What was wrong with a link?

In theory, if it causes an action, it should be a button*. Links should have no "side effects". I haven't used a screenreader, but I think it can give some way for the user to distinguish between buttons and links. If websites used them correctly, that would let the user know if "activating" it is "safe" or would cause an action (logging out, sending a message, changing preferences, etc).

Actually, that PM button would be fine as a link, since it doesn't cause an action. It doesn't send a PM, it takes you to a page where you can send a PM from. The final "Send PM" button on that page is what should be a button.

(* it should also use the POST HTTP method, which it doesn't, so meh; it's still broke)

---

I checked with IE6 - the buttons are even bolder than in SeaMonkey. The "Send Message" button doesn't fit completely into the "Author" column in IE.

It isn't translated yet - I could imagine that some languages (Finnish, German ...) will have longer words on that button, the text will be cut-off then.

I still think that a little symbol, maybe a letter in 9x16px (same height as "rate*.png") or 16x24px (same height as "head_20.png", would disturb the layout less.

p.s.: I'd like to see how Pirates has implemented it but the server seems to be down and I2U2 doesn't have PM on the forum pages yet :-/

I don't understand the inbox. It says I have 2 unread messages, but I'm uncertain what is unread.

---

Jack:

Ok, little warning for everyone using PM. All presently unread PMs will stay unread until you check their checkbox and mark them as read. Much fun if you have lots of PMs still in the list as the Mark as read option is.... at the bottom only. ;-)

---

Nicolas wrote:

In theory, if it causes an action, it should be a button*. Links should have no side effects...

Actually, that PM button would be fine as a link, since it doesn't cause an action. It doesn't send a PM, it takes you to a page where you can send a PM from. The final "Send PM" button on that page is what should be a button.

By this logic (which I agree with) the "Reply" button should also be a link, as it takes you to another page to post the reply.

Notice that by putting a "reply" link or button on each post encourages people to needlessly quote large volumes of text. One way around this is to provide a "post to thread" link which posts without quoting, along with a "reply to *this* post" link.

---

-- Eric Myers

"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats

Notice that by putting a "reply" link or button on each post encourages people to needlessly quote large volumes of text. One way around this is to provide a "post to thread" link which posts without quoting, along with a "reply to *this* post" link.

I thought we were trying to get rid of the generic "post to thread" in order to get to threaded readers.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I thought we were trying to get rid of the generic "post to thread" in order to get to threaded readers.

I hope not. I hate the mess of non-linear threads, where you can't read in the imho proper timely order.

If threads are no longer sorted simply by entry, but by some assumed reply order, how can you answer questions of different posts in one answer?

It also becomes less readable imho, as you can't see all answers at once but have to click at all sub-threads to read them.

The current setup is better then the threaded mess imho.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

I thought we were trying to get rid of the generic "post to thread" in order to get to threaded readers.

I hope not. I hate the mess of non-linear threads, where you can't read in the imho proper timely order.

All newsreaders let you choose "threaded mode" or just sort by date. And you can stay on the web-based forum if you want to.

If threads are no longer sorted simply by entry, but by some assumed reply order, how can you answer questions of different posts in one answer?

That's a bad idea anyway. Somebody who posted a question can just see the post that replied to it with the answer, instead of reading the whole thread to see the big post with lots of unrelated replies.

You don't have to use the threaded readers, but by replying questions of different posts in one answer you don't let others use them.

It also becomes less readable imho, as you can't see all answers at once but have to click at all sub-threads to read them.

Click? There are keyboard shortcuts on all newsreaders I know; you navigate like on a list, press down to select the next post. And even then, the newsgroup will be an *extra* apart from the web-based forum interface. You don't have to use it.

---

On most threaded boards the branches tend to run wild and often off-topic branches start to grow larger.

It isn't the boards fault but people use it like that.

A threaded board with all disciplined users does not have this problem. It's a major task for the moderators to care for that discipline.

All newsreaders let you choose "threaded mode" or just sort by date. And you can stay on the web-based forum if you want to.

Of course I use the ordinary web forum, as probably most participants will. Why bother with something else?

That's a bad idea anyway. Somebody who posted a question can just see the post that replied to it with the answer, instead of reading the whole thread to see the big post with lots of unrelated replies.

You don't have to use the threaded readers, but by replying questions of different posts in one answer you don't let others use them.

Posting lot's of answers instead of only one is spamming imho. I like to put my answers in one post, not lots of small snippets.

Click? There are keyboard shortcuts on all newsreaders I know; you navigate like on a list, press down to select the next post. And even then, the newsgroup will be an *extra* apart from the web-based forum interface. You don't have to use it.

Newsreaders? I'm on a web-forum, browsing it in the natural way via browser, FF in my case, how else? I don't want anything else as the usual web forum, and that has to be usable in a most convenient way.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

I don't want anything else as the usual web forum, and that has to be usable in a most convenient way.

I do want something else that is NOT web-based, and you're making it harder to make usable and convenient.

---

Where will the threaded option be if it's not on the web?

Where will the threaded option be if it's not on the web?

http://imagebin.org/11475
Actual screenshot, not edited.

---

Where will the threaded option be if it's not on the web?

http://imagebin.org/11475
Actual screenshot, not edited.

Why should I use the thunderbird instead of the normal firefox while browsing on the web like here?

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Why should I use the thunderbird instead of the normal firefox while browsing on the web like here?

Am I asking you to do it? Don't like it, don't use it. I will, you won't. You actually have a choice here (unlike with BOINC-wide teams, where you get the disadvantages regardless of whether *you* use them).

Since GMail added IMAP support I'm using less my web browser, and everything loads much faster than with the GMail web interface (and *instantly* after the first time). If forums had newsgroup access, I'd use my browser even less.

Have you tried Yahoo Mail new interface? It reminds me of 33MHz computers. Well no, mail programs ran *faster* on 33MHz than new webmails do on 3.0GHz. And even if it works at an acceptable speed, each CPU second wasted by bloated web interfaces is one less CPU second that BOINC could use.

---

Since GMail added IMAP support I'm using less my web browser, and everything loads much faster than with the GMail web interface (and *instantly* after the first time). If forums had newsgroup access, I'd use my browser even less.

Have you tried Yahoo Mail new interface? It reminds me of 33MHz computers. Well no, mail programs ran *faster* on 33MHz than new webmails do on 3.0GHz. And even if it works at an acceptable speed, each CPU second wasted by bloated web interfaces is one less CPU second that BOINC could use.

I rarely use webmailers at all, that's what I've got the thunderbird for: empty my pop3 (or imap) inboxes.

Why should I use any of these pages (especially Gmail, what is google and therefore without privacy)?

Edith says:
We're drifting quite far OT now, if a mod will delete this I will not complain ;)

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

I rarely use webmailers at all, that's what I've got the thunderbird for: empty my pop3 (or imap) inboxes.

I look forward to the day I can say: I rarely use webforums at all, that's what I've got the thunderbird for: read forums as newsgroups.

EDIT: Messages 13506-13526 should get moved to the Threads thread :)

---

Messages 13506-13526 should get moved to the Threads thread :)

These forums are for discussion of lots of things, if people move off topic for a while, who will mind? That's what discussions do.
As long as everyone does it without revolting into ripping each other's throats out, flinging pies and eggs, I doubt anyone will mind.

Show me any discussion that stays on topic from message 1 to 1,000, without any side-steps. I'm sure there's none to be found.

Besides, wouldn't moving those posts to the other thread disrupt that other thread, making that one all the less legible and easy to follow? ;-)

So please continue.

---

We could all start cooperating with members who wish to see it all in sub-threads by clicking the right reply button. Not the wrong one. The right or left one depending on circumstances.

Because whether it works or not depends on this.

Whose job will it be to relocate misplaced posts? And what will this person do with posts that reply to two or more previous posts (which will still be possible if they view it all as a single thread)?

Forums are updated again, mostly code for the PM system.
And yes, it has broken the index, if you see that. ;-)

---