I Fight For The Users wrote:http://beta.a-m-v.org
No great changes here except the domain name. I still want beta.animemusicvideos.org, but I need to talk to more people for that to happen.
Actually, there is one nice change. You can drag cover images to reposition them, which is a lot nicer than typing in CSS background-position directives. Try http://beta.a-m-v.org/videos/85uutbxhpm ... 1n6dr/edit for an example. (No, you won't be able to save your changes -- unless you log in as Scintilla.)
---
Next up: I've hit a block with the approach I'm taking. I want direct, simple editing of all data -- no multi-page processes or long lists of checkboxes. For stuff like image positioning and event positioning, however, this often means "page editors powered by Javascript", which in turn implies that you need some way to synchronize state being manipulated by Javascript with what's eventually sent back to the server. I've been doing all that synchronization manually, and it sucks to do that.
Other people have told me that they want fewer page loads. I've been told by AisuzuZwei, for example, that it would be nice if clicking "Edit video information" (or any other edit link) did not result in a page load, but instead replaced all read-only areas with editable content areas. I agree that this is indeed useful, but it is not easy to accomplish with the current setup.
I have therefore decided to separate view from application. The upside of this is that beta.a-m-v.org will (in a few weeks) require only one page load; once you load the page, you can get anywhere in the catalog. (You will, of course, be able to enter the catalog at any point; e.g. going to http://beta.a-m-v.org/~trythil/ always will put you at a video information page for a crappy Evangelion video.) The downside is that beta.a-m-v.org will do absolutely nothing with Javascript disabled.
I can go on and on about how much I think that downside sucks, but Web development is very much an art of Sucks Less, and I think it's the least bad option for everyone. I'm happy to go into more detail about the technicals behind that decision if anyone's interested.
Chained(E)Studio wrote:Is that going to be the homepage? >.>

Nya-chan Production wrote:What about the mobiles, mobile subdomain?
Nya-chan Production wrote:What about the mobiles, mobile subdomain?
Nya-chan Production wrote:Why do we even need stuff like image positioning? Isn't it more convenient to do it locally and upload the result? I can understand cropping, but positioning? Really? It's tough to do it precisely anyway.
Nya-chan Production wrote:The JS approach sounds good, but I can't stop worrying something will go wrong somewhere. Reminds me a bit too much of notorious Japanese webs completely made in Flash (and thus completely non-functional). I know there's a difference and that this can work great, but... the feeling!
Nya-chan Production wrote:Chained(E)Studio wrote:Is that going to be the homepage? >.>
If it were IFFTU's way, I think it would happen - I have learned that over time (no pictures, no colors, if it were by his, no background colors as well, maybe). But I suppose there will be some design stuff going on later.
CodeZTM wrote:I still absolutely love this menu design that Phant designed. Not so much on the other stuff, but the menu by itself is easily visible and well organized, easy to read and still in a somewhat similar format to what we have now.
me wrote:Because people asked for it.
I Fight For The Users wrote:
2. The best-case scenario for getting to the "new video" page (indeed, any other leaf) in my design is one key press, mouse travel, one click. If you're not used to it, it's (scroll wheel / move mouse to scrollbar, drag), find, click. However, there is no hierarchy to remember, and the site map is a fixture, easily located. (That site map design is also a convention adopted by many other websites, further increasing its utility.)
For other actions, such as searching for events, videos, or other editors, it can be even better:
* Want to go to an editor's profile? Just type http://beta.a-m-v.org/~(editor name) in the address bar. You don't have to interact with any page widgets, just your browser.
* Want to go to an editor's video? Type http://beta.a-m-v.org/~(editor)/(title). Ditto.
* Don't like the address bar, or don't have one available? That's okay too; type whatever you want to find in the search box. It's then my responsibility to tune the search index so that you have a good chance of getting what it is you want to find. (Search doesn't work right now because I'm prototyping ways to make it good. Also, said JS rework.)
The first two interactions require habituation, but it's habituation that can be taught by having the site generate URLs in those formats.

