OK..... OK... me too!
So I have to jump in and try the fun too!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......
Very nice Robert!
Kevin
So I have to jump in and try the fun too!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......
Very nice Robert!
Kevin
Bug Report #9 Edit Your Threads via the Select-o-Dial!
- Thread starter Unimatic1140
- Start date
Help Support :
mattl
Well-known member
Robert,valid points, I'm using a wide screen monitor @ 1440x900 so it looks a bit spread out. All my monitors are wide screen and have been for years so I don't even think about standard sized screens, my bad.
I know how much work goes into the layout, I did it once and never again. Tweaked the layout soooo, many times over a few months to get it to look just right. I appreciate the fact that your design lets my use the full real estate of my monitor, some sites display in 4x3 regardless of the monitor and I find it VERY annoying.
I know how much work goes into the layout, I did it once and never again. Tweaked the layout soooo, many times over a few months to get it to look just right. I appreciate the fact that your design lets my use the full real estate of my monitor, some sites display in 4x3 regardless of the monitor and I find it VERY annoying.
If widescreen is too wide, simply resize the browser accordingly.
lordkenmore
Well-known member
Some thoughts about monitor sizes
Screen resolutions are definitely getting bigger. At least on new standard laptops and desktop monitors. Unfortunately, the problem for the modern web page designers, is that smaller resolutions have been making a bit of a comeback. Netbooks tend to have a resolution of something like 1024 X 600. The new iPad, which some say may become a primary computer for many people, is 1024-by-768. Then, people are increasingly using smart phones for some Internet access. (I don't know how many visit this site, but I can imagine some people do. Either to keep up with hot discussions in this forum. Or to quickly look up a washer model number when at a yard sale to decide "Is this worth bothering with?")
Then, there are troublesome people like me who tend to have older hardware. Frankly, it is completely irrelevant to me what is available today. I buy used--let someone else take the depreciation hit. Further, in this wretched economy, I'm not very enthusiastic about spending money on even used hardware unless absolutely needed. Thus, it'll likely be years before I have any of that technology in my home. I'm just one person, but I think many others are choosing to stick with older hardware, too until the economy improves.
Another point is that not everyone has their web page maximized to cover the whole 20" monitor. Many users probably do that thinking that "I have the space, I might as well use all of it!" But many people like large monitors so they can have several different windows open at once, and at least partly visible.
I don't envy the modern web page designer, simply because of how variable the screen is.[this post was last edited: 4/30/2010-18:41]
Screen resolutions are definitely getting bigger. At least on new standard laptops and desktop monitors. Unfortunately, the problem for the modern web page designers, is that smaller resolutions have been making a bit of a comeback. Netbooks tend to have a resolution of something like 1024 X 600. The new iPad, which some say may become a primary computer for many people, is 1024-by-768. Then, people are increasingly using smart phones for some Internet access. (I don't know how many visit this site, but I can imagine some people do. Either to keep up with hot discussions in this forum. Or to quickly look up a washer model number when at a yard sale to decide "Is this worth bothering with?")
Then, there are troublesome people like me who tend to have older hardware. Frankly, it is completely irrelevant to me what is available today. I buy used--let someone else take the depreciation hit. Further, in this wretched economy, I'm not very enthusiastic about spending money on even used hardware unless absolutely needed. Thus, it'll likely be years before I have any of that technology in my home. I'm just one person, but I think many others are choosing to stick with older hardware, too until the economy improves.
Another point is that not everyone has their web page maximized to cover the whole 20" monitor. Many users probably do that thinking that "I have the space, I might as well use all of it!" But many people like large monitors so they can have several different windows open at once, and at least partly visible.
I don't envy the modern web page designer, simply because of how variable the screen is.[this post was last edited: 4/30/2010-18:41]
sudsmaster
Well-known member
As I said, I tried a Fluidmaster solution - very similar if not identical to the one suggested - and it hasn't been leak free. The problem is that the stock brass valve seat has a very narrow lip, and the Fluidmaster goo has a hard time getting a grip on it. It's also possible the gasket under the stock seat has eroded and is leaking. I have hesitated trying to remove the stock seat since it looked like it might break in the process. Also, a screw that held the original valve assembly to the stock seat had sheared off, hence the 10 year old Fluidmaster patch. In any case, I just got a UPS package with the new stock valve seat and valve assembly, and I'll be opening it soon enough to see if it's the right part and if it will work.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Screen sizes/resolution...
And then there are the new smart phones... mine runs IE mobile 6, or Opera, or Skyfire. Some web sites have mobile versions (like Yahoo) which shrinks down the content to fit the tiny screens and allow mouse-less navigation. It would be great if AW.ORG had a m.automaticwasher.org but I can certainly appreciate that it might be a lot of work to set up and maintain (reduced content for the m version seems to be the rule on the sites I've visited). NPR has an interesting mobile version, which gives on an option of font sizes etc...
