While I admit to having made numerous feature requests in the past, I've come to realize there is a certain zen to it. It's not merely enough to think "gee wouldn't it be nice?" and hope that others concur when you post it to PMD. subsequently crossing your fingers that it will catch the eye of a devil with enough tuits to implement it and that the god who reviews it is having a good day and applies it ;-).

One needs to take into account the benefit of a new feature (ease of use OR bytes saved * likely number of users * probable frequency of use) vs. the cost (bytes added OR CPU cycles consumed OR database hits required * likely number of users * probable frequency of use). Does anybody happen to have some sort of numbers to apply to this?

Anyways, I bring this up because I've longed for a user setting to disable the section links at the top of every page. I'd personally choose to only have them on the front page, which is where I put thing I rarely use, or to bookmark the sections. The only metric I can supply to support this is that that section of HTML amounts to a hefty kilobyte. That may not be much for some nodes, but for an otherwise empty node that's 7% of the page, and every bit counts (Ha!).

--
I'm not belgian but I play one on TV.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Creature Feep Payoff
by Mr. Muskrat (Canon) on Jun 26, 2003 at 03:14 UTC

    Well, you're already a pmdevil, so what's stopping you?

    Create the code. Test it. Compare the benefits to the cost. Create a "cost analysis report" to help the gods decide whether or not they want to apply the patch.

    Or you could just keep thinking "gee wouldn't it be nice?" :-)

[reply]
      Well see, the parent node is two discussions in one. A) The Zen of Features B) A Feature Proposal. I was mostly seeking comment on A) and on whether or not people *like* B. I am well aware that I'm a devil, and did plan on looking at other user setting (specifically nodelet) stuff to provide a cut&paste patch :-P

      --
      I'm not belgian but I play one on TV.

[reply]
        It seems only fitting to apply Feng Shui to a Zen of Features discussion reply but I haven't mastered Feng Shui yet so my reply to that will have to wait. ;-)
[reply]
Re: Creature Feep Payoff
by Tanalis (Curate) on Jun 26, 2003 at 07:24 UTC
    Something I'd quite like, which shouldn't cost anything in terms of CPU time, would be for the menu to have a CSS class of its own.

    That would allow the sections to be turned off through custom CSS, and the font size to be changed (something I'd really like to be able to do).

    I'd have thought it'd have been a "quick fix" to implement too, although I'll admit I don't actually know :)

    -- Foxcub
    #include www.liquidfusion.org.uk

[reply]

      After 2.5 months, you have your trivial fix. The FONT tag around the title-bar navigation menu now includes class="topnavmenu" for your CSS pleasure.

      Thanks for the idea, Foxcub. Thanks for the patch, theorbtwo.

                      - tye
[reply]
[d/l]
Re: Creature Feep Payoff
by Chady (Priest) on Jun 26, 2003 at 09:47 UTC
    ...that section of HTML amounts to a hefty kilobyte.

    more on the HTML size is the comment added to the nodelets telling that the structure has changed..etc.

    The comment is repeated for every nodelet via nodelet container, and thus amounts to a lot in size compared to the page, maybe it should be printed only once if it was moved to its parent which might be sidebar meta-container (no idea yet)

    He who asks will be a fool for five minutes, but he who doesn't ask will remain a fool for life.

    Chady | http://chady.net/
[reply]
Re: Creature Feep Payoff
by greenFox (Vicar) on Jun 26, 2003 at 09:00 UTC

    I like the idea but I have a refinement. I don't tend to visit the front page much and if I do it is usually just to click through to Newest Nodes. My home node is where I tend to gather stuff I want to refer to (looking around here others seem to do the same). So instead of having a seperate front page configuration a seperate home node configuration might be more useful. I'd certainly appreciate being able to have different nodelets on my home node instead of on the front page

    This wins on performance too because in most cases home nodes will be smaller than the front page any-way :)

    --
    Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought. -Basho

[reply]
      Except that I have no content on the front page except for nodelets (you can achieve this by disabling all sections for display). It is then quite a tiny and zippy page.

      UPDATE: Just to clarify, what I was trying to drive at it is that there are already special (nodelet) settings for the Front Page. Likewise, you have total control of your home node content and can add arbitrary links. finally, with the advent of the Free Nodelet only you can prevent forest fires.

      --
      I'm not belgian but I play one on TV.

[reply]
Re: Creature Feep Payoff
by belg4mit (Prior) on Jun 28, 2003 at 07:10 UTC
    I was looking into this and I rememebered that there's a nodelet called Sections. I think the optimal solution for implementing this then might be to default to the Sections nodelet being on and at the top of the nodelet stack, and removing the Sections list at the top of the page. IMHO this would have a few other advantages. The sections list is not right-justified to the width of Nodelets and this can often be ugly. It would also provide more space for, and avoid wrapping of node titles as well the attribution and alternate mode view links.

    --
    I'm not belgian but I play one on TV.

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion