Search options (Page 148 of 152)

I'm having problems--frustrations--with the content editing window.  I have copy-pasted a file whose formatting came through badly.  I'm not going to rail about that just yet because I'm not quite sure of the difficulties your up against.  (But note that a control-enter is a hard line break, not a paragraph break, and isn't a solution for single-spacing paragraphs because a paragraph formatting change above it will affect below and vice versa.)

Now, as to the real problem.  Since I'm fixing formatting, I need the formatting bar.  I adjust the main window scroll so it's at the top of the window and I start editing the content from the top down.  When I reach the bottom of what's visible on the window, instead of the editing canvas scrolling up, the whole ferstunk window content scrolls up, moving the editing controls off the visible window.

=Postscript:=  It's actually a bit worse than it seems.  When you get to the end of the document, you =can't= scroll down further in the edit canvas.  The only way to bring the end of your document close enough to the top of the canvas to have that text AND the formatting controls in your window at the same time is to add some text (eg. blank lines) at the end of the document, which you must remember to remove later.

I don't know quite all of what's going on here, but I suspect that the problem could be fixed by making the visible part of the editing canvas short enough, top-to--bottom, to fit in the window.  Even letting it fit in a window that is say, 80% of full screen would probably do for most of us (though it's not ideal).

What I tell you three times is true!

Two things, not bugs exactly, but ways in which something is not providing what it was apparently meant to.

First, on page for a group, in the Visit My Group sidebar, the list of groups and forums with messages goes out of date when you read them and does not update on the page, even with reloads, for a considerable time.  I haven't actually timed it, so I don't know.

Second, on the My Groups, by default it shows you ALL groups, including Premium and Free.  That means it shows you EVERYTHING--all new works.  Or you can select an individual group, but then you have to look again for each group you are in (except Premium and Free, which between them represent EVERYTHING, or EVERYTHING that is not in a private group.  There is no way to select mutiple groups, or ALL-BUT-PREMIUM-AND-FREE, which are, in a sense, the 'base' groups, the two parts of the universal set.

More grist for my thinking on groups, but for now adding 'chosen groups EXCLUDING Premium and Free' would probably come closer to what most users would hope to find.

IMO.

I'm asking my reviewers not to use inline reviews on my work.  I just put this in the story top notes for The Sorcerer's Progress:

Your mileage may vary, your experience may differ, but mine is that no matter how good an inline review, the format makes it impossible for me to study it as a whole or at length.  These problems could be mitigated (but not alleviated) by additions to the website.  They could be largely fixed by making the 'inline' mechanism a way to --enter-- the text of a single-body review that could be read and responded to as a whole.

At the moment, I see it as a way to clutter other people's home pages with big, distracting images.  Since I don't want the clutter on my pages, I won't do it to anyone else.

But that risks the Electric Blanket dilemma: with a two-sided electric blanket, the controls get mixed up.  She's freezing, even though she has HER control cranked; he's baking even though he has his side off.

I wonder now whether the version number change shouldn't either automaticly repost or provide an option to repost.  The copy-paste operation is less reliable than changing the number and editing and I think I'm not the only one to get caught on this, choosing to move forward with edits on the existing base.  The version control systems I've known for software always assumed that you declared new versions on edits rather than starting with a clean sheet of paper for each.

The option-to-repost suggestion moves this from bugs to potential future enhancements.

Yeah.  Amy has a horse named Horse.

John Dickson Carr titled one story The Eight of Swords.

How about The Trey of Chamber Pots?

A well-trained Border Collie can herd ducks nicely.  I've seen the demo.

Thanks.  Will give it a try.

On the messages page(s) there's a button marked 'sort'.  You have to push it to find that it reverses the sort order.  Could we change it please so that experimentation is not necessary, perhaps by having it read either 'Sort Newest First' or 'Sort Oldest First' according to what it's ready to do?

I like the idea of idling neglected groups.  There are questions of how to do it, and whether the group should be scrapped or just mothballed.

I also like the idea that Premium and Free--the membership groups--have a different status.

I'm going to think out loud about groups over the next week or two.

You're certainly right that we don't know how to use groups.  We've got duplication or semiduplication with two different fantasy groups.  Was each too specialized?  I don't know.

We also have connections.  They do  several different things, hooking up announcements, putting stuff in each other's home pages, and enabling private messaging.  These things don't seem to me to be quite congruent, so I'm at a loss to guess what the are meant for.

I'm not going to try a full analysis here, but I do think that at some point, when the less fuzzy things are fixed, you should take a look at how people are and are not using these things.

If building walls were not an express purpose of groups, why is it possible to create a private or invite-only group?  Those capabilities are wall-builders.

What this suggests to me that -both- capabilties are present in the design.  The problems that we are having figuring out how to use the things might or might not come from having both openness and closedness as part of group function, but it's a question this sometime software designer feels should be asked.

It's only paranoia in the sense that having a system test team to hammer on the product before it ships is paranoia.  You =always= expect bugs, in requirements, analysis, several levels of design, coding, integration, configuration, and in packaging the product to ship or go into service.  It's best if the designers and programmers expect the bugs, and design/code them out before they happen.  But that's a discussion for another place and time.