And then there are the new smart phones... mine runs IE mobile 6, or Opera, or Skyfire. Some web sites have mobile versions (like Yahoo) which shrinks down the content to fit the tiny screens and allow mouse-less navigation. It would be great if AW.ORG had a m.automaticwasher.org but I can certainly appreciate that it might be a lot of work to set up and maintain (reduced content for the m version seems to be the rule on the sites I've visited). NPR has an interesting mobile version, which gives on an option of font sizes etc...
I think I found a bug...
When I hit "Report offensive post" on my own post (didn't try other posts) and then I try to cancel, I get into a loop that asks me again if I want to confirm or cancel. Tried 3-4 times hitting "cancel" and always get to the same place. If I hit "Confirm" it seems to accept it just fine.[this post was last edited: 4/30/2010-19:58]
When I hit "Report offensive post" on my own post (didn't try other posts) and then I try to cancel, I get into a loop that asks me again if I want to confirm or cancel. Tried 3-4 times hitting "cancel" and always get to the same place. If I hit "Confirm" it seems to accept it just fine.[this post was last edited: 4/30/2010-19:58]
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Paulo,
Your posts are never quite offensive enough to hit that button
...
With regard to the American Standard valve issue... the replacement looks like an exact fit. I'll probably be installing it in the trusty old throne this weekend.
I know you're all dying for pics, but it's a friggin' commode, for gosh sake ;-).[this post was last edited: 5/1/2010-01:35]
Your posts are never quite offensive enough to hit that button
...With regard to the American Standard valve issue... the replacement looks like an exact fit. I'll probably be installing it in the trusty old throne this weekend.
I know you're all dying for pics, but it's a friggin' commode, for gosh sake ;-).[this post was last edited: 5/1/2010-01:35]
Rich says: "Your posts are never quite offensive enough to hit that button ..."
LOL -- maybe I need to make more of an effort in either direction then? ;-) (I was just testing because we're supposed to be helping debug the features and, really, I wasn't about to tag someone else's post as offensive.)
Glad to know the new valve will work. As for the pix, well, you don't have to photograph the toilet per se, but you might, if you feel like it, photograph the broken valve, then the steps as you replace it. Might help someone out there.
..."LOL -- maybe I need to make more of an effort in either direction then? ;-) (I was just testing because we're supposed to be helping debug the features and, really, I wasn't about to tag someone else's post as offensive.)
Glad to know the new valve will work. As for the pix, well, you don't have to photograph the toilet per se, but you might, if you feel like it, photograph the broken valve, then the steps as you replace it. Might help someone out there.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Paulo,
I'm a little reluctant to photograph the process because...
Water and cameras don't mix. Esp when there's risk of dropping one in a toilet.
The job will be in an awkward position and not exactly what I'm looking forward to in the first place. A camera will just get more in the way.
But I could take some shot of the bad valve after it's removed, I guess, in a few days/weeks/months/years. Good idea.
Lastly, I'm not sure that a toilet qualifies as an automatic washer, although I have seen one used manually for pre-rinsing soiled cloth diapers.
[this post was last edited: 5/1/2010-05:11]
I'm a little reluctant to photograph the process because...
Water and cameras don't mix. Esp when there's risk of dropping one in a toilet.
The job will be in an awkward position and not exactly what I'm looking forward to in the first place. A camera will just get more in the way.
But I could take some shot of the bad valve after it's removed, I guess, in a few days/weeks/months/years. Good idea.
Lastly, I'm not sure that a toilet qualifies as an automatic washer, although I have seen one used manually for pre-rinsing soiled cloth diapers.
[this post was last edited: 5/1/2010-05:11]
Thanks Paulo
I get into a loop that asks me again if I want to confirm or cancel. Tried 3-4 times hitting "cancel"
Yup that's on my last, I found that one last week. We have company this weekend, so I will get that fixed early next week since its not a critical error. I always do appreciate you guys letting me know that kind of stuff.
I get into a loop that asks me again if I want to confirm or cancel. Tried 3-4 times hitting "cancel"
Yup that's on my last, I found that one last week. We have company this weekend, so I will get that fixed early next week since its not a critical error. I always do appreciate you guys letting me know that kind of stuff.
bpetersxx
Well-known member
```
ooop
ooooopp
ooop
ooooopp
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Toilet Victory
After a day in the sack (sleeping off a nagging cold and case of laryngitis), got around to installing the new flush valve assembly in the American Standard. I think it's a "Lexington" or similar model.
The old assembly came off easily enough once I plucked the Fluidmaster patch valve off. There are three heavy brass screws that hold the heavy brass valve seat to the china. I couldn't see any obvious cause of the leakage, but I suspect it was leaking in between the original brass valve seat and the spongy rubber gasket between it and the china. Perhaps all it needed was a new gasket and a new valve disk, but what the heck. The new stuff is all bright and shiny.
After a day in the sack (sleeping off a nagging cold and case of laryngitis), got around to installing the new flush valve assembly in the American Standard. I think it's a "Lexington" or similar model.
The old assembly came off easily enough once I plucked the Fluidmaster patch valve off. There are three heavy brass screws that hold the heavy brass valve seat to the china. I couldn't see any obvious cause of the leakage, but I suspect it was leaking in between the original brass valve seat and the spongy rubber gasket between it and the china. Perhaps all it needed was a new gasket and a new valve disk, but what the heck. The new stuff is all bright and shiny
.
AWESOME new feature Robert! Thank you!!!
I usually do pretty good at "self editing" before I "post", but having this new edit option is fantastic!!
I used this new feature a number of times when I posted a thread Friday night about finding a 1963 800/Lady Kenmore washer (I'm still jazzed about it and still can't believe it!). The editing feature worked perfectly!
Question: About 20 minutes ago I posted a reply to another thread (Starting 'May Is Maytag Month' with a bang! - in Imperial) via my iPod Touch, then 6 minutes later (after I got my butt outta bed) edited it from my iMac computer. I noticed that even though it was less than 15 minutes later, it still put the little "This post was last edited : 5/2/2010-08:23" at the bottom. OK, FINALLY my question. Is this because I created the post on one device and edited it on another? I use the same log-in on both devices.
Thanks!
Kevin
I usually do pretty good at "self editing" before I "post", but having this new edit option is fantastic!!
I used this new feature a number of times when I posted a thread Friday night about finding a 1963 800/Lady Kenmore washer (I'm still jazzed about it and still can't believe it!). The editing feature worked perfectly!
Question: About 20 minutes ago I posted a reply to another thread (Starting 'May Is Maytag Month' with a bang! - in Imperial) via my iPod Touch, then 6 minutes later (after I got my butt outta bed) edited it from my iMac computer. I noticed that even though it was less than 15 minutes later, it still put the little "This post was last edited : 5/2/2010-08:23" at the bottom. OK, FINALLY my question. Is this because I created the post on one device and edited it on another? I use the same log-in on both devices.
Thanks!
Kevin
whirlcool
Well-known member
Robert, this is a great new feature!
Sometimes when I write a post it looks good. But then after it's posted I realize I could have made it clearer. This editing feature allows me to do that.
Thanks for your time and effort in making this a reality!
Sometimes when I write a post it looks good. But then after it's posted I realize I could have made it clearer. This editing feature allows me to do that.
Thanks for your time and effort in making this a reality!
AWESOME new feature Robert! Thank you!!! - PART 2
Robert,
I posted a reply to a thread in the Imperial forum (Thread# 28289, Reply# 34 05/03/2010 at 16:17) and then edited it 5 minutes later from the same computer. It listed that I'd edited it (This post was last edited : 5/3/2010-16:22).
I just wanted to let you know in case this is a bug.
Kevin
Robert,
I posted a reply to a thread in the Imperial forum (Thread# 28289, Reply# 34 05/03/2010 at 16:17) and then edited it 5 minutes later from the same computer. It listed that I'd edited it (This post was last edited : 5/3/2010-16:22).
I just wanted to let you know in case this is a bug.
Kevin
sudsmaster
Well-known member
I've been noticing that sometimes when I try to preview or post a message, the browser window hangs (Firefox) and I have to hit the red X in the browser to stop the action, then hit the preview or post button again, and the post previews or posts normally then.
Let's see if it happens this time...
....
No problem with immediate editing...
Let's see if it happens this time...
....
No problem with immediate editing...
Ok I finally got some spare time to do a bit of debugging this morning. I fixed (or so I think) the fact that the threads were showing the "this thread has been edited" message before 15 minutes. I had the program set to 1 minute instead of 15 minutes, can we say typo, duh. lol
I also fixed the Cancel button on the Report Post to Webmaster.
Rich I haven't experienced a slowdown, but I will keep a close watch.
Thanks again for all your help, I'll work on the Delete feature as soon as I get a spare moment or three.[this post was last edited: 5/5/2010-13:53]
I also fixed the Cancel button on the Report Post to Webmaster.
Rich I haven't experienced a slowdown, but I will keep a close watch.
