Date   

moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

Anita L
 

Brian thanks. I am going to use my signature with my email place. It is easier since I don't type from the home page or send any thing. I do every thing from my email.
 
I also have tags with my names on that I like to use more.
 
Anita
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/8/2017 3:37:08 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups
 

Anita,

        Go ahead, but my experimentation indicates that it does not.  While the paste maintains the font visually, and it even sticks perpetually as presented in your signature box, when it gets put on a web post it goes through a "nearest match" translation to one of the fonts that's officially supported on Groups.io, which is not surprising.  This is very standard operating procedure since most web based interfaces don't and can't support the plethora of fonts that exist out there.

         I did some first person testing with this on a testing group I'm a member of, but it's worth a try once elsewhere to see if I might have screwed something up in the test, but I don't think so.

Brian, upsizing because I presume you're visually impaired based on your earlier comment regarding the default of Helvetica 14-point being difficult to read.  I used a serifed font, too, because they're generally easier to read based upon actual reading research.

 


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Anita,

        Go ahead, but my experimentation indicates that it does not.  While the paste maintains the font visually, and it even sticks perpetually as presented in your signature box, when it gets put on a web post it goes through a "nearest match" translation to one of the fonts that's officially supported on Groups.io, which is not surprising.  This is very standard operating procedure since most web based interfaces don't and can't support the plethora of fonts that exist out there.

         I did some first person testing with this on a testing group I'm a member of, but it's worth a try once elsewhere to see if I might have screwed something up in the test, but I don't think so.

Brian, upsizing because I presume you're visually impaired based on your earlier comment regarding the default of Helvetica 14-point being difficult to read.  I used a serifed font, too, because they're generally easier to read based upon actual reading research.


moderated Re: Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

Ro
 

I agree Brian.


BTW, I cant read tiny font either, but I CAN use the control +   and the control -   keys to make things readable.  Seems to me that anyone ought to be able to master this.   Some people in groups type in all caps, allegedly because of their eyesight issues.  It always amazes me that more people dont know this simple technique to enlarge the viewing of the computer screen


Ro

with Silk gazing over the fence, and Sally, Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





From: beta@groups.io <beta@groups.io> on behalf of Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2017 12:22 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #wishlist #suggestion
 

Actually, as someone who is sighted, but who participates a lot on a number of Groups.io groups related to blindness and/or low-vision, I cannot support "enforcement" of a single font size, other than by conventions set up within a given group after the kind of thing you've just mentioned here is brought up.

I hate mixed size in a message body, period, and am not wild about even mixed sizes popping up in threads, but a lot of the folks I read who have low vision as opposed to blindness routinely use 24 or 36 point font in their messages because this is what allows them to read their own messages while they compose them.  They can, and do, use magnifier software to upsize materials written by others that are two small to read, but want to be able to compose messages pretty much in the same way those of us who can read 14-point Helvetica take for granted.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to bring this up for discussion as a group owner, moderator, or member on any given group where there is not any need for, at a minimum, wildly mixed point size variants (though I'd be loath to tell someone they couldn't choose something other than the default font - I'd be using a serifed font if I weren't too lazy to figure out how to tweak my default to one of the serifed fonts, as I find them easier to read).   It makes a lot of sense to keep things of a single size that's convenient for the majority of a group, and allowing exceptions were you to get a new member who's visually impaired and has a need for a larger font.  But trying to enforce it at a global level, by software, is really not a good idea in my opinion, which I hope I've adequately supported the basis for above.

Brian


moderated Re: Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

P.S.:  Not exactly a reversal, but I'd dearly love it if there were a way to make the Groups.io web interface behave more like Microsoft Word in regard to there being options one can choose for paste behavior.

My default in MS-Word has long been "keep text only" because I generally don't want the formatting in terms of font, point size, etc., of stuff I'm copying and pasting but just want the words (which I always attribute when that's something that's necessary - when they're not mine).

Right now I think that the web interface acts strictly as an HTML editor that accepts the HTML format of whatever's pasted and it can be very difficult to unformat that back to "just plain text" as presented in a message, or at least I've had some hellacious efforts to do so.

Just as an FYI though, I do have a work around with regard to copy and paste that makes this much easier even with the extra step.  If I know that I've got something I'm going to paste here that would be grossly not what I want due to its original formatting I copy it, open Notepad, paste it in Notepad which forces it to plain text, do an immediate CTRL+A to select all followed by a CTRL+C to copy it, then paste it into what I'm composing here via CTRL+V or your paste button.  It then takes on the exact font, point size, color, etc., of whatever you've been typing has.

