New site

[Master]

Huh, just a thought, could we add the affiliate RPC Projects to the quick links? Would be nice if you could get to RayWiki quickly without having to go back to the portal.

[incognito]

And a button to enable and disable mobile version?

[Master]

Ah yes, the mobile skin isn't so much mobile, as it is to do with screen size. If you zoom in your browser enough, you can cause RPC to use the mobile skin on PC.

[Hunchman801]

You should add Discord if it's possible.

Sure, will do.

Wow, I must admit, the site now looks verg good!

Thanks.

Very nice! I really like the Quick Links feature. I should check out the Wiki too. And I absolutely love this new spoiler tag too!

I found this bug when doing a Ting transaction:

Thanks! Will look into that bug.

Huh, just a thought, could we add the affiliate RPC Projects to the quick links? Would be nice if you could get to RayWiki quickly without having to go back to the portal.

Interesting idea, I'll give it a try!

Ah yes, the mobile skin isn't so much mobile, as it is to do with screen size. If you zoom in your browser enough, you can cause RPC to use the mobile skin on PC.

Master's right, no need for a button.

[Master]

Another neat thing that some folks might be happy to know, the pre-10th Anniversary theme is also still available and also works on mobile.

And now to sleep.

[Droolie]

Yeah, this is so that smilies appear nice and crisp on high pixel density displays (see Fifo's message). Websites are meant to be viewed at 100% zoom and while I understand that some people might want to change that, I suggest using a browser extension such as stylebot, stylish or styler and use the following CSS on this site:

Code: Select all

.smilies, #smiley-box img {
	image-rendering: -moz-auto;
	image-rendering: -webkit-auto;
	image-rendering: auto;
}

Ehh... I very much appreciate the effort you put into this update, but that reply's a bit lazy, don't you think? Asking your users to fix your site's style locally?
I strongly disagree that sites are meant to be viewed at 100%. As I said, both Chrome and Firefox default to a zoom equal to the DPI scaling of the user's OS (e.g. 125% for 125% DPI scaling) -- Chrome calls that default zoom 100% even when it isn't. Besides, don't blame the users for working with a slightly higher pixel density display where 100% is unreadable and at the same time claim you want to make this look good on such displays You're assuming every display has an integer dppx but this isn't true, even for mobile devices.

Since you bothered to add that image-rendering change in the first place, that suggests to me you care about RPC looking good to all of your users, so in that case I still suggest fixing this. Here's three ways you could go about it:

• The best way: enable pixelated image-rendering under a few media queries only (like on the site I linked), each for a specific integer ddpx such as 2, 3, or 4, and use auto image-rendering otherwise. Simple!
• The harder but correct way: if you want to support all possible ddpx, use a bit of JS that determines whether ddpx is integer or not, and enable the CSS property based on that.
• The lazy way: Ask your users to install a browser extension to fix it locally.

That said, personally I'm alright with it if you decide not to fix it since I might just install that extension to get rid of that distracting transition in the text area as well. Though as I said earlier you did a great job on the update overall, I tend to be extremely nitpicky about the things I like so I hope I didn't piss you off too much.

[Adsolution]

I agree, and that's an issue I brought up earlier while the site was being worked on (since I also use 125% zoom on the site) - my less-savvy suggestion was to use nearest neighbour above and bilinear below 200% zoom, but apparently that wasn't possible. At the very least, if there's no real-time solution, I'd suggest adding an option to change it in UCP/Board Preferences.

[Ambidextroid]

Master's right, no need for a button.

You can't zoom on mobile devices like you can on browsers, it just zooms into the page rather than resizing it. I'd also quite like a desktop view button!

[Hunchman801]

Ehh... I very much appreciate the effort you put into this update, but that reply's a bit lazy, don't you think? Asking your users to fix your site's style locally?
I strongly disagree that sites are meant to be viewed at 100%. As I said, both Chrome and Firefox default to a zoom equal to the DPI scaling of the user's OS (e.g. 125% for 125% DPI scaling) -- Chrome calls that default zoom 100% even when it isn't. Besides, don't blame the users for working with a slightly higher pixel density display where 100% is unreadable and at the same time claim you want to make this look good on such displays You're assuming every display has an integer dppx but this isn't true, even for mobile devices.

Since you bothered to add that image-rendering change in the first place, that suggests to me you care about RPC looking good to all of your users, so in that case I still suggest fixing this. Here's three ways you could go about it:

• The best way: enable pixelated image-rendering under a few media queries only (like on the site I linked), each for a specific integer ddpx such as 2, 3, or 4, and use auto image-rendering otherwise. Simple!
• The harder but correct way: if you want to support all possible ddpx, use a bit of JS that determines whether ddpx is integer or not, and enable the CSS property based on that.
• The lazy way: Ask your users to install a browser extension to fix it locally.

That said, personally I'm alright with it if you decide not to fix it since I might just install that extension to get rid of that distracting transition in the text area as well. Though as I said earlier you did a great job on the update overall, I tend to be extremely nitpicky about the things I like so I hope I didn't piss you off too much.

I'm certainly not pissed by your message, but I find it harsh, unfair and judgmental.

You're calling me lazy, assuming that the only reason for using nearest neighbor resizing for smilies for all DPIs was because I couldn't be bothered to discriminate. Why not consider that I could simply have a different opinion on the matter, and that my decision was based on said opinion? The new website would have been launched ages ago had I decided to be lazy and not fix the tiny things that I knew weren't quite right but didn't matter so much.

I, unlike you, strongly believe that browser zoom is not a feature meant to be supported by websites: almost all of them are completely broken above 150%. It's a tool your browser provides, just like it allows you to use custom CSS through extensions. Not quite sure why you'd accept to use one and not the other.

You make a good point about devices with non-integer DPIs. They're such a tiny share of the market that supporting Opera probably makes even more sense, but they do exist, and I'm more than happy to account for them if the amount of work is not unreasonable compared to their usage (else we'd still be supporting IE6).

The problem is that your whole post is based on your opinion according to which blurry smilies look better than pixelated ones. I find them both awful and can't see how one is better than the other.

That said, this website is for its users' enjoyment and I'm happy to have a quick poll to see what people prefer. If it's the blurry smilies over the pixelated ones, I'll revert to bilinear resizing for non-integer DPIs.

You can't zoom on mobile devices like you can on browsers, it just zooms into the page rather than resizing it. I'd also quite like a desktop view button!

Sorry, I know it's late but I don't quite understand how having the desktop version on mobile would help with the fact that you can't zoom on mobile devices like you can on browsers, or how said fact is actually a problem.

[Dart]

Sick the smilies got updated!

[Droolie]

I'm certainly not pissed by your message, but I find it harsh, unfair and judgmental.

You're calling me lazy, assuming that the only reason for using nearest neighbor resizing for smilies for all DPIs was because I couldn't be bothered to discriminate. Why not consider that I could simply have a different opinion on the matter, and that my decision was based on said opinion? The new website would have been launched ages ago had I decided to be lazy and not fix the tiny things that I knew weren't quite right but didn't matter so much.

Not calling you lazy at all, I just said that one reply was lazy as you hand-waved what was a valid point away as "it's the users' fault for having DPI scaling active, they should either turn it off or install an extension to fix it especially for my website". Do you know any forum that requires an extension to not look bad? It's a first for me.

I knew from the beginning that you have a different opinion on whether web developers should support different zoom levels, and I accept that, but I was trying to point out that your reasoning for that opinion is wrong. Here's what's wrong about it:

browser zoom is not a feature meant to be supported by websites: almost all of them are completely broken above 150%.

To the contrary, in my experience almost all of them (of the responsive ones, at least) look perfect above 150% given that you're viewing them on a screen that requires that much DPI scaling. If your screen isn't large enough for it, of course they would either look broken or switch to the mobile version.

Not quite sure why you'd accept to use one and not the other.

I never "accepted" to use 125% zoom, as I said it is the default for my DPI settings, which were also 125% when I bought this laptop - I didn't change anything. 100% is near unreadable on my screen. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem as it's now a very common practice (in Belgium, at least) to sell laptops with 15in screens and a high resolution, with DPI scaling active by default to compensate. I think you are partly confused because I am talking about zoom levels, but this is really just a DPI issue, and it's exactly the same issue as those mobile devices with non-integer DPIs, so the market share isn't as tiny as you assume.

I'm more than happy to account for them if the amount of work is not unreasonable compared to their usage (else we'd still be supporting IE6).

If you read my post again, I showed that a few media queries are enough for that. Hell, I'd even be willing to write them for you, they'd be done in 5 minutes.

The problem is that your whole post is based on your opinion according to which blurry smilies look better than pixelated ones. I find them both awful and can't see how one is better than the other.

Have you tried 125% zoom? It looks like this (scaled up to 200% of what they look like zoomed in, with pixel resize):

I vastly prefer these blurry smilies:

Granted, they're both awful when zoomed in like that, but zoom out until they're about the normal size, and you'll see the blur almost isn't noticeable, while the harsh, duplicated outlines and distorted proportions of the pixelated ones are. It's exactly like that on my DPI.

But yeah, again sorry that I appear to have pissed you off with this, it's really the last thing I want to do, especially over something like this. I'll drop the issue if you still feel that the blurry smilies don't look better than the pixelated ones for non-integer DPIs.

[Fifo]

Try using Buffer, dlvr.it or something like that for posting to Twitter.

Buffer's like $100 a year and dlvr.it won't recognise our (valid) feed (I also tried different MIME types).

Buffer does have a free plan, and there’s also Twitter’s web client and TweetDeck (which I use) if you don’t mind posting manually.

Ah yes, the mobile skin isn't so much mobile, as it is to do with screen size. If you zoom in your browser enough, you can cause RPC to use the mobile skin on PC.

Exactly that.

Also, Humch, I can’t login on the wiki

[incognito]

But I cannot unzoom. But thanks for telling me that I'll use it in a next video.

[Fifo]

Rank names seem to appear in PMs, Humch plz fix:


Also, smilies are out of alignment in landscape mode on mobile:

[Ambidextroid]

Sorry, I know it's late but I don't quite understand how having the desktop version on mobile would help with the fact that you can't zoom on mobile devices like you can on browsers, or how said fact is actually a problem.

From what I understand browser zoom is automatically enabled on mobiles now so the site is more mobile friendly, where it used to be a fixed size and looked more like the desktop version. Sometimes I prefer the desktop size but it's not possible to change the page size on mobile as far as I know.

Basically just wondering if it's possible to get the desktop version on mobile?

[incognito]

So do I, high five Ambi.

[Fifo]

When donating tings, the description line just says “Donate Tings”.

[PluMGMK]

Actually the gender icons don't look as good on desktop. I suppose it depends on a lot of factors though, I'm sure Chrome+Win users are laughing at me.

[incognito]

Erm, okay, so I just tried the desktop version on my computer, hmmm, it looks... heh, different... The index page looks kinda stretched to be of my taste and the user links disappeared of the pages which makes finding an user's website harder now.
On the overall some good functions were added but I prefer the old version sorry. But I guess I'll have to get used to it.

[Fifo]

the user links disappeared of the pages which makes finding an user's website harder now.

Check the Contact icon on the postbit.