sijad Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 i hope you will use a responsive framework like bootstrap or foundation for version 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Ashbrook Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Moving to General Suite Feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euantor Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Please no. If you're going to use a framework, please use something like inuit.css that lets you make your own decisions about style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 We will be using our own CSS framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnCNet Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Responsive in 4.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 We are investigating a responsive skin for 4.0, yes. It is looking extremely likely we will go this route over a separate mobile and/or tablet interface, but this isn't set in stone just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajouz ♞ Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 responsive mean 1) hundreds of bugs , 2) large number of css media query .3) does not fit mobile devices needs like speed factor . so in my opinion it is not really recommended . you can see how many vb5 beta's till now and still there are many problems in layout . focusing on mobile apps will be better . responsive layout : Rikki --> :hairy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 There... remains value in separate templates for mobile and a full-fledged mobile skin, I humbly submit. This goes beyond skinning..... the one advantage of the mobile skin separate is showing different HTML, be it app, hooks, or the skin templates itself. By having one responsive design for both, you pretty much kneecap modding for constant worry of mobile, and bugs caused by content not meant to be shown/built in the mobile interface. You also provide a slower browsing experience by loading up HTML to be hidden with CSS, and extra CSS unused on the page(non-media-query CSS). I say this being a large supporter of the mobile skin in my mods, that ability to provide leaner/different HTML/CSS specific for mobile devices provides a smoother browsing experience and has saved me many a headache. I'm not 100% against a responsive design, just have weighed the pros and cons heavily regarding modding.... the cons in this instance prove rather painful and hair-pulling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 There... remains value in separate templates for mobile and a full-fledged mobile skin, I humbly submit. This goes beyond skinning..... the one advantage of the mobile skin separate is showing different HTML, be it app, hooks, or the skin templates itself. By having one responsive design for both, you pretty much kneecap modding for constant worry of mobile, and bugs caused by content not meant to be shown/built in the mobile interface. You also provide a slower browsing experience by loading up HTML to be hidden with CSS, and extra CSS unused on the page(non-media-query CSS). I say this being a large supporter of the mobile skin in my mods, that ability to provide leaner/different HTML/CSS specific for mobile devices provides a smoother browsing experience and has saved me many a headache. I'm not 100% against a responsive design, just have weighed the pros and cons heavily regarding modding.... the cons in this instance prove rather painful and hair-pulling. Actually, on the contrary we feel that going with a responsive design will dramatically help modders. Your addons will automatically be tablet and mobile accessible provided you reuse appropriate CSS classes. Yes, most apps may want to define additional CSS to further control how things display, but that is no different than what you have to do now, and in fact will be significantly easier. The argument that you send more data than necessary to a mobile device is valid, yes. But the overall experience for the average user will be improved, so we feel the tradeoff is worth it. Besides - you haven't seen the HTML and CSS for 4.x yet, so your fears about sending too much content may largely be irrelevant. :) The reality is, you don't have to send different HTML to get a different layout. CSS is pretty powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Actually, on the contrary we feel that going with a responsive design will dramatically help modders. Your addons will automatically be tablet and mobile accessible provided you reuse appropriate CSS classes. Yes, most apps may want to define additional CSS to further control how things display, but that is no different than what you have to do now, and in fact will be significantly easier. The argument that you send more data than necessary to a mobile device is valid, yes. But the overall experience for the average user will be improved, so we feel the tradeoff is worth it. Besides - you haven't seen the HTML and CSS for 4.x yet, so your fears about sending too much content may largely be irrelevant. :smile: The reality is, you don't have to send different HTML to get a different layout. CSS is pretty powerful. Have to see to believe. :smile: It's not so much the CSS that bugs me. Say I have a mod adds a navigation tab, or something next to the VNC, or next to topic titles, or modifies the breadcrumb trail, hooked in customs. These are what I worry on is all.... It is difficult for me to see these types of hooks being non-issue in a responsive design, but hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 By having one responsive design for both, you pretty much kneecap modding for constant worry of mobile, and bugs caused by content not meant to be shown/built in the mobile interface. The mobile experience of a mod should already have been something modders needed to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 The mobile experience of a mod should already have been something modders needed to consider. Did I once ever say that it should not? I say this being a large supporter of the mobile skin in my mods, that ability to provide leaner/different HTML/CSS specific for mobile devices provides a smoother browsing experience and has saved me many a headache. Can you honestly say to me having hover-cards in mobile is a 'good' idea(FYI, they are buggy as get-out on mobile devices due to 'hover' not being an easily achievable event)? The mobile skin at this time allows one to make an entire row touch-open a link, which is a usability enhancement. One uses the filter pane instead of a maintitle/filterbar in listings, allowing all options to be displayed cleanly on all devices. There are many things currently I will handle with different HTML for mobile, and gladly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Did I once ever say that it should not? I really can't say whether you have ever said it, but I can say you refer to it as 'kneecapping', which, to me, sounds like you are against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I really can't say whether you have ever said it, but I can say you refer to it as 'kneecapping', which, to me, sounds like you are against it. For an app stocks? non-issue. For a modder hooking in? How great is say advanced tags and prefixes going to look on mobile with no mobile-specific templates? A Global Sidebar mod? A Mega-menu mod? By having one skin serve both purposes, you lose the ability to simplify the data shown through template, requiring additional CSS to do the job an empty, or different mobile template would. The question 'SkinHook only on default skin, not in Mobile?' becomes a CSS media query, and thus an additional style tag or css file otherwise un-needed.. Some modifications simply do not belong in the mobile interface, which is supposed to remain clean and usable. Also, there is some fair argument to be made against increasing page output globally and hiding/rearranging the excess with CSS.... more code to show less on specific devices. Requiring more code for something previously as simple as doing nothing is 'kneecapping' IMO, if I don't want the data shown on mobile, I shouldn't have to go and hide the HTML with CSS, I should simply be able to not provide mobile templates. Also, compare the data shown on a topics listing in mobile and stock skin now.... you going to hide all of that extraneous data in your apps with media querys? As it stands, mobile templating is generally a change of classes, and a massive reduction in extraneous data in the template. The data shown is far less in mobile for a reason, usability. As I said, I'm not 100% against it, I just fear it is going to cause much grief in many use-cases, and I hope that such is at least being considered going in, or these types of mods that do not belong in the mobile interface, or require completely different HTML/JS for the mobile interface are going to have it rough. So long as well-documented tools for the developer/skinner are present to combat these issues in these use-cases, I believe it can be done right... while I still am not a fan of the obvious HTML bloat for these devices a responsive design results in versus a dedicated mobile skin, the benefit of instant mobile compatibility in many use cases is desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rikki Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 As you have discovered, there are pros and cons of whatever we choose. Though you're arguing for a separate mobile skin, there are very clear pros and cons to that too. As bfarber said, thus far we are working on the assumption that a single responsive default skin is our best choice. I'd urge you to hold onto some of your 'con' arguments before you've seen it, because some may not apply. For example, there is very little that is not shown on mobile that is shown on desktop; our aim is for all functionality to be present, so while on mobile things are obviously simplified, we are not simply hiding masses of elements and calling it a mobile view. On the whole, what you see on the desktop is what you'll see on mobile, just in a different flow. We did not jump into responsive design lightly or on a whim. Believe it or not, I was also initially apprehensive about it. It's a decision we took a lot of time to think about and experiment with, and I'm really excited about the possibilities it will bring. Our plan is to make the responsiveness an optional thing. So if you really don't want the default skin to be responsive, you can turn it off and install a skin specifically designed for mobile. Addressing the framework issue. The reason we are developing our own framework is that our needs are different to the typical website's needs. We have a vast array of page styles, layouts, widgets, controls and so on, and a responsive grid framework simply wouldn't be sufficient to achieve what we want to do. So we're taking a different approach: we're building pages as individual components, and each of those components handles responsiveness in its own way. So while we will also have a grid system, we'll also have responsive tables, menus, dialogs, pagination and more, specifically tailored to the type of interfaces we build. It is working out very well for us, thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 For example, there is very little that is not shown on mobile that is shown on desktop; our aim is for all functionality to be present, so while on mobile things are obviously simplified, we are not simply hiding masses of elements and calling it a mobile view. On the whole, what you see on the desktop is what you'll see on mobile, just in a different flow. :frantics: :ohmy: :hyper: Shutting up, far cry better than what I've been dealing with thus far regarding the mobile skin, both as dev and user... the de-facto standard you set was hiding... a LOT. :smile: That.... and having to trawl the mobile templates for how you did x(filters, touch-link) I need to use for consistency is not fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Believe it or not, I was also initially apprehensive about it. Things would go much smoother around here if everyone just agreed with me to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rikki Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Things would go much smoother around here if everyone just agreed with me to start with. Hmmm, you know, I'm starting to come around to Marcher's view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcher Technologies Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Hmmm, you know, I'm starting to come around to Marcher's view. :rofl: :tongue: :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenLinks Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I want to hear more about the API then the default Style :) I just hope the 4.0 API will be powerful enough so that we can easily create mobile applications for the suite. I am planning to create actually more then one mobile application and to do so i specifically need IP.Content API really powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I want to hear more about the API then the default Style :smile: I just hope the 4.0 API will be powerful enough so that we can easily create mobile applications for the suite. I am planning to create actually more then one mobile application and to do so i specifically need IP.Content API really powerful. One goal we have is reworking each application so that it uses stronger central APIs where applicable. For the forums application there is an API to retrieve topics and an API to post topics and posts. The controllers use these APIs, but so do other areas of the software. We intend to push this same concept out to all apps, although this may take some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenLinks Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 One goal we have is reworking each application so that it uses stronger central APIs where applicable. For the forums application there is an API to retrieve topics and an API to post topics and posts. The controllers use these APIs, but so do other areas of the software. We intend to push this same concept out to all apps, although this may take some time. I hoe you guys take all time you need and make sure IPB 4.0 will be a complete package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.f53ae2b2d5763b5627bb336f84a27ebc.thumb.jpg.a740daeb59635508910a7c9151fe5535.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.