HTML compose on /beta/ - Page 9

greenplum · 10 Apr 2004, 08:37 PM

I entirely agree Sherry.
Surely if a user wanted to use this level of HTML formatting they would use a client. The Compose page as it stands would, I imagine turn away a majority of new users gleaned from free mail. What I personally think is needed is a simple form of HTML similar to Hotmail / Yahoo / Mailsnare etc or (if it's possible ???) two versions one Basic and one Advanced for the two screens

KEN

kchess79 · 10 Apr 2004, 10:05 PM

Oh, wow. Just checked out the new HTML compose (instead of the first version), and it's a little too...cluttered...for me. Takes quite awhile to load, too (I have DSL).

vidvandre · 10 Apr 2004, 11:53 PM

[2cents]
I Haven't had time to follow this thread, so sorry if this has been said several times before. But I just had to get this of my chest

The "hardcore webeditor" is way to heavy and resource intensive. I just tested it on a 300+ words email with some basic formating and it lagged very much behind. Overall it has a very much bloated feel to it...

AFAIK, it shouldn't be a big problem to make HtmlArea downgrade with grace in Opera...

Please revert back to HtmlArea...

(Edit:) Another (really) good reason to choose HtmlArea is that it's an opensource project. IMO, this ensures that if/when Opera supports any form of RTF editing it will be made available with HtmlArea. Furthermore HtmlArea has a many followers and contributors, ensuring that bugs will be fixed and that the product will continue to be enhanched...
[/2cents]

petergh · 11 Apr 2004, 12:28 AM

I'm a fan of the Raw HTML edit mode, but what I really miss is an ability to preview the resulting HTML document. Would it be possible to add a "Preview HTML" button or something to that effect?

Lee · 11 Apr 2004, 02:54 AM

The current html editor is way too much for me. Way too many icons.

I vote for the previous version. It was just about right!

vidvandre · 11 Apr 2004, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lee
The current html editor is way too much for me. Way too many icons.

Although I see this point as well, I feel I need to clarify one thing. My comment(s) had nothing to do with the layout/number of icons (this would probably be customized later on to fit FM/email useage better anyway) of the editor. It was directed toward the core/engine of the beast, which felt bloated and unnecessary resource intensive...

mailmaniac · 11 Apr 2004, 05:52 AM

I liked the former HTML editor toolbar. This new one is horrible. I have 450 kbps DSL connection, and the toolbar is way too heavy and slow. Besides, we still cannot upload an inline image in a simple and quick way (remember I suggested the option "browse hard drive for image"?)

Please, change it back - or to a better one!

henrico · 11 Apr 2004, 06:34 AM

I see it now for the first time...ehm, it looks not very great...it loads slow and ehm, my god, tooooooo many icons...must be a world record!? I like the HTML-editors in, for example, Oddpost and Mailsnare...simple, clean...

alka · 11 Apr 2004, 07:08 AM

Icons are great... they are the basis of todays most popular OSs... but-
FM's reputation is at stake here; what is the best balance of user friendliness and low bandwidth consumption?

-Would text only labels be bad?
-Could categorical pull down menus be used?
-What about a basic screen with the most commonly used features and an advanced screen with all the extras?

I honestly would love if we could stick to text based buttons, menus and links to cover the html fuctions. It fits the FM interface better, and saves a bunch of bandwidth.

I think we could please more people by sticking with the advanced/basic concept in development in beta.

hadaso · 11 Apr 2004, 07:17 AM

With the current HTML editor (HardCore) sometimes the window just doesn't appear:
When tying forward or reply with "quote HTML", "Inline HTML" or when starting with test reply and then choosing HTML editing sometimes (but not always) there is no editing area displayed. The edited text is then lost (i.e., I get an empty textarea when going back to plain text).Somehow this happens consistently with some messages, and with others it works OK.

I agree with the other's comments about the toolbar being extremely cluttered (and on the lack of directionality controls), but on the other hand, I went to http://www.hardcoreinternet.co.uk/ and looked into the user and developer's guide for this product, and saw that it is very customizable, and the toolbar displayed is the default, which is very easily customized to display any set of buttons. So this means that FastMail can choose which buttons to display on basic and advanced screens (and actually it seems that it would be rather easy to let the user choose which buttons to display and in what order.) It is also possible to add functionality (and corresponding buttons).

