Autodesk Discussion Groups Feedback

[#1]

#1:

Readability stinks.  One area where web-based software can have advantages over NNTP is completely overlooked in this software

Why does readability stink? 

Because quoted content is not visually distinct, and cannot be collapsed and expanded (with a per-user setting to show quoted content expanded or collapsed by default). Even free web-based discussion software is better than this crap.

#2: Preview approval

The user is not required to preview their message before they can post it (Yes, they should required to preview it first)

Please add your reasons....

[#2]

Readability?  What is so hard about it?

I for one loathe a required preview and I am glad there is not one.  I am perfectly capable of clicking the preview button if I choose to.  Flexibility is what we need flexible for those that don't want a preview and flexible for those that do.

[#3]

If you have to ask, there is obviously no point to answering

.

sssteve72 wrote:

Readability?  What is so hard about it?

[#4]

I haven't found a message I couldn't read yet.  So really I was just wondering what you find difficult about it.  So the only point was to convey your view of poor readability which you see no point in answering.

[#5]

It's not about not being able to read messages, it's about being able to easily

distinguish quoted content from the poster's content, like most web-based

discussion software provides for (e.g., augi, theswamp, etc.).

---

sssteve72 wrote:

I haven't found a message I couldn't read yet.

---

[#6]

Let me say first I may have worded my post poorly.  When you said readability to me that means general page layout and navigation thru topics, pages, etc... and yes easily distinguished quoted sections as well.  In respect to quoted sections that was what I was specifically refering to when I said " I haven't found one I couldn't read yet."  I would agree they could be highlighted a little better etc.. so I may have been a little hasty there.

True I have not designed human interfaces for 10 years or even for one day.  However I have used a great many for well longer than 10 yrs and no one knows what I like better than me as is with every individual.

Humans are different and the best human interfaces are flexible to accomodate multiple user preferences.  I may like reading quoted posts in bold letters with quotation marks around them while someone else may like seeing them in colored backgrounds for example.   The truly best interface accomodates them both and to date I have never seen that one.

[#7]

---

sssteve72 wrote:

The truly best interface accomodates them both and to date I have never seen that one.

---

Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface.

.-)

HTH

[#8]

#3:  No threaded layout, and no "Topic Layout" is not really threaded.

[#9]

---

Jason.Piercey wrote:

#3:  No threaded layout, and no "Topic Layout" is not really threaded.

---

I think you can just put 1 - 10 in front of that and have the top 10. I find a lot of thing better than the old format. I find some things worse. But the lack o threading is the one thing that I really find is a show stopper. I'd rather go back to the old software that numerically had more faults than this one just to get threading back.

Allen