Ajax quick reply

[bfarber]

I prefer honesty - because at least that way we get a chance to try to convince you by saying _why_ we think it's a good idea. In the hope you'll come round to our way of thinking. I don't think any of you (devs) are close-minded, and if we put forward a convincing argument you'd be open to change your mind on things - well that's the impression I get.. I hope I'm not wrong :lol:

Well, convincing or not (and yes, we're human, so users can convince us of things we may have previously disagreed with), we make the software for our customers, not specifically for us. We add a lot of functionality simply because users request it, not because it's something we dreamed up that we want to do.

Case in point - topic preview icon in forum listing. This wasn't something we really planned to add, but it has been requested quite a bit as of late, so we took some time to add it. Whether you'd call that convincing us, or just meeting customer demands, your call. :)

[Razasharp]

I think a bit of both would come into it. :)

Sometimes when there is overwhelming demand you'd find it hard to say no (unless of course there is very good reason not to).

[Wolfie]

FWIW, I don't think an AJAX quick reply would have a negative resource impact on the site. Generally speaking when you replace full page loads with AJAX you save resources, because less has to be processed and put into memory.

In my post that you quoted, I was speaking more in generic terms, rather than AQR specifically. If it ultimately uses fewer resources (both server and client side) and can be made fully compatible or at least take into account those who may not have browsers that support the feature, then that's great.

My personal opinion of AQR specifically is neutral, if it's added (and can be turned off in ACP), then hey, I'll try it out and see how it goes. If not, then oh well.

Not a vote against it at all, other than the fact that IF it gets added at some point, that I'd rather it not be in v3.1.0, because I'd like for the current goals of v3.1.0 to be finished and have v3.1 released. Otherwise, as various employees of IPS have said, to just keep adding feature after feature, then the product would never end up being released.

Oh and with that said, don't forget the internal Bookmarking feature! :whistle:
(Seriously, I've already figured out that it's extremely unlikely to be in v3.1, just had to contradict myself for humor)

[The Geek]

Unless you provide statistics (real, not an 87.35% version) of actual usage, time, etc, based on dedicated and shared servers, then to summarize it with words that make it either seem longer or shorter doesn't really prove anything. It's not to claim you are wrong, just that it's not a fact only opinion.

Exsqueeze me? I need to do statistical data gathering to point out the obvious? You aren't loading full pages and redirecting only to reload the page you're on AGAIN. This isn't rocket science, its 4th grade math. You can accept that as an archaic ethereal opinion, or take it as a hypothesis from someone who has very extensive experience on a site that uses an ajax quick reply. Its silly to try and discredit someone by saying "If you don't provide a statistical study and essay of the performance change either side, your have no credibility".

I'm sure FB has plenty of funds to put towards their own multiple heavy duty servers that are dedicated to performing the work you are used to seeing. Not to mention that I'm quite sure that they have a group of developers (more than IPS has) to handle the programming/design of their services. Thus they are able to develop and implement new features much faster.

I rather like the idea of having a screen where there are power options that are only made available (ie, loaded into the page/html) when I might actually be using them, instead of on every topic view.

You'd be surprised.

I don't get any of these points or understand what relevance they are. If you are saying that FB has a responsive UI because they have lots of money and big meaty servers, then you have missed the boat on my point. Their UI is designed with the user experience in mind and is also widley used on the net. Doing 2 or 3 pageloads for someone to type "Yes, I agree" is something they wouldn't do because: Its time consuming, resource intensive and isn't as smooth of a user experience. Also the whole "FB have moolah and loads of devs" doesn't hold water either as it does appear an Ajax FR was pulled off as a mod here. I doubt they are a team of 150 charging $1,000 for the modification.

Man alive, no one is asking IPB to be vB but lets not cut our nose off to spite our face here. User experience is important. Resource usage is important.
I can understand priorities, I can't understand a blind heels in the sand all out battle against something that improves ux and resource usage. Aren't there far bigger fish to fry?

