Is there any point in this interface?

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 29 November 2010 at 21:03.
The [/w/index.php?title=Forum:Use_liquid_threads_in_the_forum%3F&offset=20101129210352&lqt_mustshow=241 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

Why not just make it render identically to the current talkpage format? The raw MW format is nicely minimalistic: it keeps things down to the content of the comment, a tag indicating who made the comment, and an indication of its place in the logical flow of the conversation and it was completely compatible with preëxisting MW syntax and interface. This format adds a huge jumble of buttons and lines and blocks of colour to posts, as well as making it impossible to edit anything on the page without hunting down and navigating through a quagmire of UI bloat. And god help you if you want to edit it en masse in a way LT hasn't sanctioned.

    Word bastard Hoover!18:14, 21 November 2010

    Oh, and it hides bits of the conversation by default for no good reason, making it necessary either to continually interrupt your flow of reading, or to rake through your preferences to fix it.

      Word bastard Hoover!18:18, 21 November 2010

      Continuing that theme, it insists on showing only one thread when you follow a link from RC, rather than letting you browse the whole conversation after checking the new post, for no purpose I can make out.

        Word bastard Hoover!18:25, 21 November 2010

        Yes, that part is buggy, sometimes it shows every other thread except the one I clicked on RC.

          -- Nx / talk18:32, 21 November 2010

          The "new messages" indicator is also incredibly stupid — even once clicked on, it does not automatically mark the posts as read, but requires that I click a button to say that I have read it. I should hope that I don't need to explain why that's utterly stupid.

            Word bastard Hoover!18:41, 21 November 2010

            Does your email provider/application automatically mark all emails as read as soon as you open your inbox? That would be stupid. What's broken in lqt is that it doesn't mark messages as read when you view them on the page they are on.

              -- Nx / talk18:45, 21 November 2010

              No, my email does not do that. That is because when I open my inbox I can't read the messages without clicking on them. I can read the new messages when I click the "new messages" link, so not marking them as read is stupid.

                Word bastard Hoover!20:53, 21 November 2010

                Imagine this scenario: You open Special:Newmessages, start reading them, and then halfway through you have to go somewhere so you shut down your computer. You come back later but the messages you didn't get to yet have also been marked as read, so good luck finding them again.

                  -- Nx / talk20:56, 29 November 2010
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   

                  Goodpost.gif

                    Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX18:20, 21 November 2010
                     

                    The point of making each comment separate is to avoid edit conflicts and the massive overhead in storage requirements (guess why our database is 20 gigs but compresses to just 5). And I don't get this whole "OMGZ it doesn't use MW syntax stuff".

                    What is this then?
                      -- Nx / talk21:03, 29 November 2010
                       
                      Personal tools
                      Namespaces

                      Variants
                      Actions
                      Navigation
                      Community
                      Tools
                      support