The header feature of the blog would be MUCH more useful in customization if the header field was optional and only the tile field required. I would also like to see the ability for users to upload their own custom header tile image for the background and choose the color of the text (with a pre-designated default font that can't be changed by the user).
As it stands right now, you have to make sure that the right of the header image matches perfectly with the left side of the tiled image, otherwise it looks terrible. Is there any hope for having this small change added in a later release?
Sheer space IMO. For example, I have a field that I only want a website URL placed in. The WYSIWYG editor takes up a tremendous amount of space on the screen, way too much for such a simple thing like inserting a URL.
Perhaps an even better option would be to create custom fields? Something where I could say anything in this text input box, parse as bold, or as a URL, etc (chosen from a list in the ACP). Just a thought.
I have tried this and it didn't work, so I'm just assuming that we can't use bbCode in text input/text area fields? I don't want to use the WYSIWYG for a simple entry like a single URL. Would love the ability to just have the user wrap it in linkgoeshere
I have a database I'm working on that really needs to have static sorting for categories. It would be great if we could have the choice in the ACP to sort A-Z / Z-A or have the ability to drag categories up/down to position them manually like we do with forums.
It would be absolutely exceptional if we were given a choice in the ACP to have a user's avatar be the global representation of that user instead of the current method which is having avatar and personal photos in parallel. I, along with many others from what I gather in various posts I've found, feel that having both separated is slightly confusing to the user and really doesn't give good representation to that user. Sure, it may work better in a business environment like you guys have here, but it doesn't work well with many of our forum setups and the way they have organically grown.
This post has a solution, but obviously requires editing the source code...something that would likely be overwritten in the next minor release and every release afterward. Seems like it would be a great choice to give admins a choice of how their board is setup. Allow personal photos and avatars, or only allow avatars globally. Please find it in your hearts to make this a reality in a future release. :)
I'm glad to hear that development of 3.0 is progressing, but I'm very alarmed at the discontinuing of the subscriptions manager. My site is a company for me that generates a good bit of revenue from the subscriptions manager. I wouldn't mind it being discontinued if you offer a direct path for migrating over to IP.Nexus for this purpose, but if this isn't going to be the case then I fear that some customers, including me, are going to be in a bit of a conundrum.
To add to this, it appears that any cache files for a skinset are being made as user "nobody" on the server and not the username for the account it resides. By using this method it is impossible for you to chmod something as it will give you a permissions denied since you are logged in as that account on the host and not as nobody. Only by going through the shell and logging in via root can you change the permissions on the file/directory in which case it is reverted to user nobody when you rebuild the cache for that skinset.
The above resolution did not work. Since I upgraded I do have other skins so the IPB 2.2.0 skin was made with ID 16. I have made all directories and files related to the cache for this skin 777. I'm unsure what else to try as the skin rebuild for the 2.2.0 skin completes successfully without any write errors.
[quote name='ellawella' post='1396047' date='Jun 22 2006, 12:44 PM']It may be a sound feature for your site, but IMO most other sites would not have a use for it. If you browse around virtually any forums you'll seldom see more than a couple of posts of any significant length per thread page (broadly speaking). Most posts can be typed out in under 3 mins, no need for a save feature
You could always request/make a modification though.[/quote]
I agree, most forums are probably not setup like mine. I have had custom modifications from Invision done on my site before but I'm not sure I want to touch on that subject at the moment. I have to pull teeth everytime a custom modification from Invision is done so anytime I pay to have one done I make sure it is a good one.
I am curious as to what Brandon C was referring to however.
[quote name='ellawella' post='1396043' date='Jun 22 2006, 12:32 PM']I don't see the point of a save feature for posts. It's all very well drafting emails, but drafting a post? Nah. It's just not important enough.
Save it to Wordpad [/quote]
I have been caught in this situation as well as many of my users. My site is a large reference site (http://www.urbanplanet.org) with all sorts of stats, figures, etc. A lot of the posts on my site take a bit of time to compose with users having to switch between reference material to make the complete composition. A save feature would be great in my case. Personally I've been caught writing a long post only to have my computer lock-up, etc. so it would be nice if you could save it as you go along just in case something happened.