# The Drop Down Menu System



## Michael Morris (Nov 14, 2003)

Ok, I've been working for 2 months to mod Post Nuke into allowing the inclusion of the drop down menus seen on the Dusk site (www.thedusksetting.com).  I've asked Russ allow me to implement them there.

Now the next trick is to implement them here - I'm analysing VBulletin's code, but I can't download it to run a seperate version on my home system to test the hack.  

This reduces me to making educated guesses on what to change, backing up the original PHP file, implementing them and seeing what happens.  The worst that could happen is the page will freeze or refuse to load unexpectedly.  The messages themselves won't be affected unless you are caught sending one at the same time I switch a PHP file.  

The longest possible downtime due to this would be 3 minutes.

Of course a better solution is for me to get a version of VBulletin 3.0 I can test locally, and if this is possible I would prefer to do these tests locally.  Even after the tests are done, there is a slight possibility of service disruption.

I don't need admin status to conduct these changes - they are all code side and only require the FTP access I have now to conduct and implement.

Anyway, I welcome feedback on this from all who will be affected.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

Why?  What do these menus add that we don't already have?

I'm skeptical of change just for the sake of change.  Particularly something that will probably add more processing time to all these dynamic pages, and the server was apparently having problems handling load in the afternoons last week.  That may not have been a bottleneck at the http server, but still.

What's the business case for these changes?  What do they add that users are demanding?  If it ain't broke, don't crash my favorite online hangout


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

OK, so I've looked at the dusk site, and they're just those mouseover drop-down things admins seem to be enamored of today.  I don't really like them.

1) They rely on javascript to provide this functionality, but not all browsers implement javascript correctly or the same.  People running a different browser than what you've tested with, or who turn of javascript for whatever reasons, may not be able to use the site at all.

2) You seem to have completely eliminated regular links to those other pages, in favor of the drop-down menus.  That's bad for the reason in 1, and also, it's inaccessible to disabled people whose browsers don't handle javascript hijinks well.  You should never completely get rid of regular links.

3) Dropdowns are a nonstandard interface to a webpage.  Webpages use links.  Everyone knows them and how they operate.  On the other hand, pages that use these dropdowns are all implemented somewhat differently, and users don't know what to expect.  Simple interfaces are better.

4) They're buggy- if I accidentally pass my mouse over the menu header on that page, it doesn't disappear when I remove my mouse from the area and go back over the regular page.  It's a pain.

5) You're potentially creating a lot of work for yourself.  These are nonstandard with VBB pages, so when Morrus et al upgrade the version of VBB they're using again, whenever they do, you're going to have to reimplement them basically from scratch again.

If you're serious about putting these here on the regular site, make them an option which can be toggled in the user command post, swapping with regular links.


----------



## Tallok (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> The longest possible downtime due to this would be 3 minutes.
> .



3 minutes?  I can't survive that, don't do this to me! Augh!


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 14, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> OK, so I've looked at the dusk site, and they're just those mouseover drop-down things admins seem to be enamored of today.  I don't really like them.




Can you propose a better system to organize and display 77 links?



> 1) They rely on javascript to provide this functionality, but not all browsers implement javascript correctly or the same.  People running a different browser than what you've tested with, or who turn of javascript for whatever reasons, may not be able to use the site at all.




Incorrect.  Netscape 4.0 is the latest browser that chokes the chicken on the code.  It loads the image, but the drop downs don't appear.  I've checked this script and it works on Netscape 5.0 or later, IE 3.0 or later, Opera 3.0 or later, and all versions of Safari.  The browsers it wouldn't behave on load the image and then nothing happens on the news page.

As to this page, if you're posting here, your browser *will* run the code.  The interface you use to type this message in is JAVAscript driven.



> 2) You seem to have completely eliminated regular links to those other pages, in favor of the drop-down menus.  That's bad for the reason in 1, and also, it's inaccessible to disabled people whose browsers don't handle javascript hijinks well.  You should never completely get rid of regular links.




Dusk isn't the main ENWorld site, so why should it have all the ENWorld links??  The drop down menus are there because it gives site continuity to the whole site without crowding up the rest of the page.  Major corporations with multiple product lines use these dropdowns for that reason - Take a look at WotC's site for a better example of how it affects global site design.

As I pointed out the first time this debate came up, this isn't a plan to "get rid" of existing links - it is a supplement to the existing system.  In many cases it provides links where none currently exist.

As to the handicap argument - again - if they're on this board, they're browser will process the script.  The functionality of the news site won't be affected - indeed the menus will restore some links already taken down to trim the crowding that was occuring.  You're also complaining about removing many links that aren't even ON the messageboards - just the news site.  Vis a vis the news site doesn't have a link to each individual forum.



> 3) Dropdowns are a nonstandard interface to a webpage.  Webpages use links.  Everyone knows them and how they operate.  On the other hand, pages that use these dropdowns are all implemented somewhat differently, and users don't know what to expect.  Simple interfaces are better.




I prefer to give other people more credit for intelligence than that.  And if you think drop down menus are more simple lets see you design a 77 link scheme - fit it on ONE page and leave room for other content.  And when I say one page, I don't mean a left hand column that runs down for 4 screens.



> 4) They're buggy- if I accidentally pass my mouse over the menu header on that page, it doesn't disappear when I remove my mouse from the area and go back over the regular page.  It's a pain.




It is set to dissappear 3 seconds after mouse out.  The reason for this is if you are on a daughter menu of a daughter menu of a daughter menu you don't necessarily want it to dissappear if your mouse comes off the menu for a split second.



> 5) You're potentially creating a lot of work for yourself.  These are nonstandard with VBB pages, so when Morrus et al upgrade the version of VBB they're using again, whenever they do, you're going to have to reimplement them basically from scratch again.




Most of the VBulletin updates are on the backend of the code.  Once I figure out how to get the code to work once, it shouldn't be too hard to reimplement it.  Besides, software changes are fairly rare due to board disruption.



> If you're serious about putting these here on the regular site, make them an option which can be toggled in the user command post, swapping with regular links.




WILL NOT HAPPEN.  Russ has already stated that.  If they are implemented, they will be implemented in full.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 14, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Why?  What do these menus add that we don't already have?
> 
> I'm skeptical of change just for the sake of change.  Particularly something that will probably add more processing time to all these dynamic pages, and the server was apparently having problems handling load in the afternoons last week.  That may not have been a bottleneck at the http server, but still.
> 
> What's the business case for these changes?  What do they add that users are demanding?  If it ain't broke, don't crash my favorite online hangout




Two lines of code, properly placed, are all that are required for Post Nuke.  Should be the same for VBB.  The first time the script loads it may take a moment for dial up since the script is 50 K, but once loaded it is cached and never reloads.

The case for the change was stated succinctly the first time this was debated (Which was greenlighted until the difficulty of the implementation became known).  In brief, it will help bring the site together as a unit and make it easier to jump between the various pages.  Right now there is only 1 link from news over to forums and vice-versa, and the news link to here is kinda small.

While it is good to be honestly skeptical of change, it is also dangerous to resist change on the basis of it being new.

I'm biased somewhat on this - I've been working, on and off, to get this feature up for the boards since April.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Can you propose a better system to organize and display 77 links?




You don't need 77 links.  For instance, the "Community" and "D20 Guides" menus basically deep-link into enworld.org.  A single link there would suffice.  There's a lot of complexity here that isn't totally necessary.



> As to this page, if you're posting here, your browser *will* run the code.  The interface you use to type this message in is JAVAscript driven.




No it's not.  There's a link at the bottom of each message which goes to, for example, "forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1222283".  That's a link to a server-side created page, no javascript involved.  I have posted in the past to these boards with a text-only browser that doesn't even recognize javascript.



> WILL NOT HAPPEN.  Russ has already stated that.  If they are implemented, they will be implemented in full.




Then don't add them.  It's overengineered for the issue here.

Edited, you answered some of my questions in your second reply.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 14, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> No it's not.  There's a link at the bottom of each message which goes to, for example, "forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1222283".  That's a link to a server-side created page, no javascript involved.  I have posted in the past to these boards with a text-only browser that doesn't even recognize javascript.




That, sir, is a lie.  I've seen the PHP code for the new messages.  It uses JAVAScript.  There's no away around JAVAscript or JAVA if you are to do a data entry field longer than one line.





> Then don't add them.  They're unnecessary.




That's your opinion.  State it as such and don't phrase it as an order.

I think they are necessary to improve site navigation.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have spent 6 months working on this.  I hope that counts for more than your attitude problem with improving technology.  I hate to break it to you, but the Commodore PET wasn't a very good computer.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Two lines of code, properly placed, are all that are required for Post Nuke.  Should be the same for VBB.  The first time the script loads it may take a moment for dial up since the script is 50 K, but once loaded it is cached and never reloads.




Fair enough.  But why have a 50K script that can be replaced with a short list of links?  Dusk would need a "hosted by (link)Enworld(/link)" type thing, which is enough to get to the main page, and from there, there should be links to, for example, the boards, the reviews, a list of hosted sites, etc.



> The case for the change was stated succinctly the first time this was debated (Which was greenlighted until the difficulty of the implementation became known).  In brief, it will help bring the site together as a unit and make it easier to jump between the various pages.  Right now there is only 1 link from news over to forums and vice-versa, and the news link to here is kinda small.




The link from the forums to the news page is the big logo in the upper lefthand corner.

Site unity, fair enough, if you want to have a standard look across all the sites.



> While it is good to be honestly skeptical of change, it is also dangerous to resist change on the basis of it being new.




I'm very rarely accused of being reactionary.    But I write software, and I'm skeptical of complexity that isn't completely necessary.



> I'm biased somewhat on this - I've been working, on and off, to get this feature up for the boards since April.




I understand.  I'm trying to discuss the technical and UI aspects of it, not to critique you.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> That, sir, is a lie.  I've seen the PHP code for the new messages.  It uses JAVAScript.  There's no away around JAVAscript or JAVA if you are to do a data entry field longer than one line.




Well, I can't really prove it, but I just logged into a unix machine, started up lynx, and I'm posting this from a text-only telnet window.  So it apparently still works fine.  What javascript you've seen is apparently on the server side, and executes there independantly of viewing the page on the client side.





> That's your opinion.  State it as such and don't phrase it as an order.



I never said it was anything but my opinion.


> I think they are necessary to improve site navigation.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have spent 6 months working on this.  I hope that counts for more than your attitude problem with improving technology.  I hate to break it to you, but the Commodore PET wasn't a very good computer.



I'm 24.  I never owned a commodore anything.  You're taking this really personally, I'm just discussing the technical merits of the menus.


----------



## tburdett (Nov 14, 2003)

> I think they are necessary to improve site navigation. If I didn't, I wouldn't have spent 6 months working on this. I hope that counts for more than your attitude problem with improving technology.



And we care about your opinion because?  I have spent time on projects that turned out to be a complete waste of time, maybe this one is too?



> I hate to break it to you, but the Commodore PET wasn't a very good computer.



Maybe, maybe not.  It set the stage for the Commodore 64, however, which was an AMAZING computer for its' time.  I still have mine (along with a C-128D, a C-128, a 1581, a 1541, and a working printer) and my kids still have fun playing games on it when I decide to fire it up.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

> And we care about your opinion because?  I have spent time on projects that turned out to be a complete waste of time, maybe this one is too?




Hey.  Be nice.


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Anyway, I welcome feedback on this from all who will be affected.




By the way, the links to the forums in the menu go to enworld.cyberstreet.com, not the enworld.org/forums/ address.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 14, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> By the way, the links to the forums in the menu go to enworld.cyberstreet.com, not the enworld.org/forums/ address.




That's odd - I thought I had corrected that.  Must have used the old PNG when I switched the colors out by mistake.

Anyway, We're not talking about retooling the whole site and erasing everything here.  We're talking about 2 lines of code.  They can be taken out as quickly as they can be put in, which is to say within 15 minutes.


----------



## BSF (Nov 14, 2003)

OK, I missed the discussions the first time around.  Where would the drop-downs be displayed?  I like the thought of site continuity.  Though, there will be some redundancy since many of the links are to forums.


----------



## Fathead (Nov 14, 2003)

Whew...well, this is what you get when you ask opinions of other programmers, I suppose!    

Personally, I don't mind the drop-downs.  On both sides, I think the tone of conversation could improve somewhat though.  

Micheal_Morris, I know that you've put in a lot of time on this, so I can understand being defensive.

Some of my concerns would be some of the same voiced by DanMcS.

#1 - I'd agree on this one.  Javascript can be a fickle friend.  But, it seems that you've taken browser compatibility into account, so you should be fine.  

#2 - Again, I'd agree to an extent.  It used to be the case that crawlers had trouble indexing your site without hyperlinks (which was the reason why you used to see menu items at the top as well as regular hyperlinks at the bottom of a page).  But, I don't believe this to be the case anymore.  I'm not sure about DanMcS's argument regarding a handicapped person though...that might be correct.

#3 - This is the last one I'll comment on.  I agree with the need for simplicity, but I think that drop-downs are an acceptable part of a user interface.  I don't use them often, but I do use them to organize an abundance of additional links...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> Anyway, We're not talking about retooling the whole site and erasing everything here.  We're talking about 2 lines of code.  They can be taken out as quickly as they can be put in, which is to say within 15 minutes.




Okay, it doesn't sound to me like you're describing exactly what the results will be very well.  You give a link over to the Dusk site as an example, but when you need to convince people, you ought to give a verbal description as well. For example, you keep referring to 77 links.  But in this thread you haven't said which 77 links those were...

I'm not a web-coder. But you yourself described this as "a hack".  Where I come from, hacks are not the world's most reliable code, and you instantly made us wonder about it's integrity.  I know I'm not comfortable with resting the functionality of a heavily used site on something described as "a hack".  

You say it isn't a retooling.  And as a manner of code it might not be. But as a manner of site layout, it is, isn't it?  You're talking about taking a list of links currently running down the side of a page, and completely replaceing them with dropdown menus?  From a user's standpoint, that is significant retooling.  

You're going to have to expect some resistance to that.  If you ask opinions, some of them won't agree with you.  The fact that you've done months of work to implement it may be important to you, but since the readers here didn't live through it, it isn't to them.  So you're going to have to take the criticism, even if it isn't the most polite.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 14, 2003)

As usual, "the sky is falling" types are the first to respond and state a list of myths in a panic that shows gross ignorance of how the software that drives these boards works.  Part of this is my fault - I assume to much - so once and for all lets dispel the myths:


*He's gonna remove all the body links and put them in the drop down menu!!  NO!!!!!!!*

Incorrect.  In fact, without totally rewritting both Post Nuke & V Bulletin this is impossible.  The drop down menu is, at best, a supplement to the existing system.  The menu that will be used is the one on the top of the Dusk site - that very one - same code.

*He's gonna hack and crash the system, NO!*

That accusation I find extremely insulting.  I'm going to great pains to make sure this transfer doesn't disrupt anything.  Much of this involves setting up and running a private mirror of the ENWorld site on my laptop.  I have gotten the news section working and I'm ready to test it.  VBulletin promises to be more difficult as attested by the fact that WotC hasn't managed to integrate their menu system into it (incedently, my system uses the same JAVA as theirs - both are created by Macromedia Fireworks)

The mod on the news site involves the inclusion of two lines of code.  The worst thing they could do is interfere with the JAVAscript that's already a part of the boards.  The database of messages isn't at risk, and if a problem arises the offending lines can be removed.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Nov 14, 2003)

Not that I (or any of us) really have any say in the matter, but would you agree to post a poll a week or so after the changes are implemented to gague the public opinion? And further agree to remove the changes if a sizable majority of the users seem to dislike them?


----------



## DanMcS (Nov 14, 2003)

Michael_Morris said:
			
		

> As usual, "the sky is falling" types are the first to respond and state a list of myths in a panic that shows gross ignorance of how the software that drives these boards works.




Listen, you asked us for comments and suggestions, then you got all offended when we provided them, and now you're attacking the only people that have bothered to respond to you at all.



> Incorrect.  In fact, without totally rewritting both Post Nuke & V Bulletin this is impossible.  The drop down menu is, at best, a supplement to the existing system.  The menu that will be used is the one on the top of the Dusk site - that very one - same code.




Forgive me for believing you the first time, then, when I asked if we could still have the regular links on the page, at least as an option, and you said "WILL NOT HAPPEN. Russ has already stated that. If they are implemented, they will be implemented in full."



> That accusation I find extremely insulting.  I'm going to great pains to make sure this transfer doesn't disrupt anything.  Much of this involves setting up and running a private mirror of the ENWorld site on my laptop.  I have gotten the news section working and I'm ready to test it.  VBulletin promises to be more difficult as attested by the fact that WotC hasn't managed to integrate their menu system into it (incedently, my system uses the same JAVA as theirs - both are created by Macromedia Fireworks)




Yeah, you know, the only messages about you "crashing the system" are people responding humorously to the implication that the forums might be down for a whole three minutes.  We've dealt with much longer downtimes in the past.  You're taking this far too personally and seriously.

And why do you keep all-capsing JAVA?  It's not an acronym, and it's probably mostly PHP code anyway, not javascript (which is not the same as java, even though you keep using them interchangably).

Oh yeah, and I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar earlier, too.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 15, 2003)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Forgive me for believing you the first time, then, when I asked if we could still have the regular links on the page, at least as an option, and you said "WILL NOT HAPPEN. Russ has already stated that. If they are implemented, they will be implemented in full."




Coding will not be done to make them toggle-able.  I don't even know if that is possible - but I can guarantee that adding such coding is FAR more likely to crash the system than simply adding them.



> We've dealt with much longer downtimes in the past.  You're taking this far too personally and seriously.




Yes I am.  But the posts I first received have been, at best, reactionary.



> Oh yeah, and I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar earlier, too.




I will apologize.  The program has two templates it used determined by the brower.  I should be able to use this to my advantage, couching the JAVAscript code with those already in the program.  That way, if the script isn't available, it won't launch.  Text browsers will ignore all the contents of a div tag, so with luck this can be set up not to launch on browsers unable to support the code.

Course, this is all theory.  I don't yet have a copy of Vbulletin to check.   Post Nuke launches Javascript without checking the browser, so nothing new for the newspage as far as that possible problem is concerned.  It is the news site that I have ready to go.  It may be a few more months, it may be never, when I'm ready to try to launch the same here.  I'm not going to do anything rash - though apparently the consensus here is just that.


----------



## Michael Morris (Nov 15, 2003)

Playing with the div tag - God knows what it will do, but the chaos will be limited to this thread.

K - didn't turn out like I though


----------

