Mat, it's clear you're a power user and that's great, but unfortunately, you do not represent 95% of IP.Board users who simply want to use a WYSIWYG
Ah, here it is again.
you shouldn't burden the power users in favor of supporting the casual users. You should be supporting all modes of content submission.
Your mentality is just all wrong and this is where everything is going down the drain and why we are frustrated. I appreciate that you want to move forward, phase out bbcode, and focus on HTML submission. I think it sounds intriguing and could have some very nice benefits. However, IPS needs to appreciate just how difficult it is for us as forum admins to get our users to adapt to the changes you want to make. Our users have been using bbcode for over a decade. Sites like imgur, tinypic, photobucket, and minus spit out bbcode for users to submit to forums. It specifically says on there "Code for forums". This is something universal. I'm not telling you to continue developing on bbcode. I'm not even saying to stick to it. By all means continue on your path for html posts, like I said it sounds intriguing. But this whole "you are a power user so you're wrong" thing needs to stop. You cannot topple a decade old skill in a day.
we're open to feedback beyond "revert and stifle progress."
My feedback to you is just have backwards compatibility. I'm a member of a very large vbulletin forum which recently switched to xenforo, a forum software that doesn't have bbcode. The users there are very confused on how to get the editor working. Some users are saying how they're losing interest in the site because they don't understand how to submit content anymore. Yes, it's a transition process, and with your plans it's one that we will all have to force our users to do, but I think you can make the transition smoother. I suggest that you support bbcode input in 4.0. Convert to html on submission and in the editor keep it as html whether it be ckeditor or standard mode. Like Matt and Marcher keep saying, there is no difference between [ b ] and <b>. If a user can type in [ b ], have it get stored as <b> and later they come to edit their post and see <b> or even <strong> I think they will catch on a lot more quickly, and it will be a lot less painful for everyone, than if you were to just go out and say "Ok guys, from now on you have to type in <b> instead of [ b ]".
I guess most of what I want has been voiced...all I really want to add is that IPS should stop trying to dumb everything down. Yes, you have power users. Yes, you have casual users. But you shouldn't burden the power users in favor of supporting the casual users. You should be supporting all modes of content submission. This means that if I want to manually type in code tags into the ckeditor, then it should work.
Another things I dislike is that Code and Quote add a huge space between all the sentence. Of cousre submitting this just result in "Not a bugs." Absolutely hate the new Quote and Code system, I want it to be back the way it was in 3.3. I hate going back and remove space every single time I used Code or Quote. Also all post now look more messy then before in 3.3.
Funnily enough the entire reason this was added was because people asked for it.
There are methods in ipb that help you build form elements. For example in ip.gallery you build an array of forums and then there is a method to build and display a drop down in the acp form. Can we get documentation on all of these form elements. I get the drop down one, but I haven't checked of there are others like a multi select box (which is what I'm after :S). You know...the usual business with documentation...showing that these things exist and explaining the proper way to be using them. Also I haven't checked but I would like confirmation on if these can be used on the public side as well..
Again I haven't looked at it closely at all... It might have been that that drop down thing I'm referring too was only meant for forums in order to build the nested categories...
The only conf_global.php variables that aren't already in the file are the power-user settings which are defined at the top of admin/sources/base/core.php,
Actually, the setting that enables/disables status updates entirely and also the settings that limits the maximum amount of characters for status updates and subsequent replies are not listed here, yet when you add them to the conf_global.php file they work as intended.
There is also one for
when testing email. So really a documentation for all the variables that can go here would be nice, but I can see how it'd be tedious. Still, these are all useful settings.
I don't know if we're allowed to suggest charities for the donation thing or not, but if IPS ever decides that they want to support another organization (I believe at one point they said they would change organizations periodically) then I would like to suggest that they support the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The goal of this organization is to grant the wishes of children with life-threatening medical conditions. Every child should have the opportunity to live their dream and a medical condition out of their control shouldn't prevent that. You can read more about Make-A-Wish at http://wish.org but I'm sure you already know a lot about it.
I think it's quite reasonable to assume that anyone who enables HTML content accepts the security risks of allowing HTML and that they strongly do not want HTMLPurifier to mess with their work especially in IP.Content. When people enable HTML in a community they have a reason for doing so and while the security that HTMLPurifier provides is nice, I don't feel that the security is desired or even necessary when an administrator intentionally enables HTML content to be posted. 3.3 handled HTML content perfectly. Running it through HTMLPurifier is obstructive.
^^The solution Matt posted there is not valid and he knows it. Allowing only IP.Content to bypass HTMLPurifier is also not the solution. I just don't see why you think that any administrator would want their content to be stripped by HTMLPurifier and result in something they didn't intend when the entire point of HTML mode is to allow posting of content which was not initially acessible to them.
Also just had a thought, what is to stop a staff member from being on your site, while reading Facebook or on some other site ? Would their time online still increase ?
Also off topic, Rimi i didnt know who you avatar was, but seen her before and just used Google's "Search By Image" Feature, and i have to say that feature has improved a lot, it told me everything about her. lol
Well...I work in a lab and clock in and out, but I spend most of my time on here so... It's like any other job really.