PT Mockup


RE: PT Mockup
#51
(2019-06-15, 11:04)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: All of them. Ldraw.org and the mock-ups are all treated as being "small monitors" on my 17" laptop.
I disagree.
I have to either swap to another browser, or buy a bigger screen/laptop if I want to use Firefox.

The break points are adjustable. How small is the Firefox viewport on your laptop?
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#52
(2019-06-15, 12:37)Orion Pobursky Wrote: The break points are adjustable. How small is the Firefox viewport on your laptop?

I lowered the breakpoint by 100px. Is that better?
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#53
(2019-06-15, 13:13)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I lowered the breakpoint by 100px. Is that better?

Yes, that's it. It instantly looked so much better.
But it seems to be right on the limit. If I change the width of the window, or the sidepanel, it flips to the more narrow layout.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#54
(2019-06-15, 14:45)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: Yes, that's it. It instantly looked so much better.
But it seems to be right on the limit. If I change the width of the window, or the sidepanel, it flips to the more narrow layout.

I adjusted down another 25 px.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#55
(2019-06-10, 17:28)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Any final comments/requests.

Could you add a list of reviews at the bottom of the page
so we can see how that would look? Mockup of course is enough.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#56
(2019-06-16, 3:29)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I adjusted down another 25 px.

Hard to tell, but Yes, I think it is a little bit better now.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#57
Photo 
2 suggestions:
- can we get rid of the "File Header:" heading? I think it is just wasting vertical space.
- can we lower the image so that its top border aligns with the top border of the first line of the file header?

see here:


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#58
(2019-06-05, 16:38)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I’ve started a mock-up of the theming for the PT:
http://www.ldraw.org/pt-detail-mockup.html

This is a static page (i.e it won’t change based on votes, etc.)
I chose this one because the link in the comments is breaking my formatting.

I’d like feedback from the regular PT users.

A couple of small tweaks to the new ptdetail based on off-forum feedback.

Specifically:
- Cut down on some of the excessive white space
- Moved the ptdetail menu to the top
- Changed the releated/required list
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#59
(2019-06-17, 4:05)Orion Pobursky Wrote: A couple of small tweaks to the new ptdetail based on off-forum feedback.

Specifically:
- Cut down on some of the excessive white space
- Moved the ptdetail menu to the top
- Changed the releated/required list

We are now live. The only glaring error I can find is history which I’ll look at fixing tonight.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#60
(2019-06-17, 19:33)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are now live. The only glaring error I can find is history which I’ll look at fixing tonight.

Activity and ptlist also break formatting on mobile (but are fine on large screens) . I’ll fix that tonight as well.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#61
(2019-06-12, 13:14)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Any more “oh by the ways”

I think I'm a bit late, but would it be complicated to add an option to choose to display part picture on the Parts List and on the Activity pages?

But actually, I must say I love this new layout, great job!
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#62
(2019-06-17, 20:37)Damien Roux Wrote: I think I'm a bit late, but would it be complicated to add an option to choose to display part picture on the Parts List and on the Activity pages?

But actually, I must say I love this new layout, great job!

This would require new code. This project focused on changing the markup.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#63
(2019-06-17, 19:33)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are now live. The only glaring error I can find is history which I’ll look at fixing tonight.

Orion,

Concerning the alignment of the parts, I think this was everything on the top (Pic top below the cert-status) thus the pics were in one line. Have a look at the Minifig Heads 
Can you make them in a line again?

thanks!
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#64
(2019-06-17, 19:48)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Activity and ptlist also break formatting on mobile (but are fine on large screens) . I’ll fix that tonight as well.

Activity on mobile is fixed. Turns out it was a mobile Safari quirk.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#65
(2019-06-17, 19:48)Orion Pobursky Wrote: Activity and ptlist also break formatting on mobile (but are fine on large screens) . I’ll fix that tonight as well.

part list is now fixed. Pattern summary update coming soon.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#66
(2019-06-17, 19:33)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are now live.

Looks very good Orion! Smile
Jaco van der Molen
lpub.binarybricks.nl
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#67
(2019-06-18, 6:12)Jaco van der Molen Wrote: Looks very good Orion! Smile

Thanks. I just realized that we have now rid ourselves of the last vestige of the PostNuke CMS well over 10 years after we switched.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#68
(2019-06-17, 19:33)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are now live.....

PT looks great.

Another question:
Is it normal that the Forum is not so width as the PT?
I have only a 15,6" Notebook, maybe that's the reason.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
If nothing goes right, go left.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#69
(2019-06-18, 18:14)Johann Eisner Wrote: PT looks great.

Another question:
Is it normal that the Forum is not so width as the PT?
I have only a 15,6" Notebook, maybe that's the reason.

Yes. The forum is using different theming and markup.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#70
I also like the new look a lot.
I have some minor improvement suggestions, but they can wait.

Here is one that I would like to ask right now:
can we modify the text that is displayed for a part as heading
- for the required files
- for its parent files?

Currently, the PT displays the texts
- "Required (unofficial) subfiles:" and
- "Related (unofficial) subfiles:"

, and both do not make sense. I would like to see that changed to:
- "Required Files:"
- "Parent Files:"

The reasoning is this:
1. nowadays, not all required files are "subparts" anymore. For example, for aliases, the required file is a normal part. See 55707c as example. So the wording "subfiles" for the required files is wrong IMHO.
2. the addition "(unofficial)" is completely unnecessary, because only such files are displayed. Official ones are not shown on the PT as dependency. The word only adds clutter.
3. for parent files, the wording "subfiles" makes no sense at all, it never did. We all just got used to the ever same text on the PT pages.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#71
(2019-06-18, 20:01)Steffen Wrote: I also like the new look a lot.
I have some minor improvement suggestions, but they can wait.

Here is one that I would like to ask right now:
can we modify the text that is displayed for a part as heading
- for the required files
- for its parent files?

Currently, the PT displays the texts
- "Required (unofficial) subfiles:" and
- "Related (unofficial) subfiles:"

, and both do not make sense. I would like to see that changed to:
- "Required Files:"
- "Parent Files:"

The reasoning is this:
1. nowadays, not all required files are "subparts" anymore. For example, for aliases, the required file is a normal part. See 55707c as example. So the wording "subfiles" for the required files is wrong IMHO.
2. the addition "(unofficial)" is completely unnecessary, because only such files are displayed. Official ones are not shown on the PT as dependency. The word only adds clutter.
3. for parent files, the wording "subfiles" makes no sense at all, it never did. We all just got used to the ever same text on the PT pages.

Im not sure about "Parent". Any other suggestion?

Since I'm curious, PM me you other minor suggestions.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#72
(2019-06-17, 19:33)Orion Pobursky Wrote: We are now live.

The pages feels longer, I need to scroll more.

I like that some words have been emphasized.
Could we have the same on the words "a new version" of the file was submitted ?
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#73
(2019-06-18, 21:08)Magnus Forsberg Wrote: The pages feels longer, I need to scroll more.

I like that some words have been emphasized.
Could we have the same on the words "a new version" of the file was submitted ?

They are a bit longer. There’s more whitespace for one. Not a lot more but it’s there. Also the fonts are a bit bigger as well. Third, the actual page is constrained to a smaller small. Again, not hugely small except for the largest of monitors. All in all I think it’s a small price to pay to be able to use the tracker on mobile and to have modern markup that is unified across the PT and main site.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#74
(2019-06-05, 16:38)Orion Pobursky Wrote: I’ve started a mock-up of the theming for the PT:
http://www.ldraw.org/pt-detail-mockup.html

This is a static page (i.e it won’t change based on votes, etc.)
I chose this one because the link in the comments is breaking my formatting.

I’d like feedback from the regular PT users.

On Firefox, the history graph is too large and I can't see the right part of it (it is out of the screen) and I got no way to scroll horizontally.
Reply
RE: PT Mockup
#75
(2019-06-19, 22:35)Damien Roux Wrote: On Firefox, the history graph is too large and I can't see the right part of it (it is out of the screen) and I got no way to scroll horizontally.

Yah. I noted that above. It’s the last major error I need to fix. Should prolly have that done in a few days. The rest of the work is finding and fixing errors on mobile and updating old markup.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)