HardCore is not "free software" in the sense of the Free Software Foundation, but it is open source software in the sense that the user gets access to the source and is allowed to manipulate it.
HTMLArea is "free software" in the sense that is usually meant by "Open Source".

Both HTML editors tried so far were designed for designing web pages online and not for composing email. This is the reason, for instance, that image support included only specifying a URL. Probably any other available HTML editor would be the same. So it's important that the HTML editor chosen would be easily customizable to integrate it with fastmail (quickly link to files/images on the storage area, upload attachment and link to it, import note from notepad etc.)

BTW, perhaps we can have both HTML editors (or some more, if there are more waiting) available from the pull-down in the compose screen on the beta server so we can compare?

LrdVader · 11 Apr 2004, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hadaso
BTW, perhaps we can have both HTML editors (or some more, if there are more waiting) available from the pull-down in the compose screen on the beta server so we can compare?

That's a great idea! It would be really nice to be able to test them side by side. Then we could *really* see just how much slower this Hardcore thing is.

BTW I'm curious, how did you guys figure out what it was called, anyway? I didn't see any mention of the name anywhere, except briefly seeing the word "hardcore" in in the URL on the status line when I clicked on Help.

I still vote for HTMLarea, though. Hardcore is just too darn bloated and cluttered.

Prognathous · 11 Apr 2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LrdVader
BTW I'm curious, how did you guys figure out what it was called, anyway? I didn't see any mention of the name anywhere, except briefly seeing the word "hardcore" in in the URL on the status line when I clicked on Help.

You were close. All it took is to trim the URL a bit: http://www.fastmail.fm/hardcore/webeditor/

Prog.

LrdVader · 11 Apr 2004, 08:11 AM

I didn't see that URL anywhere.

Am I blind? (it's always a possibility!)

FMRocks · 11 Apr 2004, 09:07 AM

I can't really say I dislike the new HardCre editor. A lot of options, and I like that. However, it makes the actual compose box extremely narrow (vertically). Can we make the box vertically wider/taller?

LrdVader · 11 Apr 2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FMRocks
However, it makes the actual compose box extremely narrow (vertically). Can we make the box vertically wider/taller?

Over here, it's big enough to force me to scroll down, and if I do scroll down, the actual compose box almost completely fills my IE window. I'm running at 1024x768 (both my actual resolution and my screen size setting in FM) using the Winstream style sheet. I just switched my FM settings to 800x600 and Professional Blue, and got similar results.

10 Apr 2004, 11:53 PM	#123
vidvandre Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sørumsand(!), Norway Posts: 625	[2cents] I Haven't had time to follow this thread, so sorry if this has been said several times before. But I just had to get this of my chest The "hardcore webeditor" is way to heavy and resource intensive. I just tested it on a 300+ words email with some basic formating and it lagged very much behind. Overall it has a very much bloated feel to it... AFAIK, it shouldn't be a big problem to make HtmlArea downgrade with grace in Opera... Please revert back to HtmlArea... (Edit:) Another (really) good reason to choose HtmlArea is that it's an opensource project. IMO, this ensures that if/when Opera supports any form of RTF editing it will be made available with HtmlArea. Furthermore HtmlArea has a many followers and contributors, ensuring that bugs will be fixed and that the product will continue to be enhanched... [/2cents] Last edited by vidvandre : 10 Apr 2004 at 11:59 PM.

11 Apr 2004, 07:08 AM	#129
alka Essential Contributor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: PA, USA Posts: 349	ICONS? Icons are great... they are the basis of todays most popular OSs... but- FM's reputation is at stake here; what is the best balance of user friendliness and low bandwidth consumption? -Would text only labels be bad? -Could categorical pull down menus be used? -What about a basic screen with the most commonly used features and an advanced screen with all the extras? I honestly would love if we could stick to text based buttons, menus and links to cover the html fuctions. It fits the FM interface better, and saves a bunch of bandwidth. I think we could please more people by sticking with the advanced/basic concept in development in beta.

10 Apr 2004, 08:37 PM	#121
greenplum Essential Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: N.E. England Posts: 423	I entirely agree Sherry. Surely if a user wanted to use this level of HTML formatting they would use a client. The Compose page as it stands would, I imagine turn away a majority of new users gleaned from free mail. What I personally think is needed is a simple form of HTML similar to Hotmail / Yahoo / Mailsnare etc or (if it's possible ???) two versions one Basic and one Advanced for the two screens KEN

10 Apr 2004, 10:05 PM	#122
kchess79 Master of the @ Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 1,142	Oh, wow. Just checked out the new HTML compose (instead of the first version), and it's a little too...cluttered...for me. Takes quite awhile to load, too (I have DSL).

11 Apr 2004, 12:28 AM	#124
petergh Master of the @ Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 1,309	I'm a fan of the Raw HTML edit mode, but what I really miss is an ability to preview the resulting HTML document. Would it be possible to add a "Preview HTML" button or something to that effect?

11 Apr 2004, 02:54 AM	#125
Lee Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 140	The current html editor is way too much for me. Way too many icons. I vote for the previous version. It was just about right!

11 Apr 2004, 05:52 AM	#127
mailmaniac Essential Contributor Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 265	I liked the former HTML editor toolbar. This new one is horrible. I have 450 kbps DSL connection, and the toolbar is way too heavy and slow. Besides, we still cannot upload an inline image in a simple and quick way (remember I suggested the option "browse hard drive for image"?) Please, change it back - or to a better one!

11 Apr 2004, 06:34 AM	#128
henrico Essential Contributor Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 429	I see it now for the first time...ehm, it looks not very great...it loads slow and ehm, my god, tooooooo many icons...must be a world record!? I like the HTML-editors in, for example, Oddpost and Mailsnare...simple, clean...

11 Apr 2004, 07:17 AM	#130
hadaso Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Holon, Israel. Posts: 5,217	With the current HTML editor (HardCore) sometimes the window just doesn't appear: When tying forward or reply with "quote HTML", "Inline HTML" or when starting with test reply and then choosing HTML editing sometimes (but not always) there is no editing area displayed. The edited text is then lost (i.e., I get an empty textarea when going back to plain text).Somehow this happens consistently with some messages, and with others it works OK. I agree with the other's comments about the toolbar being extremely cluttered (and on the lack of directionality controls), but on the other hand, I went to http://www.hardcoreinternet.co.uk/ and looked into the user and developer's guide for this product, and saw that it is very customizable, and the toolbar displayed is the default, which is very easily customized to display any set of buttons. So this means that FastMail can choose which buttons to display on basic and advanced screens (and actually it seems that it would be rather easy to let the user choose which buttons to display and in what order.) It is also possible to add functionality (and corresponding buttons). HardCore is not "free software" in the sense of the Free Software Foundation, but it is open source software in the sense that the user gets access to the source and is allowed to manipulate it. HTMLArea is "free software" in the sense that is usually meant by "Open Source". Both HTML editors tried so far were designed for designing web pages online and not for composing email. This is the reason, for instance, that image support included only specifying a URL. Probably any other available HTML editor would be the same. So it's important that the HTML editor chosen would be easily customizable to integrate it with fastmail (quickly link to files/images on the storage area, upload attachment and link to it, import note from notepad etc.) BTW, perhaps we can have both HTML editors (or some more, if there are more waiting) available from the pull-down in the compose screen on the beta server so we can compare?

11 Apr 2004, 08:11 AM	#133
LrdVader The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA Posts: 2,550	I didn't see that URL anywhere. Am I blind? (it's always a possibility!)

11 Apr 2004, 09:07 AM	#134
FMRocks The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: FM does NOT refer to Fastmail (anymore). Posts: 4,034	I can't really say I dislike the new HardCre editor. A lot of options, and I like that. However, it makes the actual compose box extremely narrow (vertically). Can we make the box vertically wider/taller?