IE5 features vs. non ( was : RE: [thesite] comments on test.evolt.org)

Warden, Matt mwarden at odyssey-design.com
Wed Jun 27 19:43:41 CDT 2001


> From: ".jeff" <jeff at members.evolt.org>
> Subject: RE: IE5 features vs. non ( was : RE: [thesite] comments on
test.evolt.org)
>

> matt,

<snip>

Ok, I'm being unclear and totally fux0ring my terminology in some places.
Let me try to clarify:

(1) The fux0ring: The preferences would be stored in a session variable (as
opposed to a cookie as I originally said (but didn't mean))
(2) The preference would be a boolean value determining whether comments
would be displayed on an article by default. showComments=false: only a
"Comments" header is shown with a "Show comments" link that refreshes the
page and displays the comments for that article, but doesn't alter the
session value. showComments=true: default: current article view
(3) I don't like the per-comment storage becuase each comment id would have
to have a show/hide value (unless there's something I'm not thinking of)
(4) the method i'm suggesting would surpress the inclusion of comments in
the response, which equals smaller file size.
(5) The reasoning behind my idea has NOTHING to do with screen length or
whatever, but rather user preference. If a user knows he or she never reads
comments, he or she shoudln't have to download them. I know i rarely read
comments and I would have them turned off. Remember, I can click "show
comments" on any article whose comments I'd like to view. However, to
address Elfur's concerns, the comments are not one click away by default.
The default is to show comments.
(6) I still don't see the benefit of the dhtml stuff that's currently there.
(7) I think hiding individual comments gains very little and would be a
whole pain in the arse (now I see what you're talking about with the extra
coding, mccreath)
(8) We're really talking about two different things here with two different
objectives (and that's the point.. i don't agree with the objective of the
current addition and I offered an addition with a related objective).
(9) I originally thought this thread was on admin becuase I don't have any
rules set up in this client and I didn't notice the subject. So, if I was a
little harsh-sounding, it's because I thought I was talking only to people
who know I don't really mean to sound like an asshole. ;-)

I think that's clearer. I figured it would be easier to clarify myself
before addressing anyone's specific concerns.

Thanks,


--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com





More information about the thesite mailing list