Describe how you use the site

cjhsa wrote:

I would like that to be selectable, like an online catalog. 10, 20, 50, etc.

For right now, we aren't doing this as we don't want so many different urls for the same content.

0 Replies

well, if it is hard to come to a decision of how many would be comfortable for everyone, is it possible ( if I explain this correctly..) to have only as many threads visible that does not cause one to have to scroll?

Not that scrolling is an issue, but that would make things seem / appear simple.. streamlined if all you have to do is page through , instead of page through then scroll down..

( just an idea.. )

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

well, if it is hard to come to a decision of how many would be comfortable for everyone,

Just let me know what would be comfortable for you.

Quote:

is it possible ( if I explain this correctly..) to have only as many threads visible that does not cause one to have to scroll?

Not without some really ugly code that for various reasons is out of the question.

0 Replies

Thats what I thought.

A comfortable amount for me is about 25-35

0 Replies

I'd rather have more than less. Right now it appears to be about 50. that seems about right.

0 Replies

I wanted to type this edit up but I changed my mind.

Swimpy's answer makes me think I need to add this-

I am voting for 25-35 because that is what is comfortable for me with my toolbar(s), font settings and other programs I have running.

If I ever cleaned this **** up Laughing

I could see a bit more.
And if i ever had to, I would.

0 Replies

I agree. 50 is about where I like it.

0 Replies

As a member who is still on dial up connection (not for long I hope), the fewer number of page loads needed to navigate pages of a topic, the better.

Same goes for the list of topics in New Posts, etc.

0 Replies

Rockhead wrote:

I agree. 50 is about where I like it.

who asked you

0 Replies

Has that ever been necessary with me, my dear?

0 Replies

You better shut up 'yer shuttin up..

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

As a member who is still on dial up connection (not for long I hope), the fewer number of page loads needed to navigate pages of a topic, the better.

Same goes for the list of topics in New Posts, etc.

This is particularly important to me. I've heard conflicting stuff on this (low bandwidth users) and whether smaller pages (and more pages) or larger pages (and fewer pages) are preferred.

0 Replies

On sign up with the site, could it be possible if someone who IS on dial up can have access to a smaller version of a2k?

0 Replies

25, thanx...

0 Replies

It's possible but we aren't going to do it. The regular version of the site is going to be light enough.

0 Replies

Makes sense about not making it too heavy/ hard to load.

I usually have a good, fast DSL connection but today it's really messed up and I'm noticing that A2K loads significantly faster than most any place else I've been trying to go.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:
As a member who is still on dial up connection (not for long I hope), the fewer number of page loads needed to navigate pages of a topic, the better.

Same goes for the list of topics in New Posts, etc.

This is particularly important to me. I've heard conflicting stuff on this (low bandwidth users) and whether smaller pages (and more pages) or larger pages (and fewer pages) are preferred.

Here's how I combat the low bandwidth problems. It might help you with the design for low bandwidth users.

To counter the wait frustration while navigating through the pages, I frequently open multiple tabs/windows for each page. There are some days on A2K (especially when the ad servers are running slowly) that it takes longer for a tab/window to load than it does to scan down a page of posts.

I've gotten into the habit of scanning the New Posts/Your Posts list and opening topics of interest in New Tabs. By the time I have finished reviewing the New Posts list, all the tabs have loaded. Then I close the New Posts tab and begin reading those topics. If the topic is a fast-paced one, I also begin opening several of the latest pages of that topic in new tabs so I can find the spot for the last post I previously read. I close a tab as I finish reading what it contains. As I'm reading, if there are posts I want to respond to, I open a new tab with a reply window. That way I don't have to keep scrolling back to the older page each time I post a reply.

0 Replies

Craven- I would want as many as you could comfortably handle. Fifty is fine with me, although I think there might be a problem with dial-up users.

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

If the topic is a fast-paced one, I also begin opening several of the latest pages of that topic in new tabs so I can find the spot for the last post I previously read.

There is currently a link on the search/forums grids that takes you there. If you click the orange icon it will go to the first post after your last session. The new site will likely have something similar (and possibly more prominent).

0 Replies

What Butrflynet wrote.. I do as well. Even if my DSL is not giving me a problem.
It just helps to keep the topics I want to visit in a separate tab in case I accidentally close the page or lose all of the new topics for some reason or another.

0 Replies

Describe how you use the site

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know