1920 x 1080 is the minimum I'm aiming for.  That said I've tightened up a little bit of spacing on the menu (as much as I could without starting to look cramped) so that'll help a little.  Haven't had any luck avoiding the sidebar hiding the footer but I'll continue to chip away at that.  With a game wiki active (but no rMail notification) GMs will start to have issues at about 970 pixels high.

  look folks?  I'm not good  at tech..I have players who are very good/great. its  been since the 20th , when i had  my people move over. yes? there  is getting sued to some placements.

 I changed the color   so the site looks better ( to me!)

 I have said this elsewhere... for years i got  ever  new Madden game that came out, I stopped after   Cam newton was  going to 'teach me how to pass"

 anyway..every game  they changed  something.. the way  you set your rosters... the way you build  a 'new team"  which  buttons did  what  ect ect... I love the Mass effect games.. played the whole thing through  4 or  5 times... each game had  changes  you had to get used to.. Fall out games were the same

 what am i saying?  Any upgrade  changes some things... and  if you go back to  the old war games that game in Boxes. there is 'errata '.. once  the tweaks  are  done, and players get used to  the   'face'..everythginwill be  fine... I mean? look at the old  site. it was  around for decades. and i saw people asking/complaining about something..

 welcome to your new home.  the furniture isn't  quite were it was. But   you can still sit in them!

In reply to Skald (msg # 60):

My settings show the same: https://i.imgur.com/haaNkhi.png

I don't know what's causing the incongruence, to be honest, but it seems jase is aware of it. I recognize it's not a trivial fix, so the effort to value conversion is potentially rather low, especially if it's an issue that only seems to affect parts of the userbase.

And I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what donsr's message! :)

Like many people, I wasn't even aware of the change until about a month ago; which was long after there was any room for suggestions or feedback.    Upon review, I suspect that we'll find most of the feedback over the past few years given primarily by "Yes Men".

I much, much prefer the old UI; as it was simple, clean, and straightforward.    As I've mentioned more than once, RPOL has lost much of what made it unique with the transition.  It now looks like just about every other forum out there, and it's going to take me a while to figure out all the changes...what with me having used the original UI for more than 20 years.

Yes, kids; I said 20 years.  I didn't then and still don't consider this to be a good change.

If we're "stuck with it", then please please PLEASE come up with a way to change back to the look of the old UI.

Realised that those using r.rpol.net were still using the test site which hasn't been getting a few tweaks.  You should now find you get redirected to plain rpol.net.


In reply to Hunter (msg # 64):

Quite the contrary, there was a lot of discussion and the main thread is about 800 posts long (plus other threads).  I recognise that the site is only as good as the members using it so to dismiss all my efforts on finding a fair compromise is a little insulting (to myself and the people who gave their input).  As I've said the main menu post was up for nigh on two months, plus years prior so it cannot be a surprise.  I realise many don't like change but to miscategorise the length of effort we've gone to is not constructive.

That said, all the functionality is still there (and more) so if you have some input in to how the change to the skin/facade of RPoL has made it lose what was unique then I'm all ears.  Keep in mind that unique doesn't necessarily mean good, as I heard every April 1st.

Hey jase...is there any way to put the r.rpol.net back up for a day or so in order to pull themes?

I had asked a few weeks back if we needed to port custom themes over, and you said that r.rpol.net should work for quite some time...so I hadn't done it yet. =(

...and now it's gone.

Copied it over for you, enjoy.

AWESOME!

Thanks jase! <3

Oops, same for me please. I didn't get mine pulled over.

I did state that I've only been aware of the (then proposed) changes for about a month and a half.  I'm quite aware of how much time and effort you've put into RPOL over the decades and would never seek to diminish that.   I clearly remember how much debate and consternation back when there was the need to change how Adult Games where handled...and have always felt that you've done a five-star plus job maintaining and improving the site: with the sole exception of how the UI was changed.  It felt and feels....unnecessary.  As the adage goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What I specifically stated was that the look that was unique to RPOL has been lost.  The look and layout of RPOL before the change was both simple and brilliantly done.    The look and UI of RPOL was different from any other site out there, and as others have pointed out; it was worth bragging about.  That's no longer the case: I can go to other forum sites and find a very similar look and feel.   The "unique", as I've called it, is gone.

Before, all the information was plainly visible on every page of the site.    There wasn't any "hovering over" to look for details that used to be right in plain sight...and having to hunt for what used to be clearly visible is frustrating at best.   I can't imagine how much more difficult it must be to use now on mobile, as I've never gone that route myself.

This right here was literally the reason for the change. It's fantastic on mobile now.

It's actually much better to use on a mobile device than the old site.  Being fully responsive the biggest change is that the site formatting is always consistent.  Via mobile on the old site it was very easy to "break" a page if someone formatted a post poorly, or inserted a huge image, and editing character sheets was hit or miss as certain formatting setups would display properly when viewed, but during editing would begin to line wrap and do all sorts of other things that made life difficult.

The navigation menu on mobile is easy to use as it's always within thumb's reach no matter which page you're on, and the menu buttons are tap friendly with the way they expand and collapse.

Since moving to responsive I haven't accidentally removed a game from my list because I was pinching and zooming on the main page and accidentally clicked the "-" button, which used to happen a few times a year via the old site.

In reply to locojedi (msg # 69):

Done.


In reply to Locke1221 (msg # 71):

That was one of them and a big reason.  There was actually a bunch of reasons for the change and it wasn't even a case of "with all of them added together we needed to change" it was a case of "each one on its own was a reason for change".

Off the top of my head:

• Mobile experience.  Stats vary but mobile is at least 50% and up to 80%.
• We were using tables for layout.  Awful technique, search engines penalise heavily for it and (as many have stated) without fresh blood the vampi site will slowly wither.
• Design was from... well basically 2000.  Some of the HTML code was deprecated and could be removed from browsers at any point in time.  Font springs to mind.  Center, frame(set), tt (I think I've still got a bit of that actually, need to get rid of that!).
• Designs that aren't modern and mobile friendly are also penalised.
• Site had 100s of validation errors.  Now it's 1 error (which browsers actually support and is fully supported in HTML 5.2).
• Did I mention the design was old?  So old.  Created when there were no smart phones and PC screens were tiny, it's much the opposite now and continuing on the old design goal was crazy.  I'm being generous when I say design goal, there wasn't much planning or design involved.  Now we've got a different dynamic and a lot of literature on readability, eye strain, fatigue, reading speed, and accessibility.  Design/typography recommendations vary between 45 and 90 characters per line (90 is rare, normally around 75-80 at the top end) and accessibility recommendation from the W3C (the guys that release HTML/web standards) recommend a maximum of 80 characters.  To save you counting we're at about 125 characters per line.
  
  The initial design for responsive was about 90 characters in width but that had unanimous negative feedback in the discussion thread, so it was increased by just under 50%.  On the old site could read an entire paragraph on my 3440 width ultrawide monitor before but it was ridiculous and I'd have blink several times and take time to refocus at the end of each line.  I realise the width is probably one of the biggest "losses" but it's actually a gain for so many reasons.  I realise scrolling might seem slower but those who specialise in these things have done many a study and it's actually faster when reading a lot of text.. and I suspect that's a lot of what we do!

So anyway, it was very necessary.

In reply to jase (msg # 73):

As it's been said: If you try to please everyone, you invariably end up pleasing no one.

Yes, I understand it's necessary; and yes, I'll adjust.

Hah ! I've never been called a 'yes-man' before, and I've been here since jase turned the lights on !  I shall add that to my resumé !  :P

More words of wisdom (even if it is my dump stat) ... Ford is running a car advert on TV at the moment for a Mustang with an electric motor.  Blithely paraphrasing, they note that if they hadn't innovated and had only ever given people what they asked for, they'd still be trying to breed faster horses.


PS: Gemcluster - I refuse to admit defeat ! <grrins>  But if/when I think of something else to try, I'll rmail you to avoid annoying everyone else with my optimistic suggestions.  Optimistic !  Something else for my resumé !  ;>

In reply to Skald (msg # 75):

I'm often wrong...so don't read too much into it.   :D

It looks perfectly fine on mobile/tablet. I'm not a huge fan of it on my laptop version of Firefox but it's honestly something that can be tweaked in my browser settings for rpol specifically.

Worst case scenario, I can pester my boyfriend into using his dark tech magicks on my Firefox to make rpol fit my laptop screen better heh.

Thanks jase! Appreciated!

In reply to Skald (msg # 75):

But I want my trolley system back! :)

I've just came to a problem I've never had before, not sure if due to the Board change:

I tried to answer a post and quoted it. The post is 7 lines long, and my answer is about 3 lines long, and this message appeared:



As I had quoted long texts before an my answers were not always long too, I guess that's a new feature. Is this right? and if so, it's intentional?

Not an unsurmountable problem, I just quoted the first part of the post and added a (...) meaning that I was answereing to the whole post...
This message was last edited by the user at 18:30, Fri 29 Dec 2023.

That’s weird.

In reply to Lluis (msg # 80):

I tested it myself and it seems like the reply to anything you quote needs to be longer than the quoted post otherwise the error message pops up.

Another reminder: please post errors/issues with the Responsive update in RPoL Development in the New site design thread link to a message in another game as that's where they should be and that's where jase'll go first.   And any suggestions for improvements, same forum link to another game, but please start a new thread for each suggestion.

A question over quoting text was raised earlier over in the New Site Design thread, and was answered by jase:


Though he's indicated he's happy to discuss it separately - if someone wants to put forwards a suggestion (in a new thread, remember) so users can discuss.  Personally I don't like to have to read most of an existing post again, I just want the pertinent bits quoted, but I'm notoriously picky.  ;>

In reply to jase (msg # 67):

EDIT: Nevermind. :)
This message was last edited by the user at 06:58, Mon 01 Jan.

In reply to Lluis (msg # 80):

New feature, yes, about 15 years ago.  :p  And intended to prevent people quoting a whole page of text, just to reply, "Yes."