jmorlan
Crescit Eundo
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA | Refresh after "Encourage, Ignore, Watch."
After applying Encourage, Ignore or Watch to a post, I would like the screen to refresh automatically to show or confirm the effects of the action.
--
"All men are equal before fish." (Herbert Hoover) |
|
DataDoc
Nilsson Schmilsson
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | *object* |
|
drew
Vorbei
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
clubs: | said by DataDoc  :*object* |
|
grobinette
Premium,MVM
join:2001-01-27
Springfield, VA
clubs: | reply to jmorlan
Sign. |
|
removed
I'm the bobblehead
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
clubs: | reply to jmorlan
*object* |
|
cacroll
Eventually, Prozac becomes normal
Premium
join:2002-07-25
Martinez, CA | reply to jmorlan
Sign. |
|
Bach
I'll Be Bach
Premium
join:2002-02-16
Flint, MI | reply to jmorlan
I've often re-viewed a thread to check that I'd done what I meant to do, some sort of visual response would be helpful, therefore:
*sign* |
|
Silentwolf
Vaprotan
Premium
join:2002-07-03
Kingsport, TN
clubs: | reply to jmorlan
Sign |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08 | reply to jmorlan
I see your point but is it really necessary to make it automatically refresh ? why not hit the refresh so you can confirm it?
*Object* For now.
IMO I don't see what an extra step is really going to take you a second? |
|
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
June 30th, @02:44AM
| reply to jmorlan
quote:
why not hit the refresh so you can confirm it?
Some people think thats too hard... |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL | reply to jmorlan
Unnecessary.
*object* |
|
C_
Kill The Socialists
Premium
join:2001-03-19
Aurora, IL | *object* |
|
Maytime74
Premium
join:2006-12-17
Compton, CA | reply to jmorlan
sign |
|
hitachi369
Embrace Your Rights
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs: | reply to jmorlan
sign |
|
jmorlan
Crescit Eundo
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to C_
I'm sorry but I'm unclear on the reasons for the objections. Is it because auto-refreshing would somehow get in the way? Would it ruin your DSLR experience if it were implemented? Is it because if the idea were any good it would have been implemented already?
Please explain what's so bad that the idea needs to be actively quashed. Maybe I'm missing some obvious downside, but for the life of me I cannot think of what it is.
The only specific objection I've seen is that it's not "necessary." I agree, it's not necessary, but there are a lot of things here that aren't "necessary" but we have them anyway. Heck, one could argue that this entire BBS isn't "necessary." Shall we vote to shut it down?
Is there an alternative to my suggestion which would work for everybody?
--
"One can never know for sure what a deserted area looks like." (George Carlin) |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| I'm sorry but I'm unclear on the reasons for the objections. A refresh requires additional network traffic. That's more traffic for me, more traffic for the site. And that leads to a time delay before I can proceed to whatever I wanted to do next.
I don't need that extra traffic, and I don't need the delays.
If I do online banking, then the update is important to confirm that the transaction went through. But giving a thumbs up does not have the importance of a banking transaction. I can happily trust the site to get it right. And if, on some rare occasion, something goes wrong, it is no big deal. So no update is required.
Is there an alternative to my suggestion which would work for everybody? Not following your suggestion would seem to be an excellent alternative.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.14 |
|
Johnny
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
| reply to jmorlan
The only specific objection I've seen is that it's not "necessary." I agree, it's not necessary, but there are a lot of things here that aren't "necessary" but we have them anyway. Heck, one could argue that this entire BBS isn't "necessary." Shall we vote to shut it down?
Excellent point. If I write a program that requires the user to click a "New Entry" button to add an item to a list, and it could also be done by just recognizing when they start typing in the box, am I supposed to tell the user that "it isn't so hard" and "can't you take one second to click a button?"
Hell no. Applications can almost always be improved. The more the computer can do, the better it serves its purpose. If something can be done in two steps by the user instead of three, and all three steps are necessary, then it should be changed to let the computer do the third step.
Now as far as an actual refresh of the page, that is becoming less and less necessary with AJAX. But I doubt that you meant an actual full page refresh.
It may not be easy to add to the current design, and that is a valid objection. But nobody here knows the current design.
If links on web pages required you to click once to select them and then click a menu item to go to them, would people just say "it isn't so hard to select a menu item?" This kind of response always irritates me.
One of the main things that the developer does after getting the app functional is improve performance.
After that, the developer looks for ways to simplify the user interface. If there are only 9 items allowed in a list, should it
1) Stop accepting input after the ninth item; or
2) Put up a dialog saying you can't enter the tenth, after you have already typed it; or
3) Just accept as many as you enter, and then tell you later that you entered too many and you have to delete some?
Are we going to tell the user that it "isn't so hard" to go back and delete some? Come on.
If you design a mortgage calculator, are you going to require the user to click a "Calculate" button, or are you just going to display the result as soon as enough of the fields are filled in? Let the computer do the work - that's why they exist. |
|
jmorlan
Crescit Eundo
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to nwrickert
said by nwrickert :A refresh requires additional network traffic. That's more traffic for me, more traffic for the site. And that leads to a time delay before I can proceed to whatever I wanted to do next. I don't need that extra traffic, and I don't need the delays. Good point. We could also save even more bandwidth and prevent even more delay by NOT refreshing after posting a reply or new message.
As I see it, if it's important enough for the user to want to do it, it's important enough for the user to get some kind confirmation. It doesn't have to be a full refresh; it could be something as simple as brief confirmation message.
--
"One can never know for sure what a deserted area looks like." (George Carlin) |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| It doesn't have to be a full refresh; it could be something as simple as brief confirmation message. The popup window where I gave the thumbs-up closes. I accept that as sufficient confirmation.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.14 |
|
jmorlan
Crescit Eundo
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by nwrickert :The popup window where I gave the thumbs-up closes. I accept that as sufficient confirmation. For me, having the window disappear without a trace is not sufficient. Would having the composition box disappear after you post a message be sufficient confirmation for message posting?
--
"One can never know for sure what a deserted area looks like." (George Carlin) |
|
