On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 15:23:20 UTC, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 07:27 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> (Posted from the new web interface).
>
> Replies to posts should follow convention and prefix the subject with "Re: " if it doesn't already have one.

That was a bug I fixed shortly after the announcement.

On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 15:27:27 UTC, tn wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 13:13:38 UTC, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> Generally, in a threaded discussion, replies always have to appear below their parents. Even though it's possible to sort siblings in the reverse order, it would be rather inconsistent. The same goes with entire threads - the last post in a group will appear as the *bottom-most* child of its parent, inside the *topmost* thread.
>
> In that case also paging should follow the same rule. That is, last thread should be at the bottom of the _last_ page. (And of course the last page should be viewed by default.) Now it is at the bottom of the first page which is not exactly very intuitive.

I think that would be even more confusing.

For one, the default page would be the last page - makes sense from your perspective, but certainly unusual in the web discussion board context. For two, the first page in one view would be the last page in another view, and page numbers no longer refer to the same set of threads (at the same point in time). E.g.: "Where was that thread you mentioned?" - "Oh, on the second or third page or so."

On 12/8/11 8:41 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 14:21:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Very nice. Although I would hope for a version that would work better
>> in mobile phones. It's probably good to add a meta tag setting the
>> scale for mobile phones.
>
> The "threaded" view mode should look the best on small screens.
>
>> This is a site that works good in basically all screen sizes:
>>
>> http://upperdog.se/
>
> Yes, I learned about the max-width CSS rules from that site when it was
> posted a while ago. However, CSS doesn't scale well for complex web pages.

How do they switch from column layout to no-column layout on tight widths?

Andrei

On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 17:22:39 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/8/11 8:41 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 14:21:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> This is a site that works good in basically all screen sizes:
>>>
>>> http://upperdog.se/
>>
>> Yes, I learned about the max-width CSS rules from that site when it was
>> posted a while ago. However, CSS doesn't scale well for complex web pages.
>
> How do they switch from column layout to no-column layout on tight widths?

There is a CSS rule which sets the divs (which are normally at 31.25% width) to 100% width when the document is narrow enough.

On 2011-12-08 15:39, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 14:35:46 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-08 15:06, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 13:51:21 UTC, Robert Clipsham wrote:
>>>> * In the horizontal-split view if you scroll down too far in the
>>>> thread you can't see the current thread title, it would be good to
>>>> make that sticky until you reach the next thread so you can see where
>>>> you're up to
>>>
>>> This isn't possible with just CSS. A JavaScript implementation might be
>>> possible. I'll think about it.
>>
>> It might be possible using the right combination of layers and
>> absolute position.
>
> You still need to change from normal to fixed positioning when the title
> is scrolled offscreen, and vice-versa.
>
> Here's one example (scroll down): http://lesscss.org/

Yeah, I guess so.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2011-12-08 15:41, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 14:21:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> Very nice. Although I would hope for a version that would work better
>> in mobile phones. It's probably good to add a meta tag setting the
>> scale for mobile phones.
>
> The "threaded" view mode should look the best on small screens.

Yes, but try adding the following meta tag:

<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1 />

Then hopefully the page won't look zoomed out on mobile devices.

>> This is a site that works good in basically all screen sizes:
>>
>> http://upperdog.se/
>
> Yes, I learned about the max-width CSS rules from that site when it was
> posted a while ago. However, CSS doesn't scale well for complex web pages.


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 17:42:09 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-12-08 15:41, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> The "threaded" view mode should look the best on small screens.
>
> Yes, but try adding the following meta tag:
>
> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1 />
>
> Then hopefully the page won't look zoomed out on mobile devices.

OK, how does it look now?

On 12/8/2011 2:55 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> As mentioned previously, I've been working on a web frontend for the DigitalMars
> NNTP server. I collected ideas and inspiration from the several threads on this
> topic in the last few weeks, and now I think that the result is ready for beta
> testing and general use.

I am very excited, this is freakin' awesome!

One question: where/how is the user registration data stored?

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 08:34:18 -0500, Vladimir Panteleev <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:

> I think I'll just reverse the sorting of threads in the threaded view. Threads are already sorted differently than posts anyway (they're sorted by the time of the last reply, not by the original post's time).

The new version is perfect, thanks!

-Steve

On 2011-12-08 18:49, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 December 2011 at 17:42:09 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-08 15:41, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> The "threaded" view mode should look the best on small screens.
>>
>> Yes, but try adding the following meta tag:
>>
>> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1 />
>>
>> Then hopefully the page won't look zoomed out on mobile devices.
>
> OK, how does it look now?

Horribly broken, sorry, remove it. I was hoping the above would be a quick fix but I think a new CSS file would be needed. Don't spend time on creating a new CSS file for me, I'm fine using Thunderbird.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg