The Reply to Thread and Reply options

[french frank]

Well, we've moved over to No Quick Reply now. I wonder if anyone is using the 'threaded view' rather than the 'linear view' and whether this is affected? Don't you have to Reply to Thread, rather than Reply to Post?

The change does actually have the advantage that I can't suddenly close threads with uncontrolled, spastic clicks of the mouse, as has been known ...

[Curalach]

Well, we've moved over to No Quick Reply now.

That's a huge disappointment to me. I have always used Quick Reply or, where appropriate, Reply with Quote as it is easy and intuitive. I have little interest in using smileys or altering fonts and colours. A particular benefit of quick reply is that the thread remains easily scrollable and readable which was such an improvement on the BBC boards.

It is a pity that the preference of one member, as I understand it, has led to limiting the options available to all. Where is the democracy in that? As someone suggested in an earlier post "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[french frank]

That's a huge disappointment to me.[...] It is a pity that the preference of one member, as I understand it, has led to limiting the options available to all. Where is the democracy in that? As someone suggested in an earlier post "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Don't be disappointed! It was done as a trial to see what reaction it got. No options are permanently limited but - don't try, don't find out. It's a matter of finding out what the options are.

As you'll see, what Bert said was, "I don't like the thought of you changing something so fundamental merely because I raised a really quite unimportant point!" I would have been able to tell you under the other option the number of the message, but I can't under this one because the cramped messages don't have numbers (it's marked 'Yesterday, 15.43'). [Edit: It's Msg #7]

If there are no comments to the effect that this is much better, we'll put it back (I'm with you in terms of preference - v. happy to click Go Advanced if I need to).

[Don Petter]

That's a huge disappointment to me. I have always used Quick Reply or, where appropriate, Reply with Quote as it is easy and intuitive. I have little interest in using smileys or altering fonts and colours. A particular benefit of quick reply is that the thread remains easily scrollable and readable which was such an improvement on the BBC boards.

It is a pity that the preference of one member, as I understand it, has led to limiting the options available to all. Where is the democracy in that? As someone suggested in an earlier post "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Well. I'm just trying it and it's working just as I always used it, but without the one intervening click that the OP didn't like (not that I minded that). I can see the scrolled thread below with no problem. All the surrounding smileys and icons do look a complete mess (whoever designed this interface?) but you don't have to use them.

It does mean that there will always be the quoted answered post by default, and that seems to have both pros and cons:

If the quote is left in, the easy thing, at least it will always make it clear exactly which post you are replying to. Sometimes, particularly when posts are quick-fire and overlapping, this has not always been the case with an isolated quick reply.

But, ideally, it may require selective editing of a large quoted post to isolate the particular point in question. Apart from clarifying the reply this will prevent a lot of needlessly repeated text clogging up and physically lengthening the thread.

What do others think?

[french frank]

Surely, you have the Reply with Quote under both options? My memory of the other one was under Quick Reply you also had the option to Reply to Post, whereas on this one you only have Reply to Thread (not sure whether this will mess things up for people who use the 'threaded view'.

You're right about editing the quote - people should always keep the length of the quote to a bare minimum. This is why the BBC dropped the facility because quotes became longer and longer - quotes + quote + quote +quote ad infinitum.

But it's certainly not as easy to read the message you're replying to under this option.

[Edit: On Curalach's point about 'democracy', it's hard to see how people could exercise a democratic vote when they've only been offered one option!]

[Don Petter]

Surely, you have the Reply with Quote under both options? My memory of the other one was under Quick Reply you also had the option to Reply to Post, whereas on this one you only have Reply to Thread (not sure whether this will mess things up for people who use the 'threaded view'.

Yes - you could choose to reply with quote before, but now there is only one option shown - 'Reply with Quote'.

[Don Petter]

You're right about editing the quote - people should always keep the length of the quote to a bare minimum. This is why the BBC dropped the facility because quotes became longer and longer - quotes + quote + quote +quote ad infinitum.

But at least the way this board works the quotes dont mount up like that. Only the immediate quote is shown, not the ones before.

[french frank]

Yes - you could choose to reply with quote before, but now there is only one option shown - 'Reply with Quote'.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, the options are actually more limited.

[Re smileys: I think I can choose how many are displayed, with the rest available by clicking on [More], or via the smiley dropdown menu.]

[Curalach]

ff, Apologies, I didn't realise it was trial. Still don't like it. Quick reply is just that - simple and uncluttered.

[Don Petter]

[Re smileys: I think I can choose how many are displayed, with the rest available by clicking on [More], or via the smiley dropdown menu.]

I was referring to the default mess without clicking on [More] or menus.

There are the two rows of toolbar icons at the top (not too bad, though I don't think I've ever used more than three of the twenty eight shown). Then there's the box of smileys dangling off the bottom right of the input box like some sort of afterthought. Miles of useless blank space below, then another array of Post Icons (no idea what they are for), and finally there's a lost sole of an icon that's flown away into the top right corner somewhere on its own (the tool tip text says it's for Switch Editor Mode).

I do rather sympathise with Curalach not wanting to be hit with all this every time! We moan about the current visual hotch-potch in Gramophone, but this probably beats it.

There - I feel better for that, and I agree that you get used to things and cease to notice them after a while. I have in the past been involved in designing user interfaces and do know how difficult it can be to integrate everything in a pleasing way, and we are lucky to have a system that works pretty well mechanically. No complaints directed at you, ff.

[french frank]

I'll just ask 'Lars Porsenna' to go and have a look at this, as I don't think I see quite the same as you ...

[Bert Coules]

I do prefer the trial arangement, but completely understand the views of those who don't. The loss of the Reply to Post (was that the label?) button under each post does mean that you have to scroll down to the end of the thread to make a reply, and I can see the inconvenience of that.

Curalach, I wish you'd actually read my post before attacking me over it.

Don, I can't say I find the Reply box a "mess" in any way: I find the layout clear and not in the least confusing. I don't understand your reference to

...the box of smileys dangling off the bottom right of the input box like some sort of afterthought.

since I don't see that at all: I see the box neatly aligned to the immediate right, not the bottom (perhaps this variation is an effect of particular displays, text sizes and the like).

Best of all, the larger text-entry box means that you can see more of your reply without scrolling, which is surely desirable for reviewing it properly before posting.

Bert

[Don Petter]

I do prefer the trial arangement, but completely understand the views of those who don't. The loss of the Reply to Post (was that the label?) button under each post does mean that you have to scroll down to the end of the thread to make a reply, and I can see the inconvenience of that.

Bert

You don't go to the end of the thread. There's the 'Reply with Quote' button under each post.

[Lars Porsenna]

I was referring to the default mess without clicking on [More] or menus.

I meant that french frank could change the 'default mess' (I think) to show fewer emoticons at the side of the message window. There are the 'no clutter' members v. the 'whistles and bells' members. My inclination is to try to please both () by retaining the uncluttered Quick Reply and the whistles-and-bells Go Advanced. Mmmm?

[Don Petter]

Don, I can't say I find the Reply box a "mess" in any way. The layout is clear and not confusing, and the larger text-entry box means that you can see more of your reply without scrolling, which is surely desirable for reviewing it properly before posting.

Bert

I think all that wasted space under the input box could be better used, perhaps for an even larger input box. (On my screen, that would increase my box depth from about two inches to four.)