New Maps for the mapcyclevote

[havoc]

well i told you whats not good - 233 items on single page is way too much for humans.
not to mention the 35000 pixels high page.

you said the other day 233 not that much.
try to count to 233 to see how much it is :)

but i know you will ignore me. you will make it like that, and just then you will realize i was right. despite that, you will still insist its ok, but inside you will know its not. i will know that you know you were wrong, but i will say nothing anymore, because it will be pointless. your inner conflict will grow beyond control and you will get mad. your life will be miserable, you will lose your job/home/whatever. you will wander through the streets in the night mumbling about maps and wiki. and in the last moments of your life, you will admit that i was right. but it will be way too late.

so why not save yourself the trouble and split it?

[JRandomNoob]

^ win

[Pirat]

well i told you whats not good - 233 items on single page is way too much for humans.
not to mention the 35000 pixels high page.

you said the other day 233 not that much.
try to count to 233 to see how much it is :)

You gave me the example of the google image search result page with 37 pages and full of images -- and as I told you, I had zero problems with it, I could scroll up and down smoothly on it, and if it had any text, I would have been able to easily search the whole page with the normal browser search. I'm sorry, but I really love simple and efficient interfaces. It's 2012, bro! :-)

but i know you will ignore me. you will make it like that, and just then you will realize i was right. despite that, you will still insist its ok, but inside you will know its not. i will know that you know you were wrong, but i will say nothing anymore, because it will be pointless. your inner conflict will grow beyond control and you will get mad. your life will be miserable, you will lose your job/home/whatever. you will wander through the streets in the night mumbling about maps and wiki. and in the last moments of your life, you will admit that i was right. but it will be way too late.

so why not save yourself the trouble and split it?

*LOL*

Thanks for the good laugh in the morning! |-) So I think it's time to enlighten you on the planned interface and break up the ambiguity of my quote "the new frontend will be able to display all 233 map entries on one single page": of course it will have a split view with as many pages as you like! :-) And if all goes well, the default will be something like 10-20 maps per page, and users will be able to save their search filter and display quantity preferences.

It just wasn't reasonably implementable with the DokuWiki (no, I refuse to add new entries to the end of the list, i. e. last page), so I wanted to pick the only Right(tm) way to do that. But thank $DEITY, the wiki didn't work, so I can (i.e. must :-) code something that fulfills everybody's desires, even the needs of I-get-overstrained-by-more-than-2-pixels-at-once-havoc. <3

|-)


Love you 'n' dem udder miezis <=^^=>

Pirat

[Pirat]

Btw.:

but i know you will ignore me. you will make it like that, and just then you will realize i was right. despite that, you will still insist its ok, but inside you will know its not. i will know that you know you were wrong, but i will say nothing anymore, because it will be pointless. your inner conflict will grow beyond control and you will get mad. your life will be miserable, you will lose your job/home/whatever. you will wander through the streets in the night mumbling about maps and wiki. and in the last moments of your life, you will admit that i was right. but it will be way too late.

You explained "cognitive dissonance" unnecessarily complexly. ;-)

.

[havoc]

so theres reason going on after all. anyways, i have few comments:

I had zero problems with it

you shouldnt EVER assess the situation by yourself - whatever you do will be used mostly by other people, and (sadly) they are not Pirat.

like, if i do webpages as i like them, they will look like gopher. to other people this will be text on white background, and guess what - most 'normals' go into panic attack when they see text. like they have fear of reading or something, but are ok to press shiney buttons, just like monkeys.

search the whole page with the normal browser search

2 things here - "search the whole page" - that means you are already lost m8, if you have to search thru it. i know it doesnt feel like you are, but you are.

"normal browser search" - no theres nothing normal in it. it may be normal to you, but not for the 'normals'. i can assure you 9 out of 10 dont know the browser has a search. yes, thats a power-user option, and you my friend are a godly hacker compared to the normals.

I'm sorry, but I really love simple and efficient interfaces.

and so do i. but then again, whats simple and efficient to you, is most probably over-complicated or inefficient to others. like, a group of religious fucks is ok with the 1-button control on the ipod shuffle 3, its simple right? - one button. and its efficient too - it does whatever its supposed to do. nevertheless, it turned out to be one of the most retarded decisions in design EVER, so next version they got back to the old control button. over-simplification does not necessarily lead to good results.

It's 2012, bro! :-)

exactly my point!

========================

tl;dr - keep an open mind. listen to havoc.

anyways, not trying to argue or something, just giving you some pointers out of my experience to think over, hope you find them useful. if you need help, squeal on irc.

[JRandomNoob]

It appears tohunga_b9 screws up the textures on b8; the older version really should be removed so that it couldn’t be voted anymore.

shot1017.jpg

EDIT: Checked on a clean installation — it’s indeed b9 and b8 conflict:

shot0003.jpg

[Pirat]

so theres reason going on after all. anyways, i have few comments:

I had zero problems with it

you shouldnt EVER assess the situation by yourself - whatever you do will be used mostly by other people, and (sadly) they are not Pirat.

I never claimed that this page won't cause problems on someone's PC.
Because nearly every software processing some data can lead to problems
somewhere. There is always a set of thresholds that someone creating public
content (programs, web pages, ...) decides for.

I tested the very Google Images result page with even more pages (IIRC
over 60 pages) on my old Thinkpad with sucky single-core CPU and very sucky
graphics card, and -- surprise -- I still had no problems with it, just what I
expected (save the problem that your example page needs JavaScript, which
I don't use in my default browser).


Now let's look at the technical facts:

• That Wiki page had about 300 kB pure text. As the server gzips the page, it
  gets shrunk to a whopping 6 kB!
• Each entry would have had a thumbnail JPEG smaller than 10 kB.

So first, the browser loads 6 kB of text (that takes less than a second even with
GPRS). Then, while the browser loads the thumbnail images in the background,
you can immediately start browsing or searching. And with an average 1 MBit
connection, the images are loaded after 18 seconds. If you are on a very slow
connection (GPRS etc.) and don't want to wait for a specific image to be loaded,
you can just right-click on it and choose "View Image" (and then go back and let
the image loading process continue).

like, if i do webpages as i like them, they will look like gopher. to other people this will be text on white background, and guess what - most 'normals' go into panic attack when they see text. like they have fear of reading or something, but are ok to press shiney buttons, just like monkeys.

Although you might not believe it, we think the same. I am concerned about
accessibility. My former homepage had a relatively simple design -- and for those
guys using Lynx or other textbrowsers that didn't support HTML tables at that time,
I additionally manually transferred my HTML tables to preformatted ASCII tables!
If that isn't devotion to accessibility, I don't know. For the same reason, I never
used JavaScript, Flash or the various proprietary extensions to HTML.

But of course, tempora mutantur, and you cannot make everyone happy.
Because making the remaining 20 per cent happy needs 80 per cent of your
resources (man "pareto principle").

search the whole page with the normal browser search

2 things here - "search the whole page" - that means you are already lost m8, if you have to search thru it. i know it doesnt feel like you are, but you are.

Maybe my elevator doesn't go all the way to the top, but could you try to
explain to me what you mean with "you are already lost" in this context?
It is the data itself that might "make you get lost". It doesn't matter
if you search a single HTML page or if you enter search strings into
some frontend: In both cases, "you are already lost".

"normal browser search" - no theres nothing normal in it. it may be normal to you, but not for the 'normals'. i can assure you 9 out of 10 dont know the browser has a search. yes, thats a power-user option, and you my friend are a godly hacker compared to the normals.

Oo ... errr ... okay, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that 90 per cent
of our gamers (i. e. the target group for the map list) don't know about the browser's
search function. How in the world should I have implemented that DokuWiki map list
otherwise?

Your suggestion was to divide the list into sections of 10-20 map entries.
But how would have that helped the browser-search-agnostic people? The only
difference is that on the big page, they scroll, and on the sectioned page, they click
on prev/next. And above that, as resectioning the complete list is extremely tedious,
your suggestion of just adding new entries to the last page would make matters
worse -- for both browser-search-agnostic and browser-search-aware people.

Not wanting to bash your suggestions, I'm glad if people help me, but IMHO, with
the DokuWiki as technical platform, I still see no alternative to a large HTML page
-- and even that didn't work for server-side resource problems (which Wursti offered
me to fix, but I prefer to do without that terribly inefficient DokuWiki and instead
implement something more suitable).

I'm sorry, but I really love simple and efficient interfaces.

[Apple's 1-button control]
over-simplification does not necessarily lead to good results.

ACK. Nor does over-complication. :-)

It's 2012, bro! :-)

exactly my point!

Finally, we have something in common! %-)

========================

tl;dr - keep an open mind. listen to havoc.

:-)

anyways, not trying to argue or something, just giving you some pointers out of my experience to think over, hope you find them useful.

I appreciate any input (provided that fucked up Pirate haz the nerves to process it %-).

if you need help, squeal on irc.

Thanks!

Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through
understanding. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

So you better understand me !!111one ;-)

(and make me understand you, of course!)


<3

Pirat

.

[havoc]

Pirat, where have you been m8? lets do some shit
thanks for the long reply btw, i read it all. great minds think alike!

[eXtr33m]

I always wondered what happens when Pirat and Havoc clash.

Now I am scared..

@topic:
What about doing simple AJAX (or just javascript) search? Idk but that could be more less a compromis.

[havoc]

lol
we didnt clash m8
we both are too much of a gentlemen to do such things
all we did is exchange some thoughts, as you can see in most civilized manner