Date   

moderated Re: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

Nightowl >8#
 

Shal Farley wrote:>>I'm not sure when it changed, but a GMF member called to my attention that lately the View/Reply links (in HTML format, both individual and digest) are now the URL to the topic. Meaning that you land at the top of the (possibly long) topic, not at the particular message within the topic. I've reported that behavior as a bug, so we'll see.<<

Thank you Shal! I knew it wasn't like it had been before!

Hopefully he'll fix it, and I'll be able to continue keeping my place with the e-mail message folder in Thunderbird.

Brenda


moderated Re: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

 

Linda,

I read and reply to the beta digest via my email program, Windows
Live Mail. When I hover over the link to View/Reply Online of any
message in the digest, the link destination appears in the space at
the very bottom of the email window. The behavior I describe is
consistent in the links below every message of the beta digest to
which I'm replying.
I'm not sure when it changed, but a GMF member called to my attention that lately the View/Reply links (in HTML format, both individual and digest) are now the URL to the topic. Meaning that you land at the top of the (possibly long) topic, not at the particular message within the topic.

I've reported that behavior as a bug, so we'll see.

Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


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

Maria
 

One last ( i think) reason why the font size should be the same (especially in digests) is that the font size of the post content/body should never be bigger than the subject line. I think, especially on digests, that looks and feels very awkward and goes against convention.



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

Maria
 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 03:25 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
           I do not know whether, as things stand currently, someone can customize things to their liking at the compose stage but have it converted to the "group convention" at the send stage.

I hope there is a way to do that! I completely get the challenges with the composition end of things as you describe, but I think on the reading side all posts should be the same size for consistency and so we can all set our preferred viewing size in our browser and not have to jump up/down in size based on how messages are being composed. 

Maria


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

 

Thanks. Hoping Mark sees it here, but I will send a bug report to support just in case.I've seen it for at least a week now, but only notice it when I'm looking through a longish thread.
J

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:45 PM, HR Tech via Groups.Io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

Right. I think it's a bug. If you switch to viewing 100 messages - you will see the whole thread.

It's an infinite scroll issue that I don't recall seeing before.

I noticed same thing today.

Maria



--
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

Maria
 

Right. I think it's a bug. If you switch to viewing 100 messages - you will see the whole thread.

It's an infinite scroll issue that I don't recall seeing before.

I noticed same thing today.

Maria


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

 

Thanks, Brian, I appreciate that. I don't know if it's my cache but that is such a PITA to clear...I think the issue is something else but I will try to do it anyway.

--
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

 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 02:53 pm, HR Tech wrote:
is your viewing preference set to infinite scroll?

Yes, it is and I'm almost certain that's what's not working. Can anyone else try this? Go to a message in a long thread, click on "show entire thread" (or however it's worded), and see if you get everything? I'm now missing seeing most of almost all the threads in my own group, and have to resort to going through messages one-by-one to respond to people. I may report as a bug. 
--
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@...>
 

Maria,

           My concern is almost exclusively with the composition end, rather than the reading end.  It's almost as difficult to explain some of the "necessary gyrations" I've seen, and sometimes helped engineer, as a sighted person in relation to what it's like to actually have a visual impairment as it would be for me to launch myself to the moon.

           My guess, and it is just that, is from a practical standpoint there would be very little difficulty presenting everything in the same "size and shape" if no imposition is made that the user must compose in that same "size and shape."   There are good reasons, and I'm quite sure that you or anyone who does any writing with a keyboard and a screen can understand this, why how you process what you're in the act of composing is distinctly different than how one reads material that is already written, whether earlier by oneself or by someone else.   Both employ written language, but reading (with rare exceptions - I still can't get through most sentences by Henry James) is generally less demanding than writing is, and easing the "reading while writing" equation matters.

           I do not know whether, as things stand currently, someone can customize things to their liking at the compose stage but have it converted to the "group convention" at the send stage.

Brian


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

Maria
 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 02:27 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
I am not seeing complete threads onlist.

