Topic: My suggestions for leading into SMF 2XX

[rimh101]

Hi, I’m a SMF fan and I will give my suggestions for leading into SMF 2XX, I describe them below please look at my suggestions as to the SMF 2.xx, I ask developers to they consider this.

1.The system of warnings should have the option of doff warning through the button doff warning, because in order to cut warning for the user, have to click into the button minus o the appearance of the inscription on the Result: Lack, and then have to add anew warning with this “lack” to warning was doffed, and this is just senselessness as I wrote should be a button doff/remove warning.

2. If I am already at the system of warnings below is the table of Previous warnings where is added and by whom, time, reason, points and here also hasn’t a button of cleaning this information, please add this button which will can be cleaned these information.

3. Please improve the appearance of the profile, in the summary, the best system is SMF 1.1.xx

The order is right:

Shown name: NICK
Messages: Number of the message
Position:  RANK
IP: IP number
Host name: host name
Registration date: Date
Recently active: Date
Email:    (e-mail)
Web page:
Present status: Online or Offline
Sex:
Age: lack
Whereabouts:
Local time: local time

And avatar is pretty set on the right-hand side

But in SMF 2.0xx the entire chain of information in the profile is otherwise arranged, user name and rank under the user name should found in a different place than so far are, are not nice installed, please look at the SMF 1.1 as it's in there nicely positioned. The online/offline status should be below as it is in the SMF 1.1

From SMF 1.1. XX in SMF 2.0 xx lacks those options at the bottom in the profile: (please add them)

Additional information:

Send to this user the private message

List of the latest news of this user.
Show general statistics to this user.

4. Improve the appearance of the Registration, fields to the password should evenly be placed with fields to the login name and to the e-mail, unfortunately fields to the password aren’t evenly placed, and this slider which is on the right side, it isn’t needed so honourable developers remove this.
(Please check that fields to the password not evenly are placed:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?action=register)

5. And last you could add the option of including the field of logging at the bottom of the forum, only provided it isn't dependent on styles.

[Arantor]

1.The system of warnings should have the option of doff warning through the button doff warning, because in order to cut warning for the user, have to click into the button minus o the appearance of the inscription on the Result: Lack, and then have to add anew warning with this “lack” to warning was doffed, and this is just senselessness as I wrote should be a button doff/remove warning.

Agreed that it is a bit strange to have to 'issue a warning' to remove some warning points.

If I am already at the system of warnings below is the table of Previous warnings where is added and by whom, time, reason, points and here also hasn’t a button of cleaning this information, please add this button which will can be cleaned these information.

Why would you ever want to remove the log of warnings that people have received? Surely you'd want to keep that history to see if people have been a problem in the past? (I seem to recall that the list is cleared after something like 6 months, though)

Please improve the appearance of the profile, in the summary, the best system is SMF 1.1.xx

I'm not convinced 1.1.x was the best but 2.1 could certainly use some improvements.

Improve the appearance of the Registration, fields to the password should evenly be placed with fields to the login name and to the e-mail, unfortunately fields to the password aren’t evenly placed, and this slider which is on the right side, it isn’t needed so honourable developers remove this.

I've never seen any sliders, all works fine for me - what browser are you using and what screen size?

And last you could add the option of including the field of logging at the bottom of the forum, only provided it isn't dependent on styles.

I would have thought the 'quick login' being at the top is more useful than being at the bottom. Certainly that's what I've found recently after experimenting with this in Wedge.

[rimh101]

Agreed that it is a bit strange to have to 'issue a warning' to remove some warning points.

Exactly, so I ask a programmers SMF for entering my suggestion as for the system of warnings.

Why would you ever want to remove the log of warnings that people have received? Surely you'd want to keep that history to see if people have been a problem in the past? (I seem to recall that the list is cleared after something like 6 months, though)

I just call attention on this, essentially a button of cleaning logs should be, and these logs should enrol somewhere in the archive (with the possibility of cleaning them)

If the list is being removed after the period of 6 months it okay,  but I'm insisting on cleaning these logs.

I'm not convinced 1.1.x was the best but 2.1 could certainly use some improvements.

The user profile in 1.1 xx is more aesthetically than in SMF 2.0xx, hence I referred to this to enhance profile in SMF 2xx that was better.

I've never seen any sliders, all works fine for me - what browser are you using and what screen size?

This slider and crooked fields to the password during the registration are visible on the IE 9 viewer, the Opera well is showing, so would be useful so that programmers for IE improve it.

I would have thought the 'quick login' being at the top is more useful than being at the bottom. Certainly that's what I've found recently after experimenting with this in Wedge.

Yeah but on the bottom the field of the log-on is also good, majority of engines forums has a field of the log-on at the bottom I have no clue why the programmers of SMF abandoned this idea.

I hope that SMF programmers will read my suggestions and will implement my suggestions as for the system of warnings, and will look with eye on other my suggestions, thanks for answer.

[Kindred]

hmmm...  I have no idea what your use of the word "doff" means

I am with Arantor on this...   I don't think that the warnings log should ever be cleared...

well, the layout of profiles is your opinion... personally, I prefer the 2.0 layout.

[Arantor]

hmmm...  I have no idea what your use of the word "doff" means

I thought my translation would have been enough - essentially the problem is illogic. To 'doff' (remove) a warning you have to issue a negative warning.

I just call attention on this, essentially a button of cleaning logs should be, and these logs should enrol somewhere in the archive (with the possibility of cleaning them)

There IS a button for cleaning the logs. It's in the maintenance area, under routine tasks. The reason for this is to prevent people who shouldn't be tampering with it from doing so.

Again, why are you insisting on removing these logs? They are kept so you can see the history of troublesome users!

The user profile in 1.1 xx is more aesthetically than in SMF 2.0xx, hence I referred to this to enhance profile in SMF 2xx that was better.

Eh, that's a matter of taste, I disliked 1.1.x, 2.0 is better, but not by a lot.

This slider and crooked fields to the password during the registration are visible on the IE 9 viewer, the Opera well is showing, so would be useful so that programmers for IE improve it.

You didn't really answer my questions. It is likely that it is related to your screen size!

Yeah but on the bottom the field of the log-on is also good, majority of engines forums has a field of the log-on at the bottom I have no clue why the programmers of SMF abandoned this idea.

That's the point: it really isn't as good as you seem to think. I have actively been trying this in another forum system and it's actually less intuitive than it sounds like it should be.

[rimh101]

I thought my translation would have been enough - essentially the problem is illogic. To 'doff' (remove) a warning you have to issue a negative warning.

This way I mean it in order to lift warning for the user it is necessary to click on the minus all the way to result 0, later it is necessary to add anew warning with result 0 the previous warning to be removed, it’s silly because should be a button of doff warning than clicking on the minus.

There IS a button for cleaning the logs. It's in the maintenance area, under routine tasks. The reason for this is to prevent people who shouldn't be tampering with it from doing so.

I understand where exactly this button is?

Again, why are you insisting on removing these logs? They are kept so you can see the history of troublesome users!

I am not insisting, I gave my suggestion as for improving the system of warnings, of course the history of granted warnings should be because it is needed to see what for some user got a warning but the button of cleaning this history should be, I think, if somebody wants it so leave this history for itself, if somebody doesn’t want it so remove it. That's all in this subject.

Eh, that's a matter of taste, I disliked 1.1.x, 2.0 is better, but not by a lot.

Yeah it is a matter of the taste, I hope that of the further development of the SMF 2xx the appearance of the profile will be changing for the better it is about an aesthetic quality and array.

You didn't really answer my questions. It is likely that it is related to your screen size!

1440X900 resolution, field appears to the crooked password and this slider on the right side, as I wrote it is in the Curve style during the registration, this can be seen as use of internet explorer, in the other browser doesn’t have this problem, I checked on other SMF forums along with the style Curve and this problem are appearing on the viewer Internet Explorer, on the Core style doesn't have this problem and it is also knowing style in SMF 2 xx.

I marked on the screen how it is looks in the internet explorer

i47.tinypic.com/dn2crb.png (add http)

That's the point: it really isn't as good as you seem to think. I have actively been trying this in another forum system and it's actually less intuitive than it sounds like it should be.

I understand, ok, if the SMF 2 xx programmers decided that the logging field will not at the bottom, then I will not argue with that.

What I was supposed to report from myself I reported, maybe programmers will look at the system of warnings which must be improved, as for the button of remove warnings, no minus! And it will improve and if it isn't a fault from the resolution it fits to implement corrections to SMF styles for IE 9. I thank for the devoted attention.

[emanuele]

Hello rimh101, welcome to sm.org and thank you for the suggestions.

Okay, now I understand the point about "removing warnings", it's not about remove the entry from the log, but "revoke" a warning issued (I honestly think it makes sense to keep record of all the actions related to warnings, both increasing and decreasing it).
It is somehow related to this request: in other words the warning system has already all the needed flexibility (except maybe an easier way to "revoke" a warning like you proposed), but it not perfectly clear how it can be used to people new to this system.

A "revoke" warning could be a simple link in the table next to "points", it would probably need a new template (a reason to revoke the warning would be needed anyway), but it shouldn't be too difficult.

[Arantor]

I understand where exactly this button is?

Admin > Maintenance > Forum Maintenance > Routine > Empty out unimportant logs

because it is needed to see what for some user got a warning but the button of cleaning this history should be, I think, if somebody wants it so leave this history for itself, if somebody doesn’t want it so remove it. That's all in this subject.

I still don't see why you need to empty the history out.

I marked on the screen how it is looks in the internet explorer

So really we're talking about a bug in IE rather than anything else... it should work as expected in up to IE8 which is what was released when 2.0 final was released a year ago.

It won't be fixed in 2.0.x but it will hopefully be fixed in 2.1.

[rimh101]

Hello rimh101, welcome to sm.org and thank you for the suggestions.

Hi. Thanks. Okay

Okay, now I understand the point about "removing warnings", it's not about remove the entry from the log, but "revoke" a warning issued (I honestly think it makes sense to keep record of all the actions related to warnings, both increasing and decreasing it).
It is somehow related to this request: in other words the warning system has already all the needed flexibility (except maybe an easier way to "revoke" a warning like you proposed), but it not perfectly clear how it can be used to people new to this system.

I don't understand this too much, I mean it in order to you as programmers will improve this system of warnings so that there is an option of doff warning for the user through the button doff warning/remove warning anything, and not as now, in order to remove a warning should click into the button on the minus, all the way to result 0 and then it is necessary to add this warning with this result, it doesn't make sense never met with such a system of warnings in which in order to doff a warning must click into the button on the minus on previous warning, I don't blame you for this, but I want to aim you so that you correct this system of warnings, so that you implement what I wrote, it is good.

A "revoke" warning could be a simple link in the table next to "points", it would probably need a new template (a reason to revoke the warning would be needed anyway), but it shouldn't be too difficult.

I understand, it already depends on you programmers as if you did it, important there would be a revoke/doff/remove button of this warnings.
I love SMF and therefore I am wanting what's best for this forum.

Admin > Maintenance > Forum Maintenance > Routine > Empty out unimportant logs

Thanks.

I still don't see why you need to empty the history out.

I will answer this way: if to improve the system of warnings, to improve it of it in all options, not only in one, thats why I suggested the button/option of cleaning it, that's all, now it depends on programmers whether will find it appropriate in order to insert it whether no, I am favour of this, and I don't change the sentence.

So really we're talking about a bug in IE rather than anything else... it should work as expected in up to IE8 which is what was released when 2.0 final was released a year ago.

Yeah but w IE 8 doesn't have this problem with this registration, in IE 9 is (STRANGE).

It won't be fixed in 2.0.x but it will hopefully be fixed in 2.1.

All right, I also have such hope.

[emanuele]

Now that I think about it, the problem with the registration template is most likely the usual bug on the recognition of IE 9 (i.e. IE 9 is not recognized by SMF and is considered...IE6? don't remember).

Try this:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=455542.msg3254291#msg3254291

[Bloc]

The whole issue of 1.1 versus 2.0 profile layout would not exist if more theme creators would dare to change that profile template, and not just roll with default one. Very few even touches that template, which is a shame, since it can be brilliant if you explored new layouts and options with it.

Alas, you just have to deal with whatever exists, and be content with that. Until next big change, which is prob. not due until SMF 3.0...

[rimh101]

Now that I think about it, the problem with the registration template is most likely the usual bug on the recognition of IE 9 (i.e. IE 9 is not recognized by SMF and is considered...IE6? don't remember).

I understand.
I hope that you will enter amendments into the next edition SMF through which the registration will be a good displays in the style Curve on IE 9.

Try this:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=455542.msg3254291#msg3254291

I did it in load.php and unfortunately not work, is still as it is at the registration in IE9.

I have a question, emanuele will you deal with correcting this system of warnings in the future?

The whole issue of 1.1 versus 2.0 profile layout would not exist if more theme creators would dare to change that profile template

Essentially yes.

Alas, you just have to deal with whatever exists, and be content with that. Until next big change, which is prob. not due until SMF 3.0...

I understand, thanks for the opinion.

[emanuele]

Try this:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=455542.msg3254291#msg3254291

I did it in load.php and unfortunately not work, is still as it is at the registration in IE9.

mmm...then no idea...sorry.

I have a question, emanuele will you deal with correcting this system of warnings in the future?

I think the two options here and in the other topic do make sense.
Can't tell you for sure, but I'll probably commit something, will see if it will go into 2.1, it's not only my opinion that counts here.

[rimh101]

mmm...then no idea...sorry.

Nothing happened.

I think the two options here and in the other topic do make sense.
Can't tell you for sure, but I'll probably commit something, will see if it will go into 2.1, it's not only my opinion that counts here.

I understand. Ok, have to wait   I thank for your answer and your time.

[rimh101]

I still have one suggestion to SMF 2 xx, please for implementing the option of turning off the option: allow users to send emails, this option is during the registration and should be the option of turning off this option.

[emanuele]

I'm not sure if you want that:
1) your members should not be able to send emails to each other
2) your members should not be able to decide to not receive email from other members.

The first will be present as a permission in 2.1.

[rimh101]

#1- Yes, if I understood this, I mean about option in the panel administrator which turns off sending e-mails to users through the forum, for all users, and I hope that through this option during the registration this inscription:
Allow users to send emails: (mark)
Disappear.

[emanuele]

As I wrote this will be a permission, so you will be able to allow, not allow or deny it like any other permission on the forum.
I didn't consider the option at registration, at the moment I'm not sure if add yet another option to disable emails when there is/will be a permission is the best.
But at the same time this option doesn't make much sense when registering honestly...I'd simply set it to no by default (like it should already be) and remove it from the registration page since it would still be possible to change it from the profile anyway (if you are allowed to do it, of course...I hope, I've to check that... ).

Thanks for your suggestions rimh101.

[rimh101]

As I wrote this will be a permission, so you will be able to allow, not allow or deny it like any other permission on the forum.

I understand, and this is it

But at the same time this option doesn't make much sense when registering honestly...

Exactly, hence this option should disappear after turning off the option sending e-mails through users.

Thanks for your suggestions rimh101.

You're welcome.

I ask about the introduction of option on the panel of administrator which turn off the List of friends / ignored in the profil.

[emanuele]

I ask about the introduction of option on the panel of administrator which turn off the List of friends / ignored in the profil.

That is already there: admin > configuration > features and options > general: Enable buddy/ignore lists

[rimh101]

That is already there: admin > configuration > features and options > general: Enable buddy/ignore lists

Indeed this option is, I overlooked it. Thanks for the information.

emanuele I've a question for you explain me why fields to the password during the registration have different colour than the field to the login (white colour)

[emanuele]

The only fields with different color in the registration page are the password fields.
They are different...don't know the reason, I assume to better inform the user if the password is correct or not.

[rimh101]

The only fields with different color in the registration page are the password fields.
They are different...don't know the reason, I assume to better inform the user if the password is correct or not.

I know, I understand, essentially should be white field to the password and if writing too short password or repetition of other passwords then this field should change it to the light red colour (if it is red) and then on green (if the password is correct). This is my opinion, as I see it, not necessarily somebody else must see it as I.

And I have another question to you emanuele:

I mean about this option: Allow to show the address email. Description of the option:

If this option is included addresses email of users instead of to be concealed for members of groups and guests will be visible publicly on the forum...

So I ask if this option isn't included so a e-mail in profile e.g. of Administrator, Moderator, User in the group e.g. Vip of the Forum, the e-mail of Users isn't visible for someone who visit profile? I mean that I don't want to other user in group or without group after the entry for someone profile had a preview of the e-mail of the user.

[live627]

The only fields with different color in the registration page are the password fields

Don't forget the username, too...

They are different...don't know the reason, I assume to better inform the user if the password is correct or not.

Indeed. Red of not acceptable, green if it's okay.

if writing too short password or repetition of other passwords then this field should change it to the light red colour

It stays red if pass is  too short.

I mean about this option: Allow to show the address email. Description of the option:

If this option is included addresses email of users instead of to be concealed for members of groups and guests will be visible publicly on the forum...

So I ask if this option isn't included

In 2.0.2 it is a  bit different to 1.1.x; it is renamed to "Allow users to email me?" and it is unchecked by default.

[rimh101]

It stays red if pass is  too short.

I write one more time, currently now the field of the password during the registration is red and shouldn’t be white? The same as field to the login. So if it would be field for password white then if someone write too short password or in repeating the password other password than higher then this field should change to the colour red informing that the password is too short or bad repeated. It’s the same when the password is correct, that is if somebody writes correct password field is changing on green. Now currently field to the password is red and I don’t understand why is red, should be white as the field on login.

In 2.0.2 it is a  bit different to 1.1.x; it is renamed to "Allow users to email me?" and it is unchecked by default.

As for the option nobody wouldn't see e-mails of users after going the profile of users, I asked if the not turn on this option will lead to that nobody these e-mails will not be seen, so if some usual user or in the group after going the someone profile will see e-mail address or not?

[MrPhil]

Indeed. Red of not acceptable, green if it's okay.

if writing too short password or repetition of other passwords then this field should change it to the light red colour

It stays red if pass is  too short.

Keep in mind that colors alone are absolutely unacceptable to indicate an error or any other status. People with color perception difficulties often will not notice the change in color, or fail to appreciate what it's trying to say. You MUST have something additional, such as a message or symbol, to flag the problem. For severe errors (hopefully a rare event), even blinking might work (it's something you should minimize in an interface).

Notice that even traffic lights do this: red is always at one specific end, and green at the other (note that this positioning varies from state to state!). That's why you don't see a single light that changes between green and yellow and red, although it could technically be done.

[rimh101]

My new suggestion as to introduce a new option to the SMF 2xx

Please add the option: hide the address email? – in configuration of profile. As it is in the SMF 1.1xx

[Arantor]

It's already there, but switched slightly.

SMF 1.x assumed that people would be sharing by default, 2.0 does not but instead assumes people are hidden by default and you have to turn it on to show it, see Profile > Account Settings > Allow users to email me

But it will then take users to a form to send an email instead of actually sharing the user's email with you... all round a better solution.

[emanuele]

And I have another question to you emanuele:

I mean about this option: Allow to show the address email. Description of the option:

If this option is included addresses email of users instead of to be concealed for members of groups and guests will be visible publicly on the forum...

So I ask if this option isn't included so a e-mail in profile e.g. of Administrator, Moderator, User in the group e.g. Vip of the Forum, the e-mail of Users isn't visible for someone who visit profile? I mean that I don't want to other user in group or without group after the entry for someone profile had a preview of the e-mail of the user.

Not sure what you are asking here: simply don't check this box and the users (apart those with the "manage members" (in normal conditions admins) permission I think) will not be able to directly see any email address.

[rimh101]

It's already there, but switched slightly.

SMF 1.x assumed that people would be sharing by default, 2.0 does not but instead assumes people are hidden by default and you have to turn it on to show it, see Profile > Account Settings > Allow users to email me

But it will then take users to a form to send an email instead of actually sharing the user's email with you... all round a better solution.

I understand, but I mean the option of to hide the email address for each user. I mean that there is an option hide the e-mail address which no user after going the profile of some user can't see his e-mail address.

And I have another question to you emanuele:

I mean about this option: Allow to show the address email. Description of the option:

If this option is included addresses email of users instead of to be concealed for members of groups and guests will be visible publicly on the forum...

So I ask if this option isn't included so a e-mail in profile e.g. of Administrator, Moderator, User in the group e.g. Vip of the Forum, the e-mail of Users isn't visible for someone who visit profile? I mean that I don't want to other user in group or without group after the entry for someone profile had a preview of the e-mail of the user.

Not sure what you are asking here: simply don't check this box and the users (apart those with the "manage members" (in normal conditions admins) permission I think) will not be able to directly see any email address.

I mean to be introduce option in the panel the administrator which is hiding e-mail addresses for all people on the forum: guests, users, users in groups, apart from of course the Administrator and the Moderator, the point is that no user can’t see publicly address e-mail  let's assume my as administrator or there some other user.

[emanuele]

By default in SMF 2.0 the emails are not visible to anyone apart from administrators.
I'm still not sure how this is different from what you have asked before.

[Kindred]

For example, on this very forum....

you won't see anyone's email address....   even if they have chosen to allow other users to email them, you don't get to SEE the email address, it just triggers a form, which is then sent to the user.

[rimh101]

By default in SMF 2.0 the emails are not visible to anyone apart from administrators.
I'm still not sure how this is different from what you have asked before.

Super, this is what I wanted to know, thanks for answer.

For example, on this very forum....

you won't see anyone's email address....   even if they have chosen to allow other users to email them, you don't get to SEE the email address, it just triggers a form, which is then sent to the user.

I understand, thanks for information.

[rimh101]

I have such a suggestion as for SMF 2xx, let's assume is the thread and in this thread is bad title assume Alicee has a cat and in this thread are added answers from users and to change the name of the thread on correct at the author  ought to editing this thread and correct the title on Alice has a cat, but still at the users who added the answers is seen the bad title as answer on Alicee has cat, so at them ought to editing their message, I propose to introduce such a function that will be allow the change at everyone, if at the author of the thread improve the title at everyone automatically a title should improve. (If this option is possible).

[emanuele]

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=3167



Also, please open a different topic for each request, otherwise it would become difficult to properly track and evaluate everything.

[rimh101]

I understand, I must to every my new suggestion create the new thread? I can't write in this current?

As for it plug-in, is a possibility such an option with editing of this thread will be available in SMF 2.1? Option which for itself it will be possible to turn on or turn off

[emanuele]

I understand, I must to every my new suggestion create the new thread? I can't write in this current?

Yes, it's better to have one request, one topic.

As for it plug-in, is a possibility such an option with editing of this thread will be available in SMF 2.1? Option which for itself it will be possible to turn on or turn off

No, I don't think it will be in 2.1.

[rimh101]

I understand, but think about such a function in SMF 2xx sometime, thank you for the information.

[rimh101]

emanuele I have a question in relation to this modification which you gave to me in the link to the change of name of the subject after the click to the button RENAME TOPIC appearing a table for the change of name of the subject, only this table has some mistake, I marked it on the screen:
i47.tinypic.com/2ngae6p.jpg
with red arrows, next the Rename Topic inscription isn't showing the picture probably as well as under the Topic Subject inscription is long white field of which it should not be. I install TopicRenamer_2.2 on SMF 2.0.2, you know why such a mistake is appearing? Maybe report it to the author of this modification?

[emanuele]

No idea.
Please ask in the support topic for the mod.

[rimh101]

Ok, thanks.