LJ: why the new update page is bad
Sep. 23rd, 2004 12:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioI just submitted the following support request:
(Yes, I saw the note that you're working on problems here, but I'm interpreting that as "doesn't work in some browsers", or last night's date bug, not "difficult UI".)
While it is not as bad as it was last night, the "update journal" page is still too wide to be usable without lots of horizontal scrolling. The hard-coded width of 760 pixels in the content pane (this excludes the sidebar links in the classic style) seems to be the core of the problem. I assume you chose 760 to be under 800, and that you're assuming users will maximize the browser window if need be, but it's a bad idea to hard-code assumptions about a user's environment. It would be better to use proportions and let the browser handle the rendering.
I didn't say this in the support request, but they should think more about how they roll out changes like this. When you change existing functionality you're bound to break something, because you can't think of every combination of browser, usage pattern, special input needs, etc etc etc. In the case of the web site, it would have been really, really easy to provide a "having trouble?" link that went to the old, working form.
Followup: I received the following reply. Doing this solves the scrolling problem; some other aspects of the display are then screwed up (overlapping input areas), but they seem to know about that already.
"Thank you for your report. However, there is no way to view the Update Journal page in the old style. Viewing this page in the new LiveJournal style, http://www.livejournal.com/update.bml?usescheme=xcolibur may solve the screen-stretching problem. I apologize for the inconvenience, but please be assured that developers are working to find a resolution."
(Yes, I saw the note that you're working on problems here, but I'm interpreting that as "doesn't work in some browsers", or last night's date bug, not "difficult UI".)
While it is not as bad as it was last night, the "update journal" page is still too wide to be usable without lots of horizontal scrolling. The hard-coded width of 760 pixels in the content pane (this excludes the sidebar links in the classic style) seems to be the core of the problem. I assume you chose 760 to be under 800, and that you're assuming users will maximize the browser window if need be, but it's a bad idea to hard-code assumptions about a user's environment. It would be better to use proportions and let the browser handle the rendering.
I didn't say this in the support request, but they should think more about how they roll out changes like this. When you change existing functionality you're bound to break something, because you can't think of every combination of browser, usage pattern, special input needs, etc etc etc. In the case of the web site, it would have been really, really easy to provide a "having trouble?" link that went to the old, working form.
Followup: I received the following reply. Doing this solves the scrolling problem; some other aspects of the display are then screwed up (overlapping input areas), but they seem to know about that already.
"Thank you for your report. However, there is no way to view the Update Journal page in the old style. Viewing this page in the new LiveJournal style, http://www.livejournal.com/update.bml?usescheme=xcolibur may solve the screen-stretching problem. I apologize for the inconvenience, but please be assured that developers are working to find a resolution."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-23 03:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-26 07:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-26 07:22 am (UTC)This morning, while the wife and small thing go to religious school, I get to do my monthly highway page updates (plus laundry, cleaning up, etc.). Should be fun.