Jump to content

Community

What do you think of 3.2?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hardly think you can say "IP.Board 3 was a flop". It's the product that took us from middling psuedo professional forum to arguably the market leader in community software. The concepts and design e

Just don't like the direction its gone. Little things that make forums more attractive have been taken away because they 'serve no purpose'. The new skin design is nice and clean but clean isn't every

When you remove confusing interfaces When you remove confusing or multiple settings When the code is cleaner and faster as a result When the skin is less cluttered and more intuitive When you


With 3.2 available for testing, what do you all think of it?




I like it my favorite feature is the tag system, which was very much needed.


With 3.2 available for testing, what do you all think of it?




I like it my favorite feature is the tag system, which was very much needed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been some nice discussions and feedback on 3.2. It's also great to see that IPS is reading and responding to the posts. For the most part, I have to agree with much of the reasoning behind why IPS made the changes that they did.

However, I have read a lot of topics and posts about the removal of the offline/online status and have to ask why there is so much resistance from IPS about this? Even as a casual observer, it appears that forum operators want this feature.

In Matt's reasoning, he states "It usually makes no difference if the user is online or not to the quantity or quality of replies." I have to disagree with this argument. The sense of urgency to reply is that much greater when you original poster is still online or when you see others reading a topic - one might want to get his/her point in as early in the topic as possible. In similar fashion, readers may want to engage with each other when they sense that others will read what they have to say almost instantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda like it but its way to buggy cannot even upgrade any apps on the test site, someone said they were not compatible with the new 3.2 board, how true is that?
All I know is none of the apps will upgrade properly on an already test board or install right... on a fresh install.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'll be updating right away, either. There's just far too much about the new style that I dislike. The package no longer has that polished feel "out of the box" and many of the style changes are not going to be popular with my users.

I'm sorry. While I can understand the need to change and innovate, there's such a thing as taking it too far and trying to cram too much into one version change. And, IMO, in doing so, the product has taken a step backward in usability as well as not being visually friendly at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'll be updating right away, either. There's just far too much about the new style that I dislike. The package no longer has that polished feel "out of the box" and many of the style changes are not going to be popular with my users.



I'm sorry. While I can understand the need to change and innovate, there's such a thing as taking it too far and trying to cram too much into one version change. And, IMO, in doing so, the product has taken a step backward in usability as well as not being visually friendly at all.



What are you talking about?

3.2 feels way more polished than 3.1 EVER did, both visually and responsively. Usability has increased dramatically as well, at least from my standpoint. I'm extremely pleased with the direction IPS has taken 3.2... forums have been stuck in 1998 for far too long.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why people QQ so much over a default skin. I was contemplating posting this, but here goes. IPB 3.2 is versatile in many ways, and to prove it:

post-144660-0-43074600-1308088278_thumb.

Yes yes, I know it still has the default forum images (Image replacement macros aren't working in the beta, already reported). But my point is, you can do so much with the software that it's just ridiculous to me that anyone would crap on it just because of a default skin. Keep in mind this is a scrolled down about halfway down the forums...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why people QQ so much over a default skin. I was contemplating posting this, but here goes. IPB 3.2 is versatile in many ways, and to prove it:





Because that default skin needs to sell. While you may have the time and knowledge to sit down and redesign your site, there are many who do not. I should not have to buy a software package and be told to redesign it when I buy it.

There are many here with that mind set, and that mind set is what gets companies into trouble. I should not have to redesign anything "out of the box". It should be visually appealing and usable as soon as it's brought on line. As far as I'm concerned, this was lost with 3.2.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think forum view does look a little better if descriptions are there rather than a more boring list with nothing separating any titles. Probably rarely used, but does look better. Many of these ARE constructive criticism, but it seems anything people discuss gets negative replies from Matt and Charles as if users should not have opinions and want certain features and whatnot. If this type thing was the only criticism I got I would be estatic as I had some guy follow me around into topics saying not to use any of my modifications because one that he bought didn't have some magic feature he wanted that was never said to be in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, it sure looks like a lot of love and a lot of hate are being expressed. I used to get wound up when I was having to take a lot of static over various things. An old friend taught me a lesson he had learned as a radio operator on a B-17, during WWII - the flak is always the worst when you're directly over the target. Perhaps that will allow you to find a bit of breathing room in all this.

I've been doing a lot of testing with 3.2 and must admit I'm really impressed. Earlier today, I told a friend that we humans are resistant to change, by our very nature. But it seems as if 3.2 has brought a lot of change to the table, without much of the resistance I would have expected. I expected to be disappointed with having to sort a lot of changes, but even though I've found several areas in 3.2 that seem completely different, they are different in a much simpler and more intuitive way.

Change upsets people, because it means they are going to have to do things differently than what they've become used to doing. Even when change is obviously made for the better, it still requires people to give up what they've become comfortable doing.

From where I sit, it looks as if you're directly over the target. I recommend you continue to focus on your target and carry out your mission.


I hardly think you can say "IP.Board 3 was a flop". It's the product that took us from middling psuedo professional forum to arguably the market leader in community software.


In all fairness, I think it's fair to point out IPB 3 was the product you had available when your arguably largest competitor decided to turn their product upside down and set it on fire. Had that not happened in the other house, I would not have been looking for alternatives and I suspect I'm not the only one who would say that. I don't mean it in a negative way, but I do think a large part of IPB 3's success was a result of that competitor's developmental implosion.

I suppose it just proves the theory that in business, timing can be everything. :wink:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Biker, I suppose I could see that side of it to. However, there are (and will be for some time to come) free skins floating around out there. Some are really nice. Yes, I know your argument is the whole "I should not have to buy a software package and be told to redesign it when I buy it", but everyone views the default skin differently. If IPS was to include everyone's feedback, and attempt to make a skin that would appeal to everyone (I much prefer dark skins, so that right there is a difference), I'm pretty sure that they would never have a finished product. I would rather have the product with a choice of having some nice free skins with it. Granted, it might be a good idea to release two skins for each release (one dark theme, one light theme) so right out of the box users have the choice of which one to use or not.

The 3.2 skin to me is visually appealing. Yes, it has a bit to much white for my liking, but overall the design and layout are nice. Yes, there are a few things I would certainly change about it, but overall it's a decent professional skin made for a professional forum. The usability isn't an issue. It works, you can post, browse, read threads, and do everything else that all forum softwares allow you to do on the front end, yes? I can't see how usability is an issue here either.

Now, I don't mean to go on a rant, but honestly it's your choice. People either like it or don't. Are there people against 3.2? Certainly. However, IPS could have easily given us a blank white skin, and just provided the general ideas of how to skin for it. It wouldn't sell as well, per say, but if functionality stays the way it is, they would still get sales. Why? Because the default product and skin are meant to be changed and customized to fit each individual site's use. While yes, some skin files are paid, quite a lot are free as well. The point I'm making here is: You personally don't have to redesign it. There are skinners out there willing to share their work for free. It doesn't take but a few minutes to find a free decent skin for your forums that you personally agree with.

Second point: a default skin isn't needed to sell a product. I suppose the analogy of books come to mind. "Don't judge a book by it's cover." While you may not be able to change the contents of a book, there are companies that are there to provide a different cover for it, thus changing its outer looks. In this, much the same way you can change the looks of a board.

Now, to play my own devil's advocate:

Yes, I can see where you're coming from. I would definitely ask IPS to change a few things (and I have) from the default skin out of the proverbial box (considering that there isn't a box to speak of). I could see how it could be classified as "unfinished" (Welcome to Beta 1).

A friend of mine, a major IPB junkie (although he doesn't own one himself) has quoted the following:

3.1's skin was horrible. I hated it. The colors were dull, lifeless and just plain unappealing. 3.2 is brighter, modern and simplistic.



Now, perhaps instead of just going on about how it's not usable, how its bland and visually unappealing, can you answer the question (as I don't know if you have somewhere on the forums before), What is it exactly that you don't like about the default 3.2 skin?

Besides that, this is a beta skin, and is probably (as of yet) not quite finished. There might be changes (as I believe Rikki has said) between Beta 1, the Release Candidate (if any) and the actual full release.
Link to post
Share on other sites

- Online/Offline Status in Posts


We've gone over this. The short answer is that a forum topic isn't a chat thread. It usually makes no difference if the user is online or not to the quantity or quality of replies.



Fair enough but I'd like to have this added back


- Avatar Galleries


Avatars and photos were merged. Other than a handful of boards, no one used the gaudy, blocky and out-dated avatars that came pre-installed. We expect a modder will provide an enhanced way to create a photo gallery. Although I wouldn't want that myself. I want original unique photos. If your answer to this is "Well on my forum we use avatar galleries to.." then you're no longer using an avatar but a team badge / RPG badge, etc, etc.



I have a lot of different custom galleries, would prefer that to a no-avatar.


- The ability to disable/enable fast reply in the Admin CP


We did consider renaming it "Please make it harder for people to reply to topics" but decided just to remove the option.



In that case, others can't see when the member is writing a post.


- You can no longer see what exactly a member is doing from viewing their profile. You have to look at the full online list which might not even be enabled on some boards...


[img]

[/img]


Mouseover the online badge. We've made an effort to remove the in your face elements.



It won't work if the member has 0 post. I'd have to search which topic the person posted in and scroll to their post and hover over their name. Sounds like a lot more work, don't you think?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy