What are best practices for adding a collapsible section to a theme?

[I Agree]

What are best practices for adding a collapsible section to a theme?

I see there is a lot of code in the main index template...

Code Select Expand


   echo '
   <script type="text/javascript"><!-- // --><![CDATA[
      var oMainHeaderToggle = new smc_Toggle({
         bToggleEnabled: true,
         bCurrentlyCollapsed: ', empty($options['collapse_header']) ? 'false' : 'true', ',
         aSwappableContainers: [
            \'user_section\',
            \'news_section\'
         ],
         aSwapImages: [
            {
               sId: \'upshrink\',
               srcExpanded: smf_images_url + \'/upshrink.gif\',
               altExpanded: ', JavaScriptEscape($txt['upshrink_description']), ',
               srcCollapsed: smf_images_url + \'/upshrink2.gif\',
               altCollapsed: ', JavaScriptEscape($txt['upshrink_description']), '
            }
         ],
         oThemeOptions: {
            bUseThemeSettings: ', $context['user']['is_guest'] ? 'false' : 'true', ',
            sOptionName: \'collapse_header\',
            sSessionVar: ', JavaScriptEscape($context['session_var']), ',
            sSessionId: ', JavaScriptEscape($context['session_id']), '
         },
         oCookieOptions: {
            bUseCookie: ', $context['user']['is_guest'] ? 'true' : 'false', ',
            sCookieName: \'upshrink\'
         }
      });
   // ]]></script>';


I'm assuming that's repeated for every collapsible button / wonder if it would be better to add the script to the js template file somehow.

The only thing that raises my eyebrow is "$options['collapse_header']" ... I assume there's one of these for each one. Could I just make up a new option right there? Or is there more to it than that?

Anyway. I'd like to be sure I'm doing it right, if anyone is up to help out.

Thanks

[Joker™]

This is to collapse stats column

Code Select Expand

// Info center collapse object.
echo '
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- // --><![CDATA[
var oInfoCenterToggle = new smc_Toggle({
bToggleEnabled: true,
bCurrentlyCollapsed: ', empty($options['collapse_header_ic']) ? 'false' : 'true', ',
aSwappableContainers: [
\'upshrinkHeaderIC\'
],
aSwapImages: [
{
sId: \'upshrink_ic\',
srcExpanded: smf_images_url + \'/collapse.gif\',
altExpanded: ', JavaScriptEscape($txt['upshrink_description']), ',
srcCollapsed: smf_images_url + \'/expand.gif\',
altCollapsed: ', JavaScriptEscape($txt['upshrink_description']), '
}
],
oThemeOptions: {
bUseThemeSettings: ', $context['user']['is_guest'] ? 'false' : 'true', ',
sOptionName: \'collapse_header_ic\',
sSessionVar: ', JavaScriptEscape($context['session_var']), ',
sSessionId: ', JavaScriptEscape($context['session_id']), '
},
oCookieOptions: {
bUseCookie: ', $context['user']['is_guest'] ? 'true' : 'false', ',
sCookieName: \'upshrinkIC\'
}
});
// ]]></script>';This code is present in BoardIndex.template.php

The only thing that raises my eyebrow is "$options['collapse_header']" ... I assume there's one of these for each one. Could I just make up a new option right there? Or is there more to it than that?

Actually for me your question was unclear, can you elaborate a bit more so that we can assist you with the issue.

[I Agree]

I think I have everything replicated, paying mind to the relevant differences between the values. It looks good, except basically the collapse state isn't remembered after reloading. And it defaults to collapsed. And you must then press it twice to get it to expand / begin to behave like the others.

Works the same way while logged out. I don't suppose I've changed anything outside of index.template.php (which is where the collapsible section resides)

If I need to change something elsewhere I'm missing it so far. Thanks for the attention/assistance btw

[Joker™]

Can you tell me what exactly are you trying to achieve in simplest way, and also can you show me the code you are using.

[I Agree]

Am using the same code you'd posted and which I'd posted prior, as well as all the bits of the index.template.php file that make use of the upshrink setup.

Code Select Expand


   // We'll have to use the cookie to remember the header...
   if ($context['user']['is_guest'])
   {
      $options['collapse_header'] = !empty($_COOKIE['upshrink']);
      $options['collapse_header_ic'] = !empty($_COOKIE['upshrinkIC']);
      $options['collapse_copyright'] = !empty($_COOKIE['upshrinkC']);
   }




<img id="upshrink_c" src="', $settings['images_url'], '/collapse.gif" alt="*" title="', $txt['upshrink_description'], '" align="bottom" style="display: none; position:absolute; right:13px; top:12px; margin:0; padding:0;" />




   echo '
   <script type="text/javascript"><!-- // --><![CDATA[
      var oMainHeaderToggle = new smc_Toggle({
         bToggleEnabled: true,
         bCurrentlyCollapsed: ', empty($options['collapse_copyright']) ? 'false' : 'true', ',
         aSwappableContainers: [
            \'copyright_section\'
         ],
         aSwapImages: [
            {
               sId: \'upshrink_c\',
               srcExpanded: smf_images_url + \'/collapse.gif\',
               altExpanded: ', JavaScriptEscape($txt['upshrink_description']), ',
               srcCollapsed: smf_images_url + \'/expand.gif\',
               altCollapsed: ', JavaScriptEscape($txt['upshrink_description']), '
            }
         ],
         oThemeOptions: {
            bUseThemeSettings: ', $context['user']['is_guest'] ? 'false' : 'true', ',
            sOptionName: \'collapse_copyright\',
            sSessionVar: ', JavaScriptEscape($context['session_var']), ',
            sSessionId: ', JavaScriptEscape($context['session_id']), '
         },
         oCookieOptions: {
            bUseCookie: ', $context['user']['is_guest'] ? 'true' : 'false', ',
            sCookieName: \'upshrinkC\'
         }
      });
   // ]]></script>';




That's about it I think.

The idea is to have an additional collapsible portion plainly.

Thanks.

[Joker™]

I've one request, next time please post the codes in [ code ] [ /code ] tags.

Also look at this code in index.template.php

Code Select Expand

<div id="upper_section" class="middletext"', empty($options['collapse_header']) ? '' : ' style="display: none;"', '>


[I Agree]

Ah yes, I'd left out that bit. I did have it in place...

Code Select Expand


echo '<div id="copyright_section" class="bordercolor"',
'style="padding:1px; margin:1px 0 0; ', //same as #user_section
(empty($options['collapse_copyright'])?'':'display:none;'),'">',
   '<div class="windowbg clearfix"

style="background-image:url(', $settings['images_url'], '/smflogo.gif); background-repeat:no-repeat; background-position:bottom center;">';

It turns out though that I'd got the ternary operator flipped around somehow... dyslexia or something. I guess I did not copy/paste it. Or thought it read better that way and forgot to invert the condition. Fixed in the code above just in case someone copies it.

Anyway. That seems to have done the trick. Thanks bunches.

PS: The code seems to suggest cookies are only used for guests. I'm assuming the database is used for logged in users. Either way it seems to work fine

Disclaimer: I am making the SMF copyright collapsible. But it also featured very prominently first thing on the page in big letters. And even collapsed the name of the forum is "simple machine forum'. If that's a prob let me know.

BTW, should we update the SMF copyright for 2011? If so, which file is that?

[Joker™]

Anyway. That seems to have done the trick. Thanks bunches.

Glad that your issue is resolved. Can you mark the topic solved?

Disclaimer: I am making the SMF copyright collapsible. But it also featured very prominently first thing on the page in big letters. And even collapsed the name of the forum is "simple machine forum'. If that's a prob let me know.

As far as I know a copyright must be clearly visible all the time to everyone and as you are making it collapsible so that is looking like infringement of copyrights to me ( my point of view). I would suggest you to, not to alter the copyrights and its area in any way what so ever.

BTW, should we update the SMF copyright for 2011? If so, which file is that?

That is going to be done in next upgrade. Don't worry about that .

[Illori]

as Joker™ said you are not allowed to modify the copyright in anyway. Am I allowed to remove or modify the copyright?

if you have any questions about modifying the copyright for your site and the above link is not clear, please reply and direct the reply toward smf staff and someone should in time reply with the correct answer.

[I Agree]

as Joker™ said you are not allowed to modify the copyright in anyway. Am I allowed to remove or modify the copyright?

if you have any questions about modifying the copyright for your site and the above link is not clear, please reply and direct the reply toward smf staff and someone should in time reply with the correct answer.

It's not modified. The copyright is part of the theme. So I assume there must be some leeway in modifying it as long as the wording is not changed. A user intentionally collapsing a section does not make it go away. As far as I can tell if javascript is not enabled, it should be visible.

Anyway: http://www.swordofmoonlight.net/bbs2/

PS: The visibility:visible is also kind of annoying because the page itself is not always visible. I was just going to wrap it in a display:none (so not to modify the theme_copyright function) and make it visible along with the page. Since the page itself will never display (for the time being) if javascript is not available, I figure there's no harm no foul there either. Seems like just theme stuff to me.

EDITED: If there's something I can change to make things cool... like in case two people were visiting our obscure website in a shared public place (which could theoretically cause some confusion) let me know.

I could for instance repeat the copyright in the login form for guests, but that can be hidden too 

It's clear I think the theme is not trying to pretend to not be a SMF forum. And people can't actually copy it via the website, so...

[Illori]

the copyright should be visible, there is no le way in that at this point. if you dont agree you are more then welcome to ask staff to review this thread. you are going to modify the code that generates the copyright to hide it from being visible this will flag your forum as not having a copyright as people will not know it can be expanded at first glance.

[kat]

The copyright has to be displayed and UNALTERED!

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

That's a bit tricky that one - It is visible, and as far as I can see, unaltered as it is - but it has been moved to a section where a user can remove it from sight...

[Joker™]

This is what I can see(I scrolled till bottom) and I can't  see copyrights (might be coz too tired right now). But to me it looks like pretty against SMF copyright policy.

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

This is what I can see(I scrolled till bottom) and I can't  see copyrights (might be coz too tired right now). But to me it looks like pretty against SMF copyright policy.

It is moved up, it is not at the bottom - but the first thing you see on top. Moving it is fine, as long as it stays visible.

[Joker™]

It is moved up, it is not at the bottom - but the first thing you see on top. Moving it is fine, as long as it stays visible.

Lol surely I need to get my head in place, but Lex don't you think giving a collapsible option will make it hidden for some users which is against SMF policy?

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

It is moved up, it is not at the bottom - but the first thing you see on top. Moving it is fine, as long as it stays visible.

Lol surely I need to get my head in place, but Lex don't you think giving a collapsible option will make it hidden for some users which is against SMF policy?

That's the part I am hesitant about, and will not comment on further at the moment.

[Joker™]

That's the part I am hesitant about, and will not comment on further at the moment.

I think Kindred will the most appropriate person to comment on this.

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

I'd say Oldiesmann would probably be the best to answer that...

[I Agree]

For the record, I just had to get rid of the disembodied text stuff because it was just illegible/not pretty more or less. Since there was no "block" that appears on every single page template it would've been slightly more work to invent one.

I don't think it's something to get worked up about. It's certainly not collapsed by default as someone I think suggested. But I'll probably add a thin bar to the footer with a TOP button and the copyright text in small print... maybe a navigation select box or something to fill the space. Just something I have to get around to doing...

I always thought displaying free software's copyright was usually Gratis, but if it's in the agreement (which we all know everyone reads) it's in the agreement.

Has the SMF crew ever remotely locked down a forum or had to deal with any bad apples legally or otherwise ever?

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

Has the SMF crew ever remotely locked down a forum or had to deal with any bad apples legally or otherwise ever?

SMF has no back doors, so to the first - no, but to the latter - yes.

[I Agree]

I've thought about it. And I think you guys are being a little reactive here.

Since this seems to be a precedent (well amongst the people who've seen the topic so far) here's my take after actually thinking about it (something I probably wouldn't have done if this hadn't just come up like this)


A) Virtually no piece of software has a copyright always visible.

B) They sometimes do have a trademark.

C) In this case, there is actually a trademark... in that the first bar prominently reads Simple Machines Forum (as in our SMF)  ...  I actually thought about putting a TM/C on there (as a compromise) but thought it was gratuitous/ugly/not really appropriate.

D) Generally how you find the copyright etc for some graphical software is an About dialog or something.

E) In this case, if the user was actually visiting for the very first time, and someone unbeknownst to them had previously collapsed the copyright info on the browser they were using...

F) What kind of person (knowing the name of the website was not Simple Machines Forum) would be able to resist the urge to click on that + to see what it was hiding?

G) Finally, even if they are a very not curious kind of person. How is that much different from an About dropdown on a shared computer?

True, maybe you don't get a splash screen or whatever. But all things considered, it seems like a better deal than micro print at bottom of the page no one will ever pay mind to anyway. And even as a technicality, what is there technically here really to protect? Versus say what you gain in SMF advocacy.

Just my two cents. I'll of course work with you guys if its really worth your trouble

Peace.

[Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen]

I've thought about it. And I think you guys are being a little reactive here.

Since this seems to be a precedent (well amongst the people who've seen the topic so far) here's my take after actually thinking about it (something I probably wouldn't have done if this hadn't just come up like this)


A) Virtually no piece of software has a copyright always visible.

Actually - very often web software allows you to remove the copyright notices, in exchange for money, or otherwise you are forced to keep them intact.

B) They sometimes do have a trademark.

Trademarks are a different thing completely, Simple Machines is a registered trademark (r).

C) In this case, there is actually a trademark... in that the first bar prominently reads Simple Machines Forum (as in our SMF)  ...  I actually thought about putting a TM/C on there (as a compromise) but thought it was gratuitous/ugly/not really appropriate.

Where exactly would you have added a TM/C? Simple Machines is (r). Also, because Simple Machines is a registered trademark, you should avoid making your forum suggest you have any affiliation to Simple Machines.

D) Generally how you find the copyright etc for some graphical software is an About dialog or something.

Actual Software is quite different, because in order to find their copyrights etc. you already know what software you are running

E) In this case, if the user was actually visiting for the very first time, and someone unbeknownst to them had previously collapsed the copyright info on the browser they were using...

What we are speaking of, is wether or not making it possible to hide it is allowed or not, it has little to do with how it works in practise, it's legalese....

F) What kind of person (knowing the name of the website was not Simple Machines Forum) would be able to resist the urge to click on that + to see what it was hiding?

I don't know, but I'd say many.

G) Finally, even if they are a very not curious kind of person. How is that much different from an About dropdown on a shared computer?

Like I said, actual computer software is a very different case all together, and can't really be compared here.

True, maybe you don't get a splash screen or whatever. But all things considered, it seems like a better deal than micro print at bottom of the page no one will ever pay mind to anyway. And even as a technicality, what is there technically here really to protect? Versus say what you gain in SMF advocacy.

Just my two cents. I'll of course work with you guys if its really worth your trouble

Peace.

Lastly, I would like to point out I'm still unsure if you would be allowed to do that or not So don't take this the wrong way

[I Agree]

Where exactly would you have added a TM/C? Simple Machines is (r). Also, because Simple Machines is a registered trademark, you should avoid making your forum suggest you have any affiliation to Simple Machines.

No I get this. I would've used (C) unless I could find an example somewhere and would've assumed (R) anyway. TM is just what people think about when you say trademark for obvious reasons. Was just being facetious/not really thinking while typing that, sorry.

Actual Software is quite different, because in order to find their copyrights etc. you already know what software you are running

Not really. A lot of the time About dialogs will include multiple mentions of library dependencies and etc which the user would not otherwise be conscious of... especially in a shared environment. You can argue a webpage is like a document, but something like SMF is really more like software. But I'm not arguing.

Lastly, I would like to point out I'm still unsure if you would be allowed to do that or not So don't take this the wrong way

I think it's silliness personally (don't you guys have better things to do) but out of respect I'll stay posted. IMO if people want to do something that might abridge a copyright they have to look for the copyright their self. I mean if SMF just wants credit, in this case at least, the word "simple machine forums" is right there. I liked how it looks personally, but you can't have a collapse widget with no context.

Please anyway, add something practical to your license agreement about collapsing the copyright. It seems pretty clear that can be done respectfully and with good reason.

PS: I get if you've a prefab license which must be adhered to by the book. That's well over my head legal nonsense wise. But if it's just a personal preference thing, it should not be offensive. I hope we don't need a digital millennium act or anything to clarify this to someone.

I'd think a folding document would be a fine argument. Like because a piece of paper folds, that doesn't obscure its copyright for any purposes.

[Joker™]

Any comment on this topic? Can we mark it as solved now?

[I Agree]

^Yes we can...

And for the record I did get around to adding a perma-copyright to the bottom of the theme