Brian


moderated Re: Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

Anita L
 

I would not want to support that a certain font or size be put into force. My members like to do different fonts and sizes. If that were to happen we might have to go back to yahoo.
 
We also do graphics in our emails with incredimail.
 
This is very important to my members. I have members who can't see tiny fonts. Liket he font you just sent here Brian is hard for me to read.
 
Anita  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/8/2017 3:22:42 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #wishlist #suggestion
 

Actually, as someone who is sighted, but who participates a lot on a number of Groups.io groups related to blindness and/or low-vision, I cannot support "enforcement" of a single font size, other than by conventions set up within a given group after the kind of thing you've just mentioned here is brought up.

I hate mixed size in a message body, period, and am not wild about even mixed sizes popping up in threads, but a lot of the folks I read who have low vision as opposed to blindness routinely use 24 or 36 point font in their messages because this is what allows them to read their own messages while they compose them.  They can, and do, use magnifier software to upsize materials written by others that are two small to read, but want to be able to compose messages pretty much in the same way those of us who can read 14-point Helvetica take for granted.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to bring this up for discussion as a group owner, moderator, or member on any given group where there is not any need for, at a minimum, wildly mixed point size variants (though I'd be loath to tell someone they couldn't choose something other than the default font - I'd be using a serifed font if I weren't too lazy to figure out how to tweak my default to one of the serifed fonts, as I find them easier to read).   It makes a lot of sense to keep things of a single size that's convenient for the majority of a group, and allowing exceptions were you to get a new member who's visually impaired and has a need for a larger font.  But trying to enforce it at a global level, by software, is really not a good idea in my opinion, which I hope I've adequately supported the basis for above.

Brian

 


moderated Re: Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

Anita L
 

Sorry but I like my fonts larger. I can't read tiny fonts. So I have this set on my email where I send letters to the groups.
 
I can also do a signature from my email which might work out better. Not sure yet.
 
I like other fonts. I use androgyne which I love.
 
Anita  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: J_Catlady
Date: 1/8/2017 3:14:37 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #wishlist #suggestion
 

Yes, it bothers me as well. This seems to happen most often in my group when people take a prior, offlist-sent email and COPY AND PASTE it into their post, and then send. The same message, simply posted via email, will not have the font size change. In my group at least, I'm noticing it only when someone copies and pastes. Usually, it makes the font tiny, and then I sometimes will go in and edit it to a more readable font-size.

I don't know what's going on with Anita's posts, which are always in huge fonts, but that (I admit) bothers me as well.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

 


moderated Re: Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Actually, as someone who is sighted, but who participates a lot on a number of Groups.io groups related to blindness and/or low-vision, I cannot support "enforcement" of a single font size, other than by conventions set up within a given group after the kind of thing you've just mentioned here is brought up.

I hate mixed size in a message body, period, and am not wild about even mixed sizes popping up in threads, but a lot of the folks I read who have low vision as opposed to blindness routinely use 24 or 36 point font in their messages because this is what allows them to read their own messages while they compose them.  They can, and do, use magnifier software to upsize materials written by others that are two small to read, but want to be able to compose messages pretty much in the same way those of us who can read 14-point Helvetica take for granted.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to bring this up for discussion as a group owner, moderator, or member on any given group where there is not any need for, at a minimum, wildly mixed point size variants (though I'd be loath to tell someone they couldn't choose something other than the default font - I'd be using a serifed font if I weren't too lazy to figure out how to tweak my default to one of the serifed fonts, as I find them easier to read).   It makes a lot of sense to keep things of a single size that's convenient for the majority of a group, and allowing exceptions were you to get a new member who's visually impaired and has a need for a larger font.  But trying to enforce it at a global level, by software, is really not a good idea in my opinion, which I hope I've adequately supported the basis for above.

Brian


moderated Re: Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

 

Yes, it bothers me as well. This seems to happen most often in my group when people take a prior, offlist-sent email and COPY AND PASTE it into their post, and then send. The same message, simply posted via email, will not have the font size change. In my group at least, I'm noticing it only when someone copies and pastes. Usually, it makes the font tiny, and then I sometimes will go in and edit it to a more readable font-size.

I don't know what's going on with Anita's posts, which are always in huge fonts, but that (I admit) bothers me as well.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

Anita L
 

Brian thanks. I will try and cut and paste and see if that works.
 
Anita  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/8/2017 1:45:29 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups
 
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:19 am, atinalee@... wrote:
Is there a way to have a different font then the ones listed?

The Group_Help forum might be a good location for asking about this, too.

From what I've seen there is no way to use a font that's not supported by the web interface software itself, at least not as displayed in the web interface, anyway.  I don't know what might happen as far as e-mail.  I've tried saving a cut and paste in a non-supported font in the signature, and that font is maintained there, and it even shows up as expected when composing a new message, but once that message "hits the group" it is converted to what looks like Helvetica if one of the other supported fonts was not used.

Brian

 


moderated Font Size variation in body of posts / digests - thoughts? #suggestion

Maria
 

I'm curious if I'm the only one who is bothered by the fact that the font size of the body of a post can be changed from the default 14 pt to something smaller or something bigger, and that this change is translated in to the digest as well.

I guess I am not sure what the advantage is to have posts that are written in 18 point size font or for that matter 8 point? And for then the digest to have content that is also in different font sizes. What am I missing?

Maybe it would be easier to have the 14pt size be standard for the body of a post, then a headline option and a smaller option for stuff that needs to be smaller? And if someone posts via email, to have whatever font size they use translated in to 14 pt ( maybe that already happens?).

I guess I don't mind the discrepancies so much on the web interface but on the digest I'd love for it to be all the same size font because on mobile that really jumps out at you when someone posts in 18 point. It sort of messes with the nice design, but it also makes it feel like I'm reading an ALL CAPS message, or that the poster is trying to make their post stand out more than the others.

Thoughts?

Maria



moderated Re: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

Nightowl >8#
 

Linda wrote: >>Brenda, If you hover over the link in the footer, you'll see the message number. Hope that helps.<<

What link are you referring to? John and I just tried that with every link and it still doesn't work in an HTML footer. Your message number I can see, but not an HTML one.

We also tried View Source, a trick Shal taught me once to find the message number, but it doesn't have it either.

Thanks for trying. :) Hopefully Mark can restore that to the footer.

Brenda


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:19 am, atinalee@... wrote:
Is there a way to have a different font then the ones listed?

The Group_Help forum might be a good location for asking about this, too.

From what I've seen there is no way to use a font that's not supported by the web interface software itself, at least not as displayed in the web interface, anyway.  I don't know what might happen as far as e-mail.  I've tried saving a cut and paste in a non-supported font in the signature, and that font is maintained there, and it even shows up as expected when composing a new message, but once that message "hits the group" it is converted to what looks like Helvetica if one of the other supported fonts was not used.

Brian


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

 

These questions belong in the GMF group, I think.
J

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:19 AM, atinalee@... via Groups.Io <atinalee@...> wrote:
I got it to work. Is there a way to have a different font then the ones listed?
 
Anita 
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/8/2017 12:02:42 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups
 
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 08:00 am, atinalee@... wrote:
where you put your signature in?

On the bottom of the Subscriptions page for a given group in the online web interface.  You can then use the checkboxes just above it to determine whether it is appended automatically only to web posts, e-mail posts, or both.

There may be the equivalent at the user profile level but I manage all of my own signatures at the group level.

Brian, still sans automatic signature insertion on replies

 



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

Anita L
 

I got it to work. Is there a way to have a different font then the ones listed?
 
Anita 
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 1/8/2017 12:02:42 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups
 
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 08:00 am, atinalee@... wrote:
where you put your signature in?

On the bottom of the Subscriptions page for a given group in the online web interface.  You can then use the checkboxes just above it to determine whether it is appended automatically only to web posts, e-mail posts, or both.

There may be the equivalent at the user profile level but I manage all of my own signatures at the group level.

Brian, still sans automatic signature insertion on replies

 


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

 

I have explored all the different tweaks as well; my signature would show up for a post or two, then disappear again. Maddening!  Any hope for a fix on this?

Jaini Clougher (BSc,BVSc)

Merlin (over the bridge) ,Maggie,Gypsy, Ranger

BC 09
ECIR mod/support

https://ecir.groups.io/g/CaseHistory/files/Jaini%20and%20Merlin-Maggie-Gypsy



(copied and pasted sig)


moderated Re: Getting rid of full page refresh after choosing "Start Merge" #suggestion

 

p.s. It comes up for me under the same exact circumstances: trying to merge threads.
J

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, this would be a HUGE improvement. The current behavior is very hard to deal with. I agree.

J

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I have no idea whether what I'm about to request is even possible, hence the wishlist hashtag.

I'm now an actual moderator on one group, and a moderator in name only (I volunteered to help in merging and/or splitting threads) on another, where a lot of thread merging is required.  Most of these threads that are split are in close proximity to each other in the Topics View because, as most often happens, they split when they were originally a new(er) topic.

If you've discovered a cluster of these *way* down the Topics View page, and do a "Start Merge", the page does a full  refresh after you've chosen that control and you're back to viewing the page as though you've just entered it.  This often means you are now very far removed from the very topic into which you wish to do the "Merge into" step and have to search for it again.  This is tedious even for a single thread merge on "old threads" but it escalates to insanity making when you're trying to do lots and lots of thread merges in succession.

If there is a way to stop the full page refresh after the "Start Merge" control is chosen, and to make sure that focus remains on or very close to the "merged into" thread after the "Merge into" step is taken it would make archive tidying a much easier process.

If there's not, then definitely let me know as I'll slowly transition myself into my Zen "that's the way it works; it's part of the charm" state and learn to deal.

(New topic, signature present - all web interface)
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Getting rid of full page refresh after choosing "Start Merge" #suggestion

 

Yes, yes, yes, this would be a HUGE improvement. The current behavior is very hard to deal with. I agree.

J

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

I have no idea whether what I'm about to request is even possible, hence the wishlist hashtag.

I'm now an actual moderator on one group, and a moderator in name only (I volunteered to help in merging and/or splitting threads) on another, where a lot of thread merging is required.  Most of these threads that are split are in close proximity to each other in the Topics View because, as most often happens, they split when they were originally a new(er) topic.

If you've discovered a cluster of these *way* down the Topics View page, and do a "Start Merge", the page does a full  refresh after you've chosen that control and you're back to viewing the page as though you've just entered it.  This often means you are now very far removed from the very topic into which you wish to do the "Merge into" step and have to search for it again.  This is tedious even for a single thread merge on "old threads" but it escalates to insanity making when you're trying to do lots and lots of thread merges in succession.

If there is a way to stop the full page refresh after the "Start Merge" control is chosen, and to make sure that focus remains on or very close to the "merged into" thread after the "Merge into" step is taken it would make archive tidying a much easier process.

If there's not, then definitely let me know as I'll slowly transition myself into my Zen "that's the way it works; it's part of the charm" state and learn to deal.

(New topic, signature present - all web interface)
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Getting rid of full page refresh after choosing "Start Merge" #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I have no idea whether what I'm about to request is even possible, hence the wishlist hashtag.

I'm now an actual moderator on one group, and a moderator in name only (I volunteered to help in merging and/or splitting threads) on another, where a lot of thread merging is required.  Most of these threads that are split are in close proximity to each other in the Topics View because, as most often happens, they split when they were originally a new(er) topic.

If you've discovered a cluster of these *way* down the Topics View page, and do a "Start Merge", the page does a full  refresh after you've chosen that control and you're back to viewing the page as though you've just entered it.  This often means you are now very far removed from the very topic into which you wish to do the "Merge into" step and have to search for it again.  This is tedious even for a single thread merge on "old threads" but it escalates to insanity making when you're trying to do lots and lots of thread merges in succession.

If there is a way to stop the full page refresh after the "Start Merge" control is chosen, and to make sure that focus remains on or very close to the "merged into" thread after the "Merge into" step is taken it would make archive tidying a much easier process.

If there's not, then definitely let me know as I'll slowly transition myself into my Zen "that's the way it works; it's part of the charm" state and learn to deal.

(New topic, signature present - all web interface)
--
Brian

I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.   

          ~  James G. Bennet


moderated Re: How on earth does Groups.io thread a topic?

 

Suddenly, today, the member's posts are threading correctly, even without "Re:"

The message activity log shows that he (and others) "Sent message Lysine" (instead of "Sent message Re: Lysine"). Yesterday, such posts were creating their own threads instead of threading under "Lysine." Today they are threading correctly.

I will try to get a better grip on this today and summarize it at the end of the day for Mark via support (and cc Shal). I'll also include whatever message headers seem relevant.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Signatures for Web Posting suddenly not working on multiple groups

 

Sorry Duane, I didn't mean "Wayne"!
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

15501 - 15520 of 27784