>>226
(´・ω・`）

I was browsing through some old threads and now they're all gone. :(

>>123

Noted. I've been struggling with that same problem for naming things internally in the code, and obviously it distracted me from noticing the same problem in the GUI.

| stays |

This my just be me, but I'd like a link to the entire thread in karaha at the top of threads.

> Also, I'd like to ask exactly how Kareha does automatically generates deletion passwords. I'm guessing it's similar if not identical to how it creates ID session codes with a user's IP.

Actually, no, the Javascript just strings some random numbers and letters together.

> Because it's one of the two requirements for creating a new thread, and it's a lot more important to have a well-defined topic than to fill in your name.

But the body text is even more important, and that goes at the bottom. So I dunno.

>It's more convenient if you want to start a new thread, but for those who don't it's one more form to have to scroll by.

Would it maybe make sense to make a separate thread creation page?

There are some inconsistencies in both the Blue Moon and Futaba styles, with regard to the size and formatting of text labels in the Create new thread and Reply form areas.
The spacing of the Create new thread title is off in Futaba, Headline, and Toothpaste.
None of the styles that utilize rounded corner borders have them in the Create new thread area.

>>145

>does that mean you approve of removing the style selector on subpages?

I was referring to the entire board, but as you later explained, it seems it can never be removed completely. Though removing it from subpages wouldn't be a bad idea I guess.

>Kareha has no "No File" check in the first place

That's what I thought, but then why is it in the Reply pages?

Other: Have you considered multi-page links with intervals of 100 posts at the top of subpages (ie, 1-, 101-, 201-)? Red, bold thread filesizes displayed near the bottom of subpages?

Something else to consider: separating the board description/rules template from the board- or site-wide announcements. Check out http://0ch.mine.nu/test/read.cgi/jikken/1120050851 to see what I mean.

>>231 What would it do?

>Most admins probably don't get point of the secret string anyway, and asking them to put in several is just too annoying. In retrospect, I'd like to add a second layer of hashing to these, but that'd mean breaking secure trips AGAIN.

You could take the route that MrVB (I think?) did and generate the strings on first run? openssl, /dev/random, perl's random as last resort. In almost every case you are going to get a better random string than most people will supply, and if they want to change it they can. Or only have them generated if they are not supplied.

Honestly, when people care so much about anonymity they can put up with the changes required to ensure it.

I'm not sure I want to make a ban system. I'd rather just make it easy to interface with a simple banning script that does whatever's needed for the server it's running on.

I don't know if this is a bug or not, but could you change the Futaba template so that hovering over/clicking on a post header doesn't count as doing the same to the deletion checkbox next to it? Same goes for the "[File Only]" area at the bottom with its checkbox.

> It would eliminate the concept of sageing as a protest entirely.

Except that nobody knows what's going on back-end.

I like the idea though.

> Making them configurable from site to site is really dumb, because it would create an unthinkable usability mess.

Why? Let people figure out things themselves, if they are so keen on changing their keywords. They can get together in their own webmaster threads and figure this out. I don't see why this should be solved here.
Of course I think this is a dumb idea in the first place. Nobody needs to know what fusianasan and sage are. Write a FAQ with two sentences about it and/or let your oldtime users tell newbies. Two frickin' words, and you people talk about it as if it were something like making up a new system of romanization!

> Then why not simply boil it all down to the comment field, with trigger strings for inputting the name, e-mail, sage, ID:Heaven, and fusianasan? You can get a lot more minimal with the current interface.

That's a bit too much. You want to talk about sage and fusianasan in the comment field, not trigger it with it.
I suspect you are joking here, though. Design is about what you can take away and still remain optimal conveniency/efficiency on the user part, not about taking as much away as you are technically capable of.

How about a function to replace an inappropriate image with a standard image? (aka HelloKitty.gif)

> Right, I guess it was dumb to mention 0ch/Futaba in the first place. The point is, as you said yourself, tripcodes are a gimmick, and if someone wants to maintain a persistent identity across multiple boards and sites (ie, everyone here with a tripcode), they have no choice but to use ordinary tripcodes. Secure tripcodes are useless because they limit your identity to a single board, supposing each board/site's cipher key is different -- which it should be, since that's the point of having a secure tripcode in the first place. No one should be so paranoid about a tripcode that they'd need to have a different one per board/site.

True, they're of limited usefulness, but people like admins might prefer to use them. And there are certain cases were you might use them temporarily for various purposes. I wrote the code already, so I might as well leave it in. It has some uses at least.

> Shouldn't we sacrifice some backwards compatibility for a more robust and scalable design? It might even be possible to provide an upgrade.pl for old threads.

I think I'm too lazy to do it. It's kind of hairy. Besides, as I said, you can remove a lot of the drawbacks of seprate installations by using symlinks.

>>112
We already have the ID function, so why do we need such an egregious compromise of anonymity (and security) like voluntarily exposing your own IP?

> 2channel does not do this either by default. It can make browsing a bit more convenient (and I suspect dedicated 2channel browsers to insert & read these in some kind of standardized way) but I don't think that's reason enough to impose it on users by default.

whoops, I misread "postcount" as "posticon". Nevermind!

> how about having a third party create extensions for those browsers and freeing up the real estate on the actual page?

What's with this obsession on removing the CSS options? It's a single line, and some of us find it useful.

Real estate? Scroll down.

What wakaba needs is that SILLY_ANONYMOUS too! :D

I vote yes, but that is obvious isn't it?

Gah, I am totally confused about what to do about the admin interface. Separate script? Built-in? Javascript? How do I display the data? I have no idea!

I notice some weirdness with the CSS changes sometimes. For example, the first post on a -100 page will sometimes have the first character of the post enlarged. >>2 looks something like
\
/>2 until it is mouse-overed or you change the CSS, but then it goes back to large again on refresh. Also can happen with lowercase letters. Some of the field labels also change size from refreshing in a certain CSS versus just switching to it.

>It's all a design & layout question. I'd like to have the interface reduced to what is absolutely neccessary, esp. since I do not think many people really want to even bother or bother very often with the whole markup question.

Why have a name field or link field? For the majority of posts they are not used, or only used for sage. As stated earlier, they are not even needed for the bare minimum of usage. You want to prove it is you posting? Use a gpg signature or something and a third-party extension, it is just fluff that is not needed at all!

I'm all for having a system that is easy to modify to the end-user's wants and needs. However, there are going to be plenty of users that are not hardcore enough to make or use such options. Therefore, the normal functionality should be pretty usable.

People seem to pop-up whenever something that would change the interface to shout it down. They seem to fear any change and normally give no reason other than it would clutter things up or some nonsense. Does the CSS selector -really- get in your way? It is probably a whole ten pixels! Is having the More options thing really ruining your experience, or are you just against it on some principle? Personally, I would move it below the comment text-area or something, as now the tab amounts between the main fields has changed.

> Pruning set to furthest-back instead of oldest.

I don't like this one. You just have to continually age a topic (until it hits the permasage treshold) in order for it so survive a long time. Normal users might have good reason to ignore simply it, though...

> Size limit instead of post number limit, maybe?

Sounds good.

> I was thinking of setting the default behaviour to never permasage or close threads.

I guess I don't have a strong opinion on this one. As long as the values will be customizable, I don't really care, I suppose.
Also: I just noticed that "¦" in tripcodes will work correctly but turn into "�U" through the cookie on /soc/ but not on the sandbox.

Ah, there was an XHTML error in the cutesy capcode, and of Safari won't handle XHTML correctly and die on errors. Gah. Fixed.

| stays |

I fixed the Javascript a bit, and uploaded it for these boards. Try shift-reloading to get the new code, and see if cookies work better now that I'm not using cargo-cult code.