Problems with the website (actually just some questions...)

You —

Salaam

Since I am working on a (yes another...) major reworking of the site, I thought it would be right to discuss the site, and find out what problems USERS face when they see it. You lot.

I need to know what works, what does not. WHat can be improved, what cannot.

I have some fair idea's, but they may be diferent, or non-essential in your lots minds.

1. The 'featured' is not really working. It does show a featured item, but it forces the viewer to ignore updates that are not 'featured'. Articles just added to the lists are IMO ignored. I myself have problems checking them out. They are hidden in plain site.

2. Forums are not 'hidden', but not obvious either. The list style to blame again IMO...

3. Two diferent themes are used for the site, and a third one for the forums. No consistency. Diferent sections stick to diferent screen rules.

SO do you agree with these issues? think they are minor? do you have other issues?

Just let rip. No need to be polite. I can handle the criticism 🙂

Forum

You — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 - 21:55

ok, what do you mean by slow?

The split second wait before the page starts loading? or does it start loading, then take ages for certain elements?

If you mean the first one, that is because the pages are not chached. A fresh page is loaded everytime, with fresh queries to the database. The queries can take time. The only way to reduce that is by caching, which has benefits and drawbacks.

If you mean after starting to load it takes a while, which elements? if its the avatars and linked images, then it depends where the avatar/image is from. Could be from here or some other site. I cannot control speed of other sites.

Thirdly there could be a problem with your connection, but if here is the only place that is noticing it, then that is unlikely (but still possible).

So details please. (I know these forums are a sploit second slower than the older ones. IMO that is due to the queries not being cached.)

Oh and you would probablymake a good 'stresstester' for the new site once I am ready to show it to the world.

You — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 20:38

Ok last night I did a marathon session working on graphics for the site deign.

As a by product after a few hours of work, I think I can improve the website logo.

[img]http://www.therevival.co.uk/logo/revival_banner.gif[/img] - Old
[img]http://www.therevival.co.uk/logo/revival_shadow.gif[/img] - New

Whaddaya think?

Should I replace the current logo with the new one? Is it better? worse?

and if anyone says they cannot see a diference, I shall stab them with a spoon! (yes, I am pretty slow at doing actual graphic work. Not one of my strengths...)

And the possible logo for the new site if and when it is ever ready:
[img]http://www.therevival.co.uk/logo/logo.png[/img]

You — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 22:10

[quote="MuslimSisLilSis"]BTW pages take ages to load[/quote]

WHat do you mean?

DOes it start loading, and then take ages? how long does it take? does it wait a split second, and then start loading pretty quickly?

Is this the only site where that happens? is it forums only or full website?

[quote]looks good[/quote]
Thanks

MuslimSisLilSis — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 22:14

havent checked the pages on site yet

basically whenever u click on any page on the forum it takes ages to load and say "done"-page comes up quickly

it dont really take ages-it prob takes 3 seconds-but in the past the page could load in under a second

i have no patience to wait for 3seconds-so i usually open up another site whilst its taking forever to download

khan — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 22:32

admin.. hmm.. I dunno about the logo...

the revival yeh.. its gotta reflect the meaning.. i.e reviving the muslim Ummah.. somthing fresh.. like the light at the end of the tunnel sort of thing..

i wouldn't worry about pages loading slowly. as your dev sites quite new, it could be something as simple as caching.

the way it works is that browsers send requests to the web server. the web server consrtucts the pages and then sends it through and keeps a cached copy. the more people who visit the faster it gna be.. i think.

anyways.. have a logo competition on here 🙂

I'll start it off

[img]http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3401/therevivallogo7rx.png[/img]

You — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 22:32

Another one:
[img]http://www.therevival.co.uk/logo/logofull.png[/img]

Ok so limewire is deleted... and its only this site.

The thing you use to browse the internet... WHat does the logo look like?

1. [img]http://www.gadgetcentre.com/news/images/internet_explorer_logo.jpg[/img]
2. [img]http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/richardwinskill/2005/09/29/firefox-lo…]
3. [img]http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/photos/00000114-constrain-160x200…]

1 is Internet Explorer.
2 is [url=http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/]Firefox[/url].
3 is [url=http://www.opera.com/]Opera Browser[/url].

Ideally you should be using number 2 or 3 just for overall internet security... and it is easier to hack internet explorer.

If they have any significance on the speed of browsing I have no idea, but Opera renders pages the fastest. Firefox is my favoured browser. Internet explorer is mostly standard on most PC's.

You — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 22:36

[quote="khan"]admin.. hmm.. I dunno about the logo...

the revival yeh.. its gotta reflect the meaning.. i.e reviving the muslim Ummah.. somthing fresh.. like the light at the end of the tunnel sort of thing..[/quote]

I am just basing it off the logo used for the mag. Apart from that if anyone can come up with a really good one, I am willing to nick it!

[quote]i wouldn't worry about pages loading slowly. as your dev sites quite new, it could be something as simple as caching.

the way it works is that browsers send requests to the web server. the web server consrtucts the pages and then sends it through and keeps a cached copy. the more people who visit the faster it gna be.. i think.[/quote]

I think she is talking about these forums, not the dev site, to which I have not linked yet. (well I removed it from the location to where I had given a link... but its still accessible at a new location.)

The phpbb forums do not have any caching whatsoever on the server side. The wordpress site does, and so will the new site, but phpbb lacks that functionality as far as I am aware.

[quote]anyways.. have a logo competition on here 🙂

I'll start it off

[img]http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3401/therevivallogo7rx.png[/img][/qu…]

Medievally funky!

MuslimSisLilSis — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 - 22:36

LOL

thankyou for breaking it down for me-how slow do u think i am

we have internet explorer-the first picture

and regarding security we have McAfee SecurityCentre

its ur site and the forum thats slow-just noticed that now

BTW dont like ur second logo-and is it really right to have a diff logo for the mag and site?

You — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 - 00:35

I have just had the thought that I am currently trying to exchange one set of known issues with another set of unknown issues. And the convenience that is afforded by the conversion I was planning may not be all that convenient.

So I have just decided to stick to what we have atm, but try to improve it instead of how I have let it rot recently.

There are still some hurdles to overcome, but Inshallah we will overcome them.

The idea of converting to an all in one piece of software is still in my mind, but I have ecided top push it back a little, and make it more of an experimental thing to mess around with.

I was of the impression that I would be leaving two hacked together softwares' to one fully integrated, non hacked together one. But to get the little features, nuances I like, I would have to do the same things again, just hacking pieces away, adding others.

Sorry if I got anyones hopes up (which I doubt anyway. I got the impression of alot of people going' again?').

There is still an issue of the forum database, but I will tackle that in a diferent way than I was planning to, with similar results hopefully.

(Some of you may be congratulating me on the return of my sanity!)

You — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 - 18:49

The logo above has been changed to the logo that is second in the ones I showed above. (the first one is the opriginal one...)

Seraph; I will probably stay with phpbb for atleast a while. Need to still overcome the DB problem.

Then when phpbb3 comes out, I will need to decide to move to it, or possibly SMF, which also looks good. Will need to do a 'speed test' or something to see if lilsis is happy with it!

Seraphim — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 - 20:48

[quote="Admin"]The logo above has been changed to the logo that is second in the ones I showed above. (the first one is the opriginal one...)

Seraph; I will probably stay with phpbb for atleast a while. Need to still overcome the DB problem.

Then when phpbb3 comes out, I will need to decide to move to it, or possibly SMF, which also looks good. Will need to do a 'speed test' or something to see if lilsis is happy with it![/quote]

What other forum software have you tried?

e.g. Invision Power Boards?

Supposed to be pretty good altho i think they ask for cash. So not free.

*DUST* — Sat, 1 Jul 2006 - 01:48

[quote="Admin"]The logo above has been changed to the logo that is second in the ones I showed above. (the first one is the opriginal one...)[/quote]ah yes, i can only see it when i'm logged out though - probably why i didn't notice it first time round. (when i'm logged in i have the old version).

You — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 - 00:46

[quote="[url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=71669#71669]Admin[/u…]"][quote="Admin"]
Have a [url=http://www.therevival.co.uk/test.php]look[/url].

I think I have given too much away :twisted:[/quote]

Still being generous, can I have some opinions? Now it is all tabbed in all three major browsers. (which reminds me, I need to test it with the khtml/webcore engine yet...).

However it now looks less 'pretty'. and in internet explorer the rollover is not working properly... but considering how it looked before, I think its a major improvement.[/quote]

Phase one almost complete. I am pretty happy with the header section.

The oage should fit perfectly on monitors that are at 1024 pixels wide. Can someone confirm? (it may be 10 pixels too wide... I need a confirmation, so that I can make the necessary changes.)