Thanks again for all your help, I'll work on the Delete feature as soon as I get a spare moment or three.[this post was last edited: 5/5/2010-13:53]
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Robert,
I notice I have to load twice to get some things moving on other web sites, so the problem is probably with my OS/Browser/DSL connection or other cause unrelated to aw.org.
Thanks for your continuing passion for this site.
I notice I have to load twice to get some things moving on other web sites, so the problem is probably with my OS/Browser/DSL connection or other cause unrelated to aw.org.
Thanks for your continuing passion for this site.
Hey Robert,
Thanks again for this great website! I like the concept of all the changes you've made, but it seems like the latest - the Select-O-Dial - has been causing me problems. Since its introduction, any thread with lots of posts, especially those with multiple pictures, takes an inordinate amount of time to download. On some, it will not even show all the posts that have been made. For example, on this thread I had to wait over 15 mins. for it to come up, so I could reply. I've done everything I can think of, such as clearing out all history, cookies, temp. internet files, and ran scandisc and disc defrag, but no difference. Wonder if anyone else has this trouble?
Thanks again for this great website! I like the concept of all the changes you've made, but it seems like the latest - the Select-O-Dial - has been causing me problems. Since its introduction, any thread with lots of posts, especially those with multiple pictures, takes an inordinate amount of time to download. On some, it will not even show all the posts that have been made. For example, on this thread I had to wait over 15 mins. for it to come up, so I could reply. I've done everything I can think of, such as clearing out all history, cookies, temp. internet files, and ran scandisc and disc defrag, but no difference. Wonder if anyone else has this trouble?
Hi Tom,
Can you tell me what browser you are using?
Can you try a different browser just to check?
Can to view threads without being logged-in. Does that make any difference?
I'm not sure that this is related to the Select-o-Dial or not.
Can you tell me what browser you are using?
Can you try a different browser just to check?
Can to view threads without being logged-in. Does that make any difference?
I'm not sure that this is related to the Select-o-Dial or not.
The latest code changes have put a considerable increase on CPU processing load. The vintage computer I use at a work location (WinNT4, dual CPU but speed in the lower-100Mhz range, Firefox 2), lengthy threads take a much longer time to load, and a few reach the point of being not workable. However, no problem on the "modern" systems @ home.
Glen a few questions:
When you say "The latest code changes" do you specifically mean since I've implemented the Select-o-Dial menu, or since earlier changes such as the Wash-Rinse-Spin buttons?
The earliest computer I have access to is from about 2001 and it runs just fine on that. What year that <100mhz computer from?
On that vintage NT4 computer can you temporarily turn Javascript off and see if the speed increases just as an experiment and let me know. Thanks!
When you say "The latest code changes" do you specifically mean since I've implemented the Select-o-Dial menu, or since earlier changes such as the Wash-Rinse-Spin buttons?
The earliest computer I have access to is from about 2001 and it runs just fine on that. What year that <100mhz computer from?
On that vintage NT4 computer can you temporarily turn Javascript off and see if the speed increases just as an experiment and let me know. Thanks!
Hey Robert, I'm using IE 6.0 on Windows 98, and I have a broadband connection. Being logged in or not makes no difference. Will attempt to try a different browser tomorrow. Thanks for your quick response.
Robert, replying from the system in question. I built it in mid-1998. Dual 333Mhz processors (faster than I remembered!), 512 MB RAM. 8 MB video RAM. A dinosaur, LOL.
The Select-O-Dial addition seems to be the cause. The Wash-Rinse-Spin icons slow down loading of the index pages a very slight amount, but not enough to be of consequence. This thread, however, took 149.922 seconds (2.48 mins) to finish loading, with Javascript enabled. There are some pictures in this thread, but the Internet connection here is DSL and picture-heavy pages have not been a problem so I don't think that's related to the slowness. Number of posts in the thread is related. The discussion about the new Whirlpool machine that was in Deluxe (it seems to have disappeared now) got long enough that I couldn't view it here.
The Select-O-Dial addition seems to be the cause. The Wash-Rinse-Spin icons slow down loading of the index pages a very slight amount, but not enough to be of consequence. This thread, however, took 149.922 seconds (2.48 mins) to finish loading, with Javascript enabled. There are some pictures in this thread, but the Internet connection here is DSL and picture-heavy pages have not been a problem so I don't think that's related to the slowness. Number of posts in the thread is related. The discussion about the new Whirlpool machine that was in Deluxe (it seems to have disappeared now) got long enough that I couldn't view it here.
With Javascript disabled ... 5.688 seconds.
Thank you Glen, that is excellent and extremely helpful information.
I suspect the problem here is the local computers RAM memory (or lack of a larger more modern memory amount). The menus are loaded into RAM since each menