I see that a few people are not entirely happy with the SMF 2.1 "default" theme. On his topic Database sharing? (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=578282.0), Shades asked about SMF 2.0.18 and SMF 2.1 sharing the same database (they cannot - the database structures are different).
Is it possible instead to have SMF 2.1.x "default" and "Core" themes to give his forum the same look and feel of a SMF 2.0.18 forum? If so, would there be any loss of functionality when using these themes on a SMF 2.1.x installation? The suggestion of running two SMF installations side-by-side (in different directories) would have people shuffling back and forth between the two - not the best alternative.
I uploaded the "Badem Smf 2_0 bootstrap Themes", "Börü", and "Wide A Responsive Theme" to my SMF 2.1 testbed site (http://www.arimecibo.com/smf_2_1/index.php). the "Badem Smf 2_0 bootstrap Themes" and "Börü" themes showed some color changes, but no significant change to the overall 2.1 layout. The "Wide A Responsive Theme" was completely messed up. Luckily I only clicked on the "Preview this theme" buttons to look at all three.
You can't use 2.0 themes on 2.1 forum.
I am aware that the 2.0.x themes are incompatible with 2.1.x forum. I was asking if someone who regularly does theme coding could write a theme for 2.1.x that would mimic the 2.0.18 "default" and "Core" themes.
This would require repositioning of the login, logout, and other navigation links. As long as the navigation links are in the standard places (for 2.0.x), people could more easily transition to the new format.
The graphics used for "New posts", "No new posts" and others would have to conform to the 2.1.x standard. Part of the transition would be getting folks used to the new icons, so they know what to look for. It would be too much to ask for anyone to rework all of the forum icons.
I have set a poll on my main 2.0.18 forum asking if the membership wants the update to SMF 2.1.x or stay with 2.0.18. There is a link in the poll pointing to a very raw SMF 2.1RC4 installation. They can sign up, try the few themes that I installed, and "try before you buy", so to speak. The jury is still out.
I had done a lot of the mods you've mentioned back in beta, it's not difficult, but don't think I saved it. All the forums I support are at 2.0.18, I've advised against upping to 2.1 until it goes final. Unless there's something in 2.1 you really need, stay with 2.0.
This probably belongs in the "Help Wanted" board.
It's not all that difficult to do, if you are well-acquainted with SMF templating and CSS. The difficulty will be finding someone who is willing to do it. Core, in particular, is likely to be seen as unappealing by most people these days. Even the 2.0.x default (Curve) is a bit dated.
Are you thinking of complete copies of the old themes? Or are you only thinking of duplicating the actual layout, with the look still being 2.1?
And really, you will find that whenever you propose any changes about half of people will complain about it and the other half will think it's great. This usually applies regardless of whether the changes are actually a good idea or not. :D
If you go ahead and implement the changes, the half that were grumbling will usually get used to them pretty quickly. The 2.1 default theme is not at all difficult to navigate. It's just slightly different to the 2.0.x default.
Core was the default theme for 1.1. Still have couple of forums that are using it.
Quote from: noquiexis on October 19, 2021, 09:22:59 PMI am aware that the 2.0.x themes are incompatible with 2.1.x forum. I was asking if someone who regularly does theme coding could write a theme for 2.1.x that would mimic the 2.0.18 "default" and "Core" themes.
As mentioned above by @Antechinus
, it is very much doeable. Try to post a request about it at this forum:
There are a lot of very taleneted designers here. Hopefully someone will design it for you.
Quote from: noquiexis on October 19, 2021, 05:29:41 PMI uploaded the "Badem Smf 2_0 bootstrap Themes", "Börü", and "Wide A Responsive Theme" to my SMF 2.1 testbed site (http://www.arimecibo.com/smf_2_1/index.php). the "Badem Smf 2_0 bootstrap Themes" and "Börü" themes showed some color changes, but no significant change to the overall 2.1 layout. The "Wide A Responsive Theme" was completely messed up. Luckily I only clicked on the "Preview this theme" buttons to look at all three.
If you don't like it, don't use it, there are hundreds of people who like and use the theme. If you know a lot, you can do it yourself?
Sir Osis of Liver wrote, "I've advised against upping to 2.1 until it goes final."
And yet SMF did that to their own forum. This kind of shoots a hole in the "do not use Release Candidates (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=570377.0) on a production site" idea.
Antechinus wrote, "Are you thinking of complete copies of the old themes? Or are you only thinking of duplicating the actual layout, with the look still being 2.1?"
Ideally only two themes, Core and Curve, would copy the 2.0.18 look and layout while using the technological improvements in 2.1.x, whatever those might be.
The Wide A Responsive Theme (https://custom.simplemachines.org/index.php?theme=2837) author claims that it is "COMPATIBLE WITH 2.0.18, 2.1 RC4". As I mentioned above, it was totally messed up on my "SMF 2.1 RC4 © 2021, Simple Machines" testbed (http://www.arimecibo.com/smf_2_1/index.php) site. I checked it again as I was writing this, and it is still messed up. I went back to the default theme.
"... whenever you propose any changes about half of people will complain about it and the other half will think it's great."
The whole idea of having a theme is to give people choice. Some may be pleased with the new default theme. Some people here (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=578496.0) have complained about the new look and feel of the default 2.1.x theme.
