web-site problem

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott&nbsp; </b><p>Bill, I don't know if this was intentional, but we can no longer respond to any comment except the original post. I don't think that's such a good idea - for example, if there is a string of 20 posts in a thread, and I would like to respond to the 3rd one, how do I indicate that?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>The dreaded 'do we go threaded or unthreaded' question. Both have pros and cons. Threaded is good because you can respond directly to a post, but in a long thread new posts tend to get lost in the middle of the thread. Unthreaded, the enwest post goes to the bottom of the thread and is easy to find, but if someone doesn't directly state what they are responding to, you may not understand what they are talking about.<BR><BR>Either way is fine with me. If we keep the current format, it just means people need to learn how to quote what they are responding to.<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>Jay's correct.<BR><BR>I was fiddling around with the N54 features and changed the thread style to "linear", meaning that posts are all indented equally and are in chronological order. I suppose we should put this to a vote (another thing they offer) and see where it comes out. It would only take a second to revert back to the way it was.<BR><BR>The most dangerous feature is "rating this post" - I probably don't need to tell you why this is turned off. It would be like "American Idol", except every contestant would be voted off...<BR><BR>Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I vote for MW to play the role of the nasty Brit. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>Enabling "quotes" from previous messages. What this allows you to do is to isolate a portion of a prior post WITHIN your own post so that you can respond to it. <BR><BR>This way, the forum can be kept threaded and posts can still refer to other posts made earlier in the thread without losing context. I've seen this feature on other message boards and it works great.<BR><BR>y'know what I mean?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>can we vote to go back to the old font used? <BR><BR>The san-serif font was easier to read.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>There's a link "Vote on Thread Style" at the top of the page thatwill allow you to exercise your democratic rights here.<BR><BR>I kinda like the new font, but it can also be reverted (sniff).<BR><BR>Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I also prefer the old font. Much easier to read, especially for those of us with resolution set at great than the normal 600x800<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris (the illini)</b><p>I gotta vote for the old font as well -- much easier to read...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>I'll change the font back.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>Sans serif fonts are not inherently any easier to read than serif fonts.<BR><BR>The reason this font Bill changed back to today (Verdana or Arial, depending on your browser) is easier to read is because the font it is replacing is Courier, a monospaced font.<BR><BR>Monospaced fonts assign the same space to every character, like a typewriter. Giving an "i" as much space as a capital "W" makes your brain work harder to read. Most modern fonts scale the footprint of the letter according to the actual letter size, allowing your brain to see recognizable groups of letters and read faster.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ben</b><p>On a side note, I just want to applaud Bill for the continued improvements he's made on the forum. The links page, voting, and the FAQ are all GREAT! <BR><BR>Hey Bill- while you're in the linking mood, did ya forget about Scott's non-baseball forum? It's getting lonely in there!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>which makes it easier to follow the threads (and skip over the pissing matches).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>"slacks"<BR><BR>"Sans serif fonts are not inherently any easier to read than serif fonts."<BR><BR>Absolutely not true.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>I won't clog up this thread with a typeface discussion, but look at the novels on your bookshelf. I bet 95+% of them are serif fonts. All major newspapers use serif for body text, and many even use it for headlines. Times/Times New Roman is still the most popular word processing font. Of course, very small text (8 pt. and below) tends to be more readable with sans serif.<BR><BR>I have read many, many studies on font and type readability, and there is not a clear consensus. It's a topic of heated discussion among typographers!<BR><BR>Pete, if you have credible information that says otherwise, it would be big new in the world of typography! I'd like to see it - e-mail me a link. I'm sure Bill doesn't want this to carry on in a thread about the web site.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>After doing it "single-threaded" for a couple of days, I like it better: I think it helps keep the thread on topic better. For instance, if I see that the last three posts in a thread are a discussion about OJ HOF'ers, I'm much less likely to inject a picture of a Jackie Robinson card I just won. And if I did, it would be easy for others to ignore me and return to the original topic...I like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>well, sort of......I voted for the "respond to each post" instead of the "at the end" of the thread. I think it makes it easier than guessing who is resonding to whom, at the end of the thread. Most folks won't put something in the message title to allude to what/who they are responding to. As for the typeface this is fine, imo......just my thoughts....and 2/3 of ya'll disagree with me on where the post should go.....oh well...that's normal.....later

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>My apologies for changing the thread style w/o prior notice... always better to beg forgiveness than ask permission <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. I think I prefer the "linear" format, as it's difficult to find responses in long threads. <BR><BR>The votelet will stay in place until the end of the month to give others time to chip in.<BR><BR>BTW, you can now add a "personal photo" (image) to your profile that's shown with each post. The FAQ's explain how to do this.<BR><BR>Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>the little picture thingie<BR><BR>Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p> "slacks" or "pants" or "shorts" - does it matter?<BR><BR>The proper response on the subject should have been, "Pete, there are many factors that go into the legibility of copy either on the web or in print." I would have agreed with you 100%. A good typographer takes the medium used into consideration so comparing web viewing to print was a poor choice. By the way, newspaper type is more often a font family called "Corona" and not "Times". Corona was designed specifically for better legibility for high speed printing which certainly includes newspapers. They look similar though so I can understand the mistake. <BR><BR>Times is common for desktop applications for no other reason then it came installed on all computers and eliminated the problem of the end users missing fonts which would have altered letter kerning, word spacing and line breaks which would reduce legibility as well as make whatever was sent look unprofessional. It's a common font used on web sites for the same reason. <BR><BR><BR>"I have read many, many studies on font and type readability, and there is not a clear consensus..."<BR><BR>Actually there is a consensus. The only "consensus" is that font style is just one factor of many in good legibility. <BR><BR>I'd love to know all these studies you've read but I know specific names is an issue with you so I won't hold my breath waiting for your sources.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>Pete, this discussion began with my assertion that:<BR><BR> "Sans serif fonts are not inherently any easier to read than serif fonts." <BR><BR>to which you wrote: "Absolutely not true." I take that to mean that you think that sans serif fonts ARE inherently more readable. <BR><BR>Your last post seems to counter this comment by admitting that there are many other factors that determine readability. No kidding. That was my point exactly.<BR><BR>And I never said that newspapers used Times. Why don't we take this to e-mail?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Kasel</b><p>Unless you are talking about the font used on the back of vintage cards why don't you take this little spat off to another mb.