Editor and Viewcount

[Kaffeerappel]

I really like the new editor for posting, I hope it will be carried over to the CMS-addon.

Just 1 thing that bugs me is that the editor actually behaves like a code editor, where your usuall carriage return results in a <p> tag, where as the line break will have to be excecuted with the shift-return combo.

This might potentially confuse quite a number of users, especially those not familiar with this behaviour.

The second thing is the view count. I just read that it is updated in batches (any specific reason for that, such as serverload?). Anyway, what I like to know is if the viewcounts goes up +1 with every view of any member or non-member (just like vB2) or does it only go up +1 per member viewing the thread, regardless of how many times they viewed it (sorry for the confusing question, can't describe it any better).

As far as I know, the latter of those 2 possibilties has been suggested for vB3, so I was wondering if it has been implemented.

[tubedogg]

Views are still counted no matter who makes them or how many times. It would add some serious overhead to only do unique views.

[samtha25]

Originally posted by Kaffeerappel
I really like the new editor for posting, I hope it will be carried over to the CMS-addon.
New editor? I don't see anything different, except that the default font is bigger.

[JamesUS]

If you are using IE 5.5 or later there is a new editor. It behaves exactly in the same way as Word does so there is no ugly code in the edit box and it is much easier for people to use.

[samtha25]

Originally posted by JamesUS
If you are using IE 5.5 or later ...
You mean it's an IE only feature?

... there is a new editor. It behaves exactly in the same way as Word does so there is no ugly code in the edit box and it is much easier for people to use.
Since I've never used Word, I don't know what that means, except that when I used CTRL-B to bold a highlighted word, every word after was also bolded. That does sound like Word. :D

Will there be a way to get rid of the editor for IE users? I doubt our members will appreciate a Word-like editor. :D :D :D.

[Freddie Bingham]

Oh my people still use Word Perfect? :eek:

It doesn't support ctrl-b, ctrl-i, etc?

[DirectPixel]

If you press CTRL+B, it will bold your text. To make it stop, press CTRL+B again.:)

[samtha25]

Originally posted by freddie
[B]Oh my people still use Word Perfect? :eek:
Yes, discriminating people.

It doesn't support ctrl-b, ctrl-i, etc?
Of course it does but if you bold a selected word, it assumes that you do indeed only want to bold that word. Pretty clever, eh?

[Floris]

I like the new editor. And I read the postviews can also do unique, instead of batched. So that doesn't really matter either.

[JamesUS]

Originally posted by samtha25

Yes, discriminating people.


Of course it does but if you bold a selected word, it assumes that you do indeed only want to bold that word. Pretty clever, eh?

What if you want to bold the entire sentence? That would put me right off WordPerfect (and I used to use it back when it was for DOS and early Windows versions).

Yes, it is an IE-only feature as IE is the only browser that provides the tools for us to make such an editor. Yes, you can go back to the old one if you really want to :) Already the old editor is displayed if your browser is not compatible.

[samtha25]

Originally posted by JamesUS
What if you want to bold the entire sentence? That would put me right off WordPerfect (and I used to use it back when it was for DOS and early Windows versions).
If bolding after the fact, highlight whatever it is you want bolded, press ctrl-b. If bolding as you go, press ctrl-b, type text, hit right-arrow to move pass the bold code, continue typing. It's been that way since WPDOS. For Word-like compatibility, hitting ctrl-b also ends the bolded text, something I just discovered. :)

Yes, you can go back to the old one if you really want to :)
Gosh, yes, I really want to, if for no other reason than I want vB to work the same in all browsers so that I don't have to be fussing with either providing users different instructions for different browsers or dealing with problems in this-or-that browser only.

Already the old editor is displayed if your browser is not compatible.
I dislike anything requiring browser sniffing. Successful browser sniffing is much more complicated than usually implemented (as illustrated by the variable results with vB's sniffing to render the composition box) and it depends on javascript, which I think should be limited to only non-essential functionality or features.

[DirectPixel]

Browsers can be detected via PHP.

[filburt1]

Originally posted by eiSecure
Browsers can be detected via PHP.

Pretty much any server-side language can, too...AFAIK it just requres analyzing the HTTP header the browser sends. Of course vB would use PHP :p

[DirectPixel]

Yep. Just pointing out that Javascript isn't the only way out.

(sees somebody's sig pic from VBF with a green frog on it...;):p)

[JamesUS]

At the moment our browser identification isn't quite perfect but we are working on that. It certainly does not use JavaScript in any way at all and does not cause any speed issues.

[filburt1]

JS is fine on most sites, provided that critical functionality isn't dependent on it.

[bigmattyh]

Originally posted by JamesUS
Already the old editor is displayed if your browser is not compatible. I'm using IE 5.1 on Mac OSX, and I get nothing but a blank cell above the text window when I create a post. Same thing for the smilies -- just a blank cell. That isn't intentional, is it?

[DirectPixel]

You're on a mac, so I'll just pretend to tell you that it is.;):p

[filburt1]

On my iBook at home and G4 at work I've determined that IE for OS X sucks compared to IE for Windows. I'd suggest that you use Mozilla on the Mac; only problem there is that it takes significantly longer to start Mozilla than it takes to start up IE.

[DirectPixel]

Yep. Microsoft has come pretty far in making fast-loading full-featured apps.:)

IE, Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook Express... they all load within 3 seconds.:)

[filburt1]

...because they tend to integrate with the OS...Word for X takes friggin forever to start on my lappy.