If the SMF development team continues to support and improve the 2.0.x line, then it becomes a simple choice of whether or not to upgrade to 2.1.x. My guess is that 2.0.x will no longer be improved, but I could be wrong about that.
Sooner or later, someone is going to have to find a way to bring the 2.0.x database up to speed with 2.1.x so that existing forums can make the upgrade. What they might do with 2.0.x themes after the upgrade is a matter of speculation.
In the meantime, I will post my idea on the Help Wanted (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=50.0) page.
Bug notification setting insult setting
Quote from: noquiexis on October 21, 2021, 02:36:06 AMAnd yet SMF did that to their own forum. This kind of shoots a hole in the "do not use Release Candidates (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=570377.0) on a production site" idea.
No, it really doesn't -- because you missed the other part of the warning (which is implied, although not stated)
... unless you are aware that there will be bugs and you are technically competent enough to be able to address issues in the code on a live forum
My apologies for the perceived slight against SMF. I have been a longtime fan of "leadership by example".
No insult was intended. I only reported what I saw on my testbed forum. Only the "Wide A Responsive Theme" gave me problems. The other two work well.
Quote from: noquiexis on October 21, 2021, 02:36:06 AMIf the SMF development team continues to support and improve the 2.0.x line, then it becomes a simple choice of whether or not to upgrade to 2.1.x. My guess is that 2.0.x will no longer be improved, but I could be wrong about that.
2.0.x will only be getting critical security fixes. That is normal for any branch of SMF once it goes stable.
QuoteSooner or later, someone is going to have to find a way to bring the 2.0.x database up to speed with 2.1.x so that existing forums can make the upgrade.
That is what the standard 2.1 upgrade script does already.
Thanks for the heads-up! I know from other posts that the 2.0 and 2.1 databases are different. I was wondering how an upgrade might work.
Thank you for the links! I had them bookmarked years ago, but I was wondering if the change in database structure (2.0 to 2.1) would require anything extra. Antechinus pointed out that "the standard 2.1 upgrade script" should be able to handle it.
On the advice of Antechinus and Doug Heffernan, I posted a request on the Help Wanted (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=579373.new#new) board. ("Send it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes.")
My request for a 2.0.18 look-alike theme would include things like the (http://www.arimecibo.com/smf/Themes/default/images/bbc/img.gif) and (http://www.arimecibo.com/smf/Themes/default/images/bbc/url.gif) buttons. Those of us who have used these for years may need time to get used to the new images. I suppose I could just take screenshots of the Main Index pages and post forms to point out the differences.
Upgrade from 2.0 to 2.1 works like any other upgrade, the upgrade scripts included in the package restructure the database from old to new. 2.1 is still RC, so regular changes are still being made, mostly bug fixes. The current package is on github (https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1), upgrade scripts are in /other.
I have no intention of upgrading my 2.0.18 forums until the 2.1 stable release. If there was a 2.1 theme that could emulate the 2.0.18 look and feel, I would install that on my testbed to help people make the transition. Lacking that, the folks can refer to the screenshots (http://www.arimecibo.com/smf/index.php?topic=504.0) to learn the new layout.
Thanks to everyone who offered assistance! :)
TBH I think you are worrying a bit too much. The thread you linked to says there are "radical changes" in 2.1, but IMHO there are not.
The great majority of 2.1 functions just the same as 2.0.x. For example, the board index uses different icons for read/unread content but the functionality and the location are the same. Just about anyone will be able to adjust to the new icons almost immediately (even if they do grumble for the first day or two).
The same goes for the post editor. It looks a little different in terms of styling, but the basic layout is identical, and the button for applying bold text is still a bold capital "B". Most of the other icons are similarly clear, and anyone posting on the forum these days is probably also used to dealing with a range of icons for functionalty on a range of different sites (news, social media, etc, etc).
The main changes that might initially confuse some people are:
1/ the avatar, profile links, and personal messages links now being located at the upper left, and...
2/ the two unread/replies links now being located at the right side of the block that also holds the linktree.
1/ is standard practice on social media sites, which is why it was decided to do the same on 2.1 (given the prevalence of social media these days). Personally there are some aesthetic details of the current presentation I do not particularly like, but it all works and is easy to understand.
2/ is, quite frankly, not optimal on reflection. I have to take the blame for that one, since it was one of my ideas way back in Alpha. However, it is not difficult to change with some minor CSS edits, and once those are done the links become obvious and convenient to use.
The only other thing that might annoy some people is that lack of a sidebar menu option inside the profile/pm/admin sections, but that is also easy to change if anyone really wants to. :)
First, I do apologize for any perceived slight or insults to any one here. That was never my intention. Many people here have put in a lot of work to bring SMF up to speed with advances in HTTP servers, PHP, and MySQL/PostgreSQL software. Their work should be recognized.
Users have seen companies like Microsoft "re-invent the tire". Some of these aesthetic changes are unwanted and unliked. The Simple Machines Site Upgrade (https://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=578496.0) topic shows some dissatisfaction with the SMF 2.1 look and layout. I though that a 2.0.18 look-alike theme for 2.1 might ease the transition.
I marked this topic "Solved".