[Wolfie]

I don't get any of these points or understand what relevance they are. If you are saying that FB has a responsive UI because they have lots of money and big meaty servers, then you have missed the boat on my point. Their UI is designed with the user experience in mind and is also widley used on the net. Doing 2 or 3 pageloads for someone to type "Yes, I agree" is something they wouldn't do because: Its time consuming, resource intensive and isn't as smooth of a user experience. Also the whole "FB have moolah and loads of devs" doesn't hold water either as it does appear an Ajax FR was pulled off as a mod here. I doubt they are a team of 150 charging $1,000 for the modification.

My point about funds, servers, devs, etc, is that the more you have, the more you can enrich a members visit because as new ideas become available, it can be implemented with greater ease. Let's also remember that FB is only designing the software for one company to run, not for a multitude of others to download and then run as their own. It's just not a fair comparison to say "well FB has it, so why can't IPS?" If FB were to close shop tomorrow, would you say that IPS should too?

[Razasharp]

My point about funds, servers, devs, etc, is that the more you have, the more you can enrich a members visit because as new ideas become available, it can be implemented with greater ease.

[.Ian]

at least we know why the 'top' button is hidden now in IPB3 ;)

perhaps a quick reply button could also be hidden, so that admins can enable it if required - after all the precedent has been set with the top button

[Wolfie]

C'mon Wolfie - there's nowt wrong with changing your mind about something when a compelling case is put forward :)

I'm speaking in generics. Read it again with that in mind.

[IP.iBaLLiN]

I'm speaking in generics. Read it again with that in mind.

You always have to be right. :ermm:

My opinion: After reading bfarber and The Geek's posts saying it would be less resource intensive, and is personally eye candy and more pleasing, I'm all for it. The whole point of a forum is to post. In my opinion, improving the ability to do just that is more important than anything else.

[Wolfie]

My personal opinion of AQR specifically is neutral, if it's added (and can be turned off in ACP), then hey, I'll try it out and see how it goes. If not, then oh well.

Not a vote against it at all, other than the fact that IF it gets added at some point, that I'd rather it not be in v3.1.0, because I'd like for the current goals of v3.1.0 to be finished and have v3.1 released. Otherwise, as various employees of IPS have said, to just keep adding feature after feature, then the product would never end up being released.

C'mon Wolfie - there's nowt wrong with changing your mind about something when a compelling case is put forward :)

vB has had AFR for ages, and the servers didn't come crashing down - if anything, as the Geek has demonstrated, it actually made the site faster and made it feel a lot snappier for the end users too.. what more could you ask for? *grin*

I'm speaking in generics. Read it again with that in mind.

You always have to be right. :ermm:

Where did I say, "AQR sucks, I'm against it"? I mentioned about FB and their level of resources because it's not a valid argument of why something should be included. FB has this, FB has that, FB does this, FB does that, FB just jumped in front of a moving train, we should too!

If I'm making a valid point and someone reads into it to mean something else, then how does that make me "always having to be right"?

I've never said that an AQR feature would be bad and shouldn't be included. Only that a seemingly good feature can cause issues not yet considered. Everyone is like, "this would (insert some claim to fame of putting the software above the rest) and should be added!". I've said that I'm impartial to the AQR feature. I'm not against it so long as it can be disabled.

[The Geek]

I don't understand your point then. The only point I can make out is "Just because FB does it doesn't mean its a good idea". Thats valid, but also a "cup if 99% empty" viewpoint. FB are doing a good job at creating a great UX experience. Why shouldn't that be acknowledged and aspired? Twitter doesn't require full page loads to add "Yea, baby I like it". Why should a FARRRRRR more complex piece of script like IPB?

Stop getting hung up on the fact "its been done before" and look to implement what makes sense along side of the regular innovation one comes to expect of IPS.

[Wolfie]

I don't understand your point then. The only point I can make out is "Just because FB does it doesn't mean its a good idea". Thats valid, but also a "cup if 99% empty" viewpoint. FB are doing a good job at creating a great UX experience. Why shouldn't that be acknowledged and aspired? Twitter doesn't require full page loads to add "Yea, baby I like it". Why should a FARRRRRR more complex piece of script like IPB?

Stop getting hung up on the fact "its been done before" and look to implement what makes sense along side of the regular innovation one comes to expect of IPS.

What's not to understand? Constantly using FB as a reason isn't a good reason. Making claims doesn't mean the claims are true. Overall the thing is, consider more than just what you think is what everyone else wants, what you think would make IPB the ultimate product, what you think is a must have.

Speaking specifically about AQR.. If (a) it does use fewer resources to accomplish a goal -and- (b) it wouldn't be 'broken' for people with incompatible browsers or functionality -and- (c) can be disabled per forum/site, then I have nothing against it. I'm just not jumping around throwing a party like, "OMG that's the best idea I ever heard!"

Geez, is it such a crime that I'm not endorsing the AQR idea with every last ounce of my life?

[Razasharp]

Wolfie, I think some people are getting a little vexed cos you seem to be against it for no real reason.

If you can demonstrate why it's a crap idea, I'm sure we'd be all ears

[Logan]

I've always enjoyed using Ajax Quick Reply whenever it has been available to me... would love to see it in IPB :)

[Wolfie]

Eh, not a feature I'd find all that grand.

Not for or against it. If it gets included, then it's there and I'd probably use it (I would hope it can be disabled to use the current quick reply method). If not then oh well.

My personal opinion of AQR specifically is neutral, if it's added (and can be turned off in ACP), then hey, I'll try it out and see how it goes. If not, then oh well.

I've never said that an AQR feature would be bad and shouldn't be included. Only that a seemingly good feature can cause issues not yet considered. Everyone is like, "this would (insert some claim to fame of putting the software above the rest) and should be added!". I've said that I'm impartial to the AQR feature. I'm not against it so long as it can be disabled.

Speaking specifically about AQR.. If (a) it does use fewer resources to accomplish a goal -and- (b) it wouldn't be 'broken' for people with incompatible browsers or functionality -and- (c) can be disabled per forum/site, then I have nothing against it. I'm just not jumping around throwing a party like, "OMG that's the best idea I ever heard!"

Wolfie, I think some people are getting a little vexed cos you seem to be against it for no real reason.

If you can demonstrate why it's a crap idea, I'm sure we'd be all ears

[TrixieTang]

I really don't see how ajax quick reply is any better than the current quick reply. vB's ajax quick reply is one of the buggiest features that they have, I mean it doesn't show posts made while you were replying and it doesn't show if the page turned when you made your post. I find it really annoying to be honest.

The best argument I've ever heard for adding ajax quick reply is that it allows you to reply while watching videos embedded using the media tags. But most arguments for it seem to just say that it's somehow better just because it uses ajax.

[Collin1000]

But most arguments for it seem to just say that it's somehow better just because it uses ajax.

+1

[kambiz]

I really don't see how ajax quick reply is any better than the current quick reply. vB's ajax quick reply is one of the buggiest features that they have, I mean it doesn't show posts made while you were replying and it doesn't show if the page turned when you made your post. I find it really annoying to be honest.

FWIW it does show the posts while you were replying. yes it doesn't take to the next page ( if the page turned ) but it shows all the posts between your new reply and the last post you've seen.

+
One more thing I ( well mainly most of my members) like about it was the ability to quot a post via AQR/AFR.

[The Geek]

What's not to understand? Constantly using FB as a reason isn't a good reason. Making claims doesn't mean the claims are true. Overall the thing is, consider more than just what you think is what everyone else wants, what you think would make IPB the ultimate product, what you think is a must have.

Speaking specifically about AQR.. If (a) it does use fewer resources to accomplish a goal -and- (b) it wouldn't be 'broken' for people with incompatible browsers or functionality -and- © can be disabled per forum/site, then I have nothing against it. I'm just not jumping around throwing a party like, "OMG that's the best idea I ever heard!"

Geez, is it such a crime that I'm not endorsing the AQR idea with every last ounce of my life?

Wolfie, you can take snippets of your own quotes to provide an out-of-context experience, but the reality is you poured cold water over the idea from the start and then proceeded to challenge my viewpoint because it made yours look bad. I on the other hand have been rather non plussed about the whole ordeal. I simply assumed no one with a grain of sense would think that providing a better ux and using less resources was a bad idea. I don't agree its the "end all be all" but I am also not arguing with users because... god forbid... vB did it fist.

There is a difference between endorsing and trying to discredit suggestions without constructive comment simply because you like to argue.

I really don't see how ajax quick reply is any better than the current quick reply. vB's ajax quick reply is one of the buggiest features that they have, I mean it doesn't show posts made while you were replying and it doesn't show if the page turned when you made your post. I find it really annoying to be honest.

The best argument I've ever heard for adding ajax quick reply is that it allows you to reply while watching videos embedded using the media tags. But most arguments for it seem to just say that it's somehow better just because it uses ajax.

Huh? Buggy? In all the years its been there, I can't think of a single bug revolving around vB's Ajaxed Quick Reply that I am aware of. Not one. It also shows all the posts since you last visited the page to reply. I suspect you must be thinking of another forum package. Not vB.

Nor has anyone said its better just because its ajaxed. It required at leas 2 less page loads and a faster, smoother ux. How on earth is that a bad thing?

Whats next? Should we argue against having a mobile skin?


I wasn't all that bothered about this feature as I assumed it would eventually make it in because of its logical merits. Now I see that there is certainly another side to "feature suggestions" called "defend the suggestion to prove its worth (and bring your stats)". And if its a vB feature... be prepared for it to be a long and drawn out battle. Doesn't matter if it saves resources. Doesn't' matter if it creates a smoother ux. What matters is if you can PROVE that in the wave of negativity and red light thinking.

Pretty disappointing stuff I may add.

[kambiz]

Huh? Buggy? In all the years its been there, I can't think of a single bug revolving around vB's Ajaxed Quick Reply that I am aware of. Not one. It also shows all the posts since you last visited the page to reply. I suspect you must be thinking of another forum package. Not vB.

Nor has anyone said its better just because its ajaxed. It required at leas 2 less page loads and a faster, smoother ux. How on earth is that a bad thing?

Whats next? Should we argue against having a mobile skin?

I wasn't all that bothered about this feature as I assumed it would eventually make it in because of its logical merits. Now I see that there is certainly another side to "feature suggestions" called "defend the suggestion to prove its worth (and bring your stats)". And if its a vB feature... be prepared for it to be a long and drawn out battle. Doesn't matter if it saves resources. Doesn't' matter if it creates a smoother ux. What matters is if you can PROVE that in the wave of negativity and red light thinking.

Pretty disappointing stuff I may add.

I remember a bug. It did not work with non-latin characters ( wouldn't send them. back in the 3.5 days).


mmmmm but waidaminue .... that was an issue with my own server. lack of iconv. anyway I have documented proof about it so it's not worth it. forget about those saved resources nah not worth it at all.

[Wolfie]

Wolfie, you can take snippets of your own quotes to provide an out-of-context experience, but the reality is you poured cold water over the idea from the start and then proceeded to challenge my viewpoint because it made yours look bad. I on the other hand have been rather non plussed about the whole ordeal. I simply assumed no one with a grain of sense would think that providing a better ux and using less resources was a bad idea. I don't agree its the "end all be all" but I am also not arguing with users because... god forbid... vB did it fist.

There is a difference between endorsing and trying to discredit suggestions without constructive comment simply because you like to argue.

Actually I prefer to not argue. I didn't quote my own words to give an "out of context" experience. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If someone wants to read into what I say to get some other meaning out of it, then that's on them, not me.

If others wish to tell me that I'm against something that I have flat out said that I'm not against it, I'm just not for it (I'm neutral on the matter), then there's not much more that can be said because you can't convince someone of reality if they refuse to believe what is told to them. Reminds me of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." I can say how I feel (which I have), but I can't make people believe the truth.

[Razasharp]

I wasn't all that bothered about this feature as I assumed it would eventually make it in because of its logical merits. Now I see that there is certainly another side to "feature suggestions" called "defend the suggestion to prove its worth (and bring your stats)". And if its a vB feature... be prepared for it to be a long and drawn out battle. Doesn't matter if it saves resources. Doesn't' matter if it creates a smoother ux. What matters is if you can PROVE that in the wave of negativity and red light thinking.

Pretty disappointing stuff I may add.

Must say I agree here - which is a shame as not only is it off-putting for those of us considering coming over, but it could be damaging to IPB too - because vB does have some excellent features and has implemented stuff before other platforms (it's not the market leader for no good reason you know).

[Matt]

We consider each feature on its merits regardless of where the feature originated.

We listen to other customers' input but really we ultimately decide if it is added or not. I certainly wouldn't base your opinion of what's likely to be added based on the replies of a few individuals.

For what its worth, I have been resistant to this feature as I have not been convinced by its usefulness. I keep an open mind and am willing to consider it if a compelling reason is found.

[Razasharp]

We consider each feature on its merits regardless of where the feature originated.

We listen to other customers' input but really we ultimately decide if it is added or not. I certainly wouldn't base your opinion of what's likely to be added based on the replies of a few individuals.

For what its worth, I have been resistant to this feature as I have not been convinced by its usefulness. I keep an open mind and am willing to consider it if a compelling reason is found.

Tbh the 'member' replies can be a little soul-crushing but just that - ultimately I look at what the devs say, and then respond according to their stance more than anything else.


Which brings me too.. have you not yet seen a compelling reason to add AFR in this thread? (Just checking in case you haven't read the whole thread.)

I think some compelling reasons have been put forward already - also if you have a UX expert on the team they should be able to support our argument (I doubt any usability expert would argue against this, because it is what modern, clean UX is all about).

[bfarber]

I think a bit of both would come into it. :)

Sometimes when there is overwhelming demand you'd find it hard to say no (unless of course there is very good reason not to). And other times someone will be able to demonstrate that actually, it would be a pretty neat thing to include after all.

Of course you don't have to, but at least the user gets a fair shot to try to get you to see why they think it's a great idea. I think that's more important to customers - that you at least read the post they've gone to the trouble of writing (something that didn't happen over the road according to a senior staff member). At the end of the day if someone puts forward a compelling case to include something, and there's no valid reason why it shouldn't get included - I'd hazard a guess and say you'd be up for it. (Well I hope you would be :P)

I'll just say that I personally read every single suggestion posted in these feedback forums (for all products). I don't work on all products, I don't reply to every thread, but I do read each and every suggestion.

Oh and with that said, don't forget the internal Bookmarking feature! :whistle:

(Seriously, I've already figured out that it's extremely unlikely to be in v3.1, just had to contradict myself for humor)

As an aside, bookmarking will be included in a modification I'm writing. It won't be included in IPB 3.1 however. :P

Tbh the 'member' replies can be a little soul-crushing but just that - ultimately I look at what the devs say, and then respond according to their stance more than anything else.

Which brings me too.. have you not yet seen a compelling reason to add AFR in this thread? (Just checking in case you haven't read the whole thread.)

I think some compelling reasons have been put forward already - also if you have a UX expert on the team they should be able to support our argument (I doubt any usability expert would argue against this, because it is what modern, clean UX is all about).

There are many "what if's" to overcome.

What if the thread has 300 pages, you're on page 1, and submit a fast reply? What would happen exactly? Would all 300 pages of posts plus your new post be inserted into the page? Would just your new post be inserted? That would be confusing, as it should be after the other 300 pages of posts, not before. When you refresh, your post suddenly gets reordered (in the eyes of the customer). These sorts of questions are what really make implementing such a feature in a way that doesn't seem buggy difficult. Because it will happen lol.

I don't have that strong a feeling about the ajax fast reply. On a personal level I feel it's useless, but everyone has their own opinions, and as I've said before, we don't really write the software just for "us". ;)