I mentioned the first point in a reply
to vroom's original announcement.
Secondly, there is no way for the webserver to detect
that you have clicked on a checkbox if you follow a normal
link - only a form submit button (e.g. Voting) would do
that.
P.S. Please add a </UL> tag to the bottom of
your post!
| [reply] |
Well, you could make every link on the page a submit and
have your form going to a script which directs you to the
url and processes any 'extras' like chatterbox messages.
But given that it would be such an ugly mess, there's good
reason not to do it.
I have a bit of a problem too with having to press the
talk button. I wonder if it is going to make a blank
message from me appear, and have been afraid to get rid
of a message for quite some time now, for just that reason
(I wait until I have something to message to get rid of
old messages).
It would be nice if the help would say something about
this (and, if empty messages aren't gagged, it'd be nice
if they would be). This would make the talk button a
bit more cuddly and probably eliminate protests about
using it to destroy messages.
Update:
Thanks for the answer, turnstep.
I'd still like to see a little note about it in the
help.
| [reply] |
Empty messages do not appear. I simply check and hit talk.
| [reply] |
tag.. always forgetful.. unfortunately,
I cannot edit my original post.
| [reply] |
This would increase the size of the chatterbox, but what if the private msg included a clear button in place of the checkbox ? Perhaps have a user setting that would allow the user to select the current style or replacing the checkbox with a submit button.
| [reply] |
How about embedding something in the (hopefully coming soon) clickable link
that would acknowledge the chatterbox alert when you followed the link.
Along the lines of the "unclosed list" problem, how about adding code
that repairs common HTML errors in the posting
(i.e. closing unclosed lists, tables, etc...)
| [reply] |