Out of curiosity, is your viewing preference set to infinite scroll?

Maria


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

Maria
 

Thanks for taking the time Brian. Lots of interesting thoughts.

I guess I still feel that even on the web / mobile web browser interface all posts should be the same font size. Just as they are if you are reading an online news site, facebook, instagram, comments on amazon, yelp, reddit, twitter, etc. I don't see variation on those interfaces of font size when people post.

I get that one wants to compose in a font size that works for them but then when it comes to reading - that post - and that post only - will appear 2x bigger than all others. There must be a better way.  There are tools to see the web interface enlarged, composing a message in a large font size means that everyone else will see it much larger than most other posts and the font size jumps up/down which makes it really hard to figure out how you want to set your browser view. Maybe posts that come in with a font size that is much larger than the default could be translated to something more in line with the default size.

I do think consistency is a good thing when it comes to content, because it helps the user/ reader determine their preferred viewing settings.

In our group we get a few posts each day with smaller or larger fonts. Most of them are consistently 14 pts - especially anything posted via email on iphone which is a good chunk. All of those emails default to 14 pt regardless of how huge or small the author sees them in their composition window.

But it's very interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. Thank you!

Maria


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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 02:27 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
Anyway, maybe this gives me an excuse because I don't even know what you're accusing me of LOL 

I made a response to your ginormous=yelling post, the close of which could have been incorrectly read ad a back-handed attempt to say you're a heartless b*tch.  It was not intended to be such, and I wanted to correct that promptly.

I will send you a copy/paste of the original via private message, so you have context.   I still suspect you have some sort of browser cache corruption going on since this is now a recurring issue for you.  On a note related to that, I find CCleaner free (available at piriform.com) to be a much easier way to do browser cache cleanup than any of the various browsers' own built-in techniques.  You do need to be careful when you first run it to look at the settings so that you don't "clean" certain things you'd rather still have, but these are mostly not browser related.  After that it's a cinch to clean the browser cache, and a lot of other junk, from every browser you have and your computer itself in one click.

Brian


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

 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 01:16 pm, Ro wrote:
perhaps you are oversensitive to ginormousicism?

Evidently so! But it came out in regular font when I copy-pasted! I don't understand this whole thing. ;) 
--
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: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

Nightowl >8#
 

Linda wrote:>> I compose in plain text but I read the digest in html.<<

Ah, I don't get digest, I get individual messages.

Linda wrote:>>I don't know if you compose and read emails in html or pt or if you are using a pc or a mac, or which email program you are using. There are so many variables.<<

I compose and read everything in plain text. I'm using a PC, running Windows 10, and I have Thunderbird as my E-mail client.

The numbers were always there before, in either plain text or HTML. They disappeared for me yesterday when the finalization of the footer changes were done. So I suspect that is what happened.

Hopefully Mark will fix it where they appear again in HTML. Meantime, in order to know where I stopped reading on here, I'll just write the number down on my notepad.

Thanks,

Brenda


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

 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 01:55 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
P.S.:  I hasten to add that I am not saying that you don't do this, too, J_Catlady.   At the same time I also know that most sighted people, including myself, are really not clued in on a constant "I've got this in my gut" level with what the visually-impaired have to deal with in trying to access what is primarily a visual medium.

Brian, I am trying to find the thread of which this message is a part, but whenever I click on "show entire thread," It does not show up for me. Maybe this is the same issue I emailed you about a couple of days ago. I am not seeing complete threads onlist. I need to log out and clear my cache. I am now missing entire pieces of multiple threads. Anyway, maybe this gives me an excuse because I don't even know what you're accusing me of LOL 
--
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: Message Number Missing in E-mail footer

Linda
 

Hi Brenda,
You wrote: "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."

I read and reply to the beta digest via my email program, Windows Live Mail. When I hover over the link to View/Reply Online of any message in the digest, the link destination appears in the space at the very bottom of the email window. The behavior I describe is consistent in the links below every message of the beta digest to which I'm replying.

I compose in plain text but I read the digest in html. I don't know if you compose and read emails in html or pt or if you are using a pc or a mac, or which email program you are using. There are so many variables.

Linda


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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

P.S.:  I hasten to add that I am not saying that you don't do this, too, J_Catlady.   At the same time I also know that most sighted people, including myself, are really not clued in on a constant "I've got this in my gut" level with what the visually-impaired have to deal with in trying to access what is primarily a visual medium.


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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 01:05 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
But a truly ginormous font comes off to me as yelling. 

I can tell you, without any danger of exaggeration, that "Ginormous is in the eye of the beholder."

ALL CAPS have long been the internet convention for yelling.  I even allow room for that for specific individuals who've identified that they're not being used that way, but are much easier for them to read when composing.

I have some pretty intense likes and dislikes, too.  What I try to do now is to balance anything that deals with my likes or dislikes against the legitimate needs of someone else even if that means putting up with something I intensely dislike.

Brian 


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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Maria,

           First I'll say that no matter the reason, ignoring the low vision issue entirely, I have been told that the group owner is able to control, at the group level, the availability of fonts, sizes, etc., but have no way to verify that.  If one wishes to do this on an existing group where "multiple things have gone" and you confirm that it is indeed possible, then create a ListMatters subgroup, post a proposal to do so there, then direct folks in the main group to it to express their opinions.  Or do it on the main group, or set up a poll.  It may be that the majority of the members would support precisely what you want to do.  Provided you specify a voting deadline, and what constitutes a win (which is usually the majority of votes cast, but can be more restrictive), you then have consent to do what you propose on your group.

           Now, on to the low-vision thing.  How someone who is visually-impaired accesses their computer can vary wildly, even for the same person, particularly if their vision is variable.  I worked with clients who have enough vision one day to see a computer screen with minimal magnification and standard color who, the next day, must use a high contrast background and quite a bit of magnification.   Some go all the way from "nothing" to "must use a screen reader" (meaning, for all practical intents and purposes, they're functionally blind for text).  For people who use screen readers as their exclusive accessibility method, font size is irrelevant as far as having content read to them.  A screen reader does text to speech.  People who use magnifiers, though, often only need "so much" to read someone else's text and get the content but much more in order to be able to actually compose with ease.   They will set their magnifier for reading purposes, plus the font size for composing purposes, and the two of those things working in consort give them something that they can read with ease when doing their own writing.

            As Microsoft has now renamed what used to be accessibility settings to "Ease of Access", that's what this is all about.

           Most groups, unless you have some really crabby members, are willing to take a look at "rules proposals", talk about them, and adopt them voluntarily.  Then the only thing that's generally needed are some gentle reminders when the rules are new until they become "a part of the culture."   This makes it possible to grant exceptions when exceptions are warranted rather than having to say, "Tough noogies, our group only posts in 14-point Helvetica," if some new member comes along for whom that would pose an accessibility issue.

            I'm a lot more about "cultural rules in a group" than software enforcement wherever that is achievable.  I suspect it may very well be achievable for you if the same issues you identified here are brought up and discussed on your group(s).   You also might be very surprised at what you might learn (and not in the bad way) about why some people are doing what they're doing that never would have occurred to you (or me, for that matter).  Then a discussion can ensue about competing needs (if that's even necessary) and a potential compromise be reached.

Brian


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

Duane
 

It's probably an extreme solution, but my groups are set to Plain Text. Everything posted is the same size. It's possible to have an HTML Digest or even to have everything converted to HTML on site using the group settings though not necessary for us. I decided to use the Plain Text setting because I've often run into folks that insist on including lots of "fancy stuff" that doesn't contribute the discussions. Signatures was one of my pet peeves because it got duplicated on every post they made and some were huge. The various fonts, styles, size, color, etc. seemed worse than than the "cure".

I'm not unaware of those with visual difficulties, but my SIL can easily upsize on her computer and phone. She's even got her email clients set up to compose in large fonts that she can see, but send plain text for the convenience of others.

Duane

17421 - 17440 of 29729