[Feedback needed] Atlas, the next version of Neowin

[Stokkolm]

No, if you were to click Show More, it adds more. You could then scroll up to see what you were previously looking at, without having to go back page by page to find the comment you were looking for. This way, the information is presented to you in a way where, if you want to see what more people are saying, there's an option to do that. Or, if you don't want to have to expand the comments as you read, a Show All button could easily expand all of the comments.

Overall, it's a mutual benefit for both the readers and the people who run the site, as information is only pulled on request rather than thrown at the user who may not even bother to read the comments. It cuts down on load times as well for the user, and makes navigation a breeze. :yes:

I see what you're saying about the difference, however, do you really want to have 200 comments loaded on the same page? Is that really useful? By that logic, they should make the forums work the same way. It could really get out of hand on the more popular articles. The additional comments still wouldn't be loaded until the next page link was actually clicked, so load times aren't a concern either way.

Either way, it won't bother me. It's just that from a presentational position, I think it would be more organized to have separate pages, they could even have an option in the control panel to set how many comments show for you or something if you want to see more than the default allows at one time.

[Timan Veteran]

Don't know if anyone else has spotted this... but for avatars with transparent backgrounds maybe make the little avatar next to the user name at the top be overlaid on the same colour background as everywhere else avatars are shown such as the forums... else people who have them designed for "light coloured backgrounds" may well get white pixeling around images depending on their file format / transparency method.

The pic in the first post is outdated. Avatar box will have a white bg for this very reason. (Might even be disabled, we're not sure yet. Small avatars look crappy in firefox/ie).

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

You can make IE use Bicubic scaling, which is quite nice, Firefox uses bilinear which isn't as nice (on OS X it makes Quartz do the scaling, which uses a very nice algorithm)

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

I'd rather it be 'done' and bug free than released say today and have it full of things that need to be fixed. Take as long as you guys need - infact, a XMAS present as suggested by the pic would be quite awesome if it is completed before then :)

[booboo]

I have a much better alternative for the "Click here to see more" button for the comments. How about loading more comments as you scroll down the page via ajax, not difficult and extremely simple.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It'll be ready when it's ready :) Please don't all repeat the same questions, it's annoying :p We're all excited too, but we're not giving any specific dates out.

So uh see at Christmas are you guys going to release a Christmas theme?

[Dance.]

hokay, nps :D.

[dead.cell]

I see what you're saying about the difference, however, do you really want to have 200 comments loaded on the same page? Is that really useful? By that logic, they should make the forums work the same way. It could really get out of hand on the more popular articles. The additional comments still wouldn't be loaded until the next page link was actually clicked, so load times aren't a concern either way.

Either way, it won't bother me. It's just that from a presentational position, I think it would be more organized to have separate pages, they could even have an option in the control panel to set how many comments show for you or something if you want to see more than the default allows at one time.

Last time I checked, that's how it works currently. :huh:

And yes, I probably would, since I actually read most of the comments that are posted. The key idea here is that it would allow the many who probably won't even bother reading the comments the option of not having too, and having quicker load times because of it. Also, this idea isn't just my personal opinion, but the opinion shared by others in this thread who've expressed the exact same feelings I have.

[lt8480]

The pic in the first post is outdated. Avatar box will have a white bg for this very reason. (Might even be disabled, we're not sure yet. Small avatars look crappy in firefox/ie).

You can make IE use Bicubic scaling, which is quite nice, Firefox uses bilinear which isn't as nice (on OS X it makes Quartz do the scaling, which uses a very nice algorithm)

Why not even scale it server side on uploading image that way you remove all problems across browsers? They won't be changed that often so it shouldn't cause a load issue, and loading an extra small img shouldn't cause an issue either.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Because not every image is uploaded to the server (mine's hosted on my site so I have control over it)

[lt8480]

Ah hadn't thought about that they could still be fetched scaled and stored - ive never used the function myself but "filemtime" can check when a file was last modified - not sure if you can read files on a different site though - or there might be a different way of checking when someones image externally has been modified...

edit... mind I just noticed yours rotates.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

And it's hard to use that stuff over HTTP, you have to re-download it every time to check, and we also support using Flash avatars and such (and animated images, downscaling them could/would break them)