If 42 had only had his way they'd have been gone
ab initio.
Check this out:
offline42h6Fh62h
Dear HIST_People: Rebecca has requested "feedback". So.
02/27/10 11:05:29
Rebecca,
This is not meant to be critical, or even judgmental. And I claim no significance beyond a single perspective on the "new" board. I suspect you are evaluating/reporting/documenting/observing in more than maintenance mode right now. So if this is of any value at all, I will be happy.
First, the site speed is DRAMATICALLY better. And, as I would expect, stability has been rock solid. Both of which were seriously lacking in the old site.
Foremost, it is different. Not good or bad, but quite significant. Many here are cronics and "regulars" who are very used to the way it was; wort's and all.
The interface does seem overly rigid. And it definitely took effort to "find my way around" in some ways.
10 posts per page is not a bad thing, in and of itself. But the "next 1 2 3 previous" page link is quite small and must be "looked for". That is going to cause frustration initially to most; though this is one of those things that we don't notice much once we are "trained". But it is an initial put off.
The old choice of "viewing modes" caused some confusion among us, due to the different posting styles that each tends to encourage. Flat mode was not the dominant view, though that is the most analogous to this site. It is GREAT for real time, simple "conversation" amongst just 2 or 3. But "threaded" conversation requires heavy "quoting" to even be coherent. Your quote button is simple, but also simplistic; all or nothing. This forces very shallow and limited conversation. Point by point break-down of the quoted text is probably possible, but I will have to "figure it out"; and if I have to "figure it out" (I am a geek by profession) then my guess is that others will have real trouble. Further, in a flat view, even with heavy quoting, "flow" does not happen. Rebecca, if you are old enough to remember, the site is comfortable for a "chess by mail" mentality; slow, deliberate, considered and constructed responses. But that isn't really how most use it. For most, it is a real-time, or relatively so, conversation. Complete quoting in every message will also have a serious impact on your server storage space requirements; not the expense or complication it once was, but still a consideration.
Some other things are not major, but less than "intuitive". We swapped that private message yesterday. I have read your response, but the "Welcome" header continues to display that I have a "New Message". I am sure there is some simple thing I need to do to mark that message as read. But it IS clear that I must do something. Something that I was not coaxed to do and that did not occur "naturally". Again, not a big thing. But it is the kind of thing that will cause confusion and shouts of "Rebecca!".
The "community" facilitation of the system could have positive long term affects, but the "community" is probably going to have to grow into it.
So far, the "hover over" hints seem complete and useful; a detail that I have often found less than ready for prime-time on other system launches.
I mentioned in our pre-launch discussions that I've yet to see the "perfect" interface for a discussion board. There are pros and cons to most design and configuration choices. I believe the general balance of simplicity and comprehensiveness (a very tricky balance) is relatively good. Personally, when leaving board centric pages (My Home, Members, etc.), I've had a bit of difficulty getting back to "the board"; but only a bit, and it could very possibly be that I am looking too hard and missing something simple that others would readily see.
Personal impression - the color scheme walks right up to the edge of "hokey", but doesn't quite cross it. But I think I have a personal sensitivity to the use of RED.
I do think the viewing format will be a negative influence on the manner of participation we are accustom to. Whether that will morph into something better, I don't know; but I doubt it really has the makings. I'm not sure the package allows for any flexibility in this aspect of the system.
In general, it's fast, it's pretty, it's stable, it's sufficiently "developed"; but I suspect there are some minor issues of "user" friendliness and I strongly believe there are some very real issues of "use" friendliness. I'm not as impressed with the functionality of the site as I was with the introduction of your active participation in managing the board.
You can take that for what ever it is worth; even if not at all.
I'm a poster named Bob. Thanks for letting me share.
****
Me again.
Couldn't he have said: They SUCK?
How 'bout "In Heaven There Is No Beer?"
(That's why we drink it here. LOL)
Muffin