CodeZTM wrote:I Fight For The Users wrote:
2. The best-case scenario for getting to the "new video" page (indeed, any other leaf) in my design is one key press, mouse travel, one click. If you're not used to it, it's (scroll wheel / move mouse to scrollbar, drag), find, click. However, there is no hierarchy to remember, and the site map is a fixture, easily located. (That site map design is also a convention adopted by many other websites, further increasing its utility.)
For other actions, such as searching for events, videos, or other editors, it can be even better:
* Want to go to an editor's profile? Just type http://beta.a-m-v.org/~(editor name) in the address bar. You don't have to interact with any page widgets, just your browser.
* Want to go to an editor's video? Type http://beta.a-m-v.org/~(editor)/(title). Ditto.
* Don't like the address bar, or don't have one available? That's okay too; type whatever you want to find in the search box. It's then my responsibility to tune the search index so that you have a good chance of getting what it is you want to find. (Search doesn't work right now because I'm prototyping ways to make it good. Also, said JS rework.)
The first two interactions require habituation, but it's habituation that can be taught by having the site generate URLs in those formats.
Ok, the site urls are nice. That alone makes me enjoy the new system.
Still, can you provide me an example of a site that's actually using menus at the bottom of the page?
At the same time, is it going to remain what is is now text/font wise, or is there going to be some design manipulated into it?
Also, you mentioned "one key press, mouse travel, one click". What do you mean by One Key Press? There's a key that takes directly to the menu?
I Fight For The Users wrote:me wrote:Because people asked for it.
I want to qualify that: just because someone asks for something, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. However, those people who asked for it told me why they wanted it, showed me demos of that drag interaction in other sites (i.e. Facebook), and from there I could see that there is, in fact, quite a bit of value in providing that sort of function. It gets even better when you think about how it could be applied elsewhere. (For example, videos on profiles are shown with thumbnails. Why not make those customizable too?)
I Fight For The Users wrote:1. Log in.
2. Sign up. (No sign up page yet, I know.)
3. Search the database.
Item #3 is the big one, which is why that search box eats up so much of the top. You should be able to get to any video, any event, any profile, any user-generated content from a single point. (Should I find a way to make phpBB behave, yeah, that may include forum threads.) The best way to do that, I think, is incremental search: as you type, you get suggestions. Properly executed, it's a very fast and satisfying feedback loop.
DriftRoot wrote:I love that you're taking the time to do this and that it's actually moving forward. It's something this site really needs and will hopefully draw great benefits from. I've been following progress for awhile and haven't really said too much because I was still waiting to see how certain things resolved themselves, but since some topics have now come up I feel I want to chime in on, here I go.![]()
I will second Code's concerns regarding the bottom navigation, plus... Is that the only content that will be available at the bottom? It's hard to gauge the effectiveness of this homepage design when there is nothing in that big white space in the middle, the unknowns on this design are what concern me. If that's all there's going to be, I'd really challenge it. I want to be able to hop around to different areas of the site from anywhere on the site (one problem with the site now) whether I'm logged in or not. I also want to see the most important benefits/areas this site has to offer and get to them quickly and easily right from the homepage and any other page. It drives me nuts when sites don't have adequate navigation built in at the top or left that I have to scroll down and use their sitemap just to get around. It's just a very basic usability requirement, IMO - yes, have a sitemap as well, but most websites are built with topside and/or leftside navigation and that's why most people expect and are comfortable navigating websites that way. I don't see how forcing a different type of navigation onto a-m-v.org is in the site's best interest.
Also...I have to say that I look at this design and see something that is highly generic and is presenting a very cold, clinical approach to the AMV hobby. This last is a reputation a-m-v.org has which we all know has turned a lot of people away from this site. It's fine to look like we have a website that knows what it's doing, but where is the fun? Where is the casual love of AMVing? Where's the personality? The current site may be troublesome, but it's got fun colors, fun images and (in certain areas) fun copywriting that all help establish the feel of this site is. Do we really have to abandon all of that personality in pursuit of a more modern, updated website that's all whites and grays? To me this looks like you are re-branding a-m-v.org on top of designing a new website, and since we've been asked to share our opinions, I do not like the way this new a-m-v.org looks or feels for the reasons stated. Maybe more personality will be added into the center, but right now I can't really see what's going to be there...and that still leaves a frame around every page that doesn't exude great personality or brand.
Along these lines, where is space being allocated to effectively branding this website AS a-m-v.org? That whole featured video space at the top...I can't even make out what those images are supposed to be or represent (Princess Tutu, I know), but how is that compelling to click on? There's no hook there than "Featured Video" and a sliced up gallery of partial images. How is a whole, website-wide string of images the most effective way to get people to check out that video? I can't see why it needs to take up that much space or be presented like that. That whole areas is where I would expect to see something that clearly establishes "HEY, You're at a-m-v.org!!"

Pwolf wrote:I like the idea of being able to drag the image around to get the right framing you want... that said, I think there's needs to be some bounds you can't cross. Using the default image, based on grabbing a set of frames from the video itself, I think you need to restrict any movement on the Y axis and take more frames from the video to make the overall width longer. Basically just gives you a long timeline of frames to pick from to make the banner. I hope that made sense. If you want to upload your own image, don't allow the user to drag past the bounds of the image where it repeats itself. it looks tacky. I think if an editor really wants their video banner image to have an obvious edge going down the middle of it, they can learn MS Paint or iPhoto and do it themselves.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest