Channel9 v4 Previews

figuerres wrote:

also some posts with large images in the current 9 blow the layout and make it look bad....

true - to fix this:  just make a default "no bigger than this" width - and if image is bigger - add the images URL to the image - but show the squished one.

dont REMOVE images

jamie wrote:

Cont.

Search:



so is this it?  just like on10?  one box that returns an undeciferable list of msn search results?

akk  ... how about:



and if you click the underlined link - it goes too:



only with the above 3 options added


(again - this is something removed... not added.)

i like whats been added.

I agree w/ Jamie on this...  On several forums that I am on the search is better then what is proposed.  I hope there is the ability to just search specific forums or shows for content.
+1 for me on this

/me disagrees with Jamie's rant, less is more, IMO.

It does seem a bit too narrow though, imagine if the text was a little bigger on the home page, there would be a separerate line for every three words.

I'm not a fan of popup boxes for posting, because it covers up the rest of the page. It's good that you can still see the text you're replying to, however, you can't see any of the other posts because of the popup box. Why not put the reply box at the bottom of the page? You can still hide and show it the same way.


Otherwise I'm not disappointed, yet.

I really like the new color scheme. It's very pleasant. I like littleguru's idea of the time changing banner graphics. Maybe C9 can comission a niner to do that

But, I have problems with the hybrid Threaded/Flat view.

I understand the need to specify replying to a post, or to the thread. To make past threads look the same, right? But I like to have it up to the user to stay with the Flat view or not.

I think we would effectively eliminate the Flat view because most people would leave the default option of replying to a post. People can post whichever method they want, but a reader should also view it in whichever way they choose.

Also, yes to HTML view. Kudos to attachments. Yes to narrow width -- but allow wide content on per-post basis?

I'd also like to resonate other Niners' support for Adam.

Minh wrote:



Also, yes to HTML view.

minh what are your thoughts on new - nuetured editor?
hey look this text is RED and in a different font 


Kudos to attachments.

and your thoughts on no more images in coffeehouse?? (thumbs dont count as fun to see)

ok...deep breath,,, i like what youve added - dont like what's removed. 
( why MS as a whole loves to remove things its users rely on i will never understand)


Editor:
So here we have our cool little editor.  I use the fonts, colours, alignment, strikethrough, indents, highlights, size options DAILY



is to be replaced with this brain dead version:


WHY?!!  ug!  *The only feature i wanted to see here was double the width posting window...



Posting images in threads = now attachments (see below)




I am hoping this is what you see if you click - "Add attachment" ..but NOT if you paste an image into a post. 
If this is not the case, and all images show as above...well the coffeehouse is dead
( for fun posts, things to look at, humorous graphics, screenshots .... )

Please tell me pasting works like now.


Width:

And last (for now) the width (as others have mentioned) 
Cant we keep it the old width?  Why the diet?  I too have have large res monitor settings

New Width:



Old Width:  *puposely stretching forum - sorry in advance




Apart from that - im sorry to hear of the death in your family adam
hope youre doin ok..

ok back to rant    ...i need a coffee... brb

i addressed stretching the forum above...

the coffeehouse without images will be ... not a desired place to hang out for me - to post or read

jamie wrote:

i addressed stretching the forum above...

the coffeehouse without images will be ... not a desired place to hang out for me

It wouldn't be a coffeehouse without images. The images would just be contained in a clear, and more organized, fashion.

I disagree. If we keep it the way it is, my screen in forced to display potentially tons of images which will actually piss me off from time to time. It increases load-time, and clutters my screen.

It images are kept in check, and displayed as thumbnails, I have the freedom to chose what can, and cannot, litter my screen. Besides, I can see what your graphic is plain as daylight. If I am interested in it, I can click and get more detail.

Seems fair. But I understand your view too.

jamie wrote:



Minh wrote: Also, yes to HTML view. minh what are your thoughts on new - nuetured editor? hey look this text is RED and in a different font  Kudos to attachments. and your thoughts on no more images in coffeehouse?? (thumbs dont count as fun to see)

Hehe... I'm catching up on reading new posts.

I just couldn't imagine the forum without inline images. I couldn't think of a reason why anyone would want this -- so, I assume the attachments were an addition of functionality instead of replacing images. But, yeah, it'd be bad if we couldn't do inline images.

I could be awesome if we could upload images as attachments, then, display them inline in the same post, though.

The editor, I definitely will miss "cross-out", "font-size", "font-color" for sure. I don't use thje other buttons, but others may, so I say, keep them all.

PS. with the threaded view, I hope the (quote) tag doesn't go away. Actually, I'd like to see it expanded. Say... a "Quote Selected Text" button, that throws a (quote) tag around whatever you're selecting. Makes it easy to inline answering something.

not just my graphics..  everyone posts images.. it makes threads fun to read.  i have broadband - not sure what you have

even w3bbo posting a troll image or something... you think im going to stop and click to see everything? a joke? - click here to get it?

no thanks 

* lock the widths of images at 640 - sure! [y]

*edit - also the 4 screen attachments in adams sample - they are from a post where he had included those images like now.  they are still the same images = same load time.  you just have to click to view them now

I doubt the thumbnails are the same load-times. Chances are they are compressed on the server before they are locally stored. This is what the channel9 site does with our Avatars too. It shrinks them, and lowers the file-size.

But I concede your point. Inline images are necessary. And if they are kept to a max-width of 640x480, that would be excellent as long as they are still links to the full-size image.

I suppose the Attachments would come in handy for Techoff, and similar areas too. If I could attach myPage.aspx.vb that would rock Instead of having to paste all of my code (which brings up automated-code-formatting which is would be nice! too).

jamie wrote:

* lock the widths of images at 640 - sure!

I quite like the effect used at Panic.

Go to this url, and go halfway down the screen to the screenshots section - clicking on a preview thumbnail shows quite a nice view of the full thing.

To me it seems that you guys are getting all worked up about this. Just relax, these are conceptual designs, I don't see the front page really looking like this when it goes live. It seems to me that they are still working on layout, item placement and stuff.

I have a few complaints ...

1. Width. It's just silly to have the site so narrow. Try to go liquid, with some minimum width.

2. Header image. Takes way to much of the attention. Way to many colors and too distracting. KISS.

3. Forum.

Looks a lot better than today. But I would urge you to allow us to choose weather to view small or large avatars in the threads.

Attatchments sound great, but allow for inline images too. But try to keep the minimun with so it won't blow the layout.

Ignore feature, rocks.

Reply box ... dunno. On the Gamespot forums you have a really convinient "quick reply" button. I like the limited functions on the editor ... that's really all we need, regardless of what Jamie says on removing things. KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.


I have a few other comments, but I am going with my son right now to see some Monster Trucks run around here in Stockholm

I think Channel9 needs to be compatible with other web browsers, other than IE7. Like Opera and FireFox. Its about giving the viewer a choice. thanks

SecretSoftware wrote:

I think Channel9 needs to be compatible with other web browsers, other than IE7. Like Opera and FireFox. Its about giving the viewer a choice. thanks

On10's videos are compatible with other web browsers (at least Firefox, haven't tried opera), so c9.next should be too.