TCWT Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I think it's a waste of space to put a mini avatar at the bottom of the topic. What's the point in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 It's similar to what you see on a lot of sites that use a Facebook comment plugin, it always shows your image next to the comment area to let people know that by putting in something there it's something representative of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklcfc Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Theres certainly an avatar overload on 3.2, and not enough of the other background images we're used to seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCWT Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 Well, most will be using their forum account to post anyway so I don't see a point in knowing that it's myself posting. Edit: marklcfc posted before me while I was typing this post (using the editor at the bottom) but I didn't see a notice about that. Bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCWT Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 Oh and why show the same mini avatar to the left of the topic title in topic view? It already shows the full sized avatar on the first post. Obviously, that's the topic starter, no need to show it twice like that. Also, the text size of the topic title is too big. The topic view is uglier than the previous versions. I thought you guys wanted to remove unneeded stuff and to simplify things. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker.GA Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 It's similar to what you see on a lot of sites that use a Facebook comment plugin, it always shows your image next to the comment area to let people know that by putting in something there it's something representative of you. But this isn't Facebook! I wish everyone would stop trying to emulate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 No, this isn't Facebook, but it should be accepted that a lot of your members probably use Facebook, and would be used to seeing such a setup. Like it or not, Facebook is ever-present in the online experience of many people nowadays. Say IPS goes with the full "we're not Facebook" approach and actively tries to make things not like Facebook. That means that your members who use Facebook and Facebook-integrated sites have to remember that your site looks and acts differently than the others they are used to. Is that really worth it, just to let Facebook not infiltrate your site? It's not ideal to let Facebook dictate what the standards are going to be as far as how things should look, but at the end of the day it's got to be better to give your users a UI that looks like others they may encounter, to avoid confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.