 7th, 2013, 04:54 PM
Post by: Nao on May 7th, 2013, 05:30 PM
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 09:12 PM
In Opera Mini, Mybb Go mobile is best forum template however, I am surprise to smf4mobile beat him hands down with opera browser. Here is the screenshot of comparism between Mybb Gomobie and Smf 4Mobile
Board Index
SMF 4 Mobile
 |
SMF4Mobile Board Index |
MyBB Go Mobile
 |
Mybb GoMobile Board Index |
Message Index
SMF 4 Mobile
 |
SMF4Mobile Message Index |
Mybb Go Mobile Message Index
 |
Mybb Go Mobile Message Index |
Display
SMF 4 Mobile Display
 |
SMF4 Mobile Display |
Mybb Go Mobile Display
 |
Mybb Go Mobile Display |
Just to show how good Mybb Go Mobile looks in Opera Mini.
Post by: Arantor on May 7th, 2013, 09:23 PM
@Wanchope: You can always press the Mobile button at the bottom of the page in a regular browser to get an idea of what it should normally look like (and does, on proper mobile browsers... I'm not sure WTF is up with Opera Mini)
Post by: Dragooon on May 7th, 2013, 09:26 PM
Post by: Wanchope on May 7th, 2013, 10:39 PM
@Wanchope: You can always press the Mobile button at the bottom of the page in a regular browser to get an idea of what it should normally look like (and does, on proper mobile browsers... I'm not sure WTF is up with Opera Mini)
@Dragooon
The same thing.
 |
smf4mobile |
Post by: Dragooon on May 8th, 2013, 04:41 AM
Post by: Wanchope on May 8th, 2013, 05:12 AM
I can't reproduce that on my phone with Opera Mini, which device are you using?
Post by: Arantor on May 8th, 2013, 05:16 AM
Post by: Wanchope on May 8th, 2013, 07:01 AM
Post by: Arantor on May 8th, 2013, 02:23 PM
Post by: Dragooon on May 8th, 2013, 03:36 PM
Post by: Dragooon on May 9th, 2013, 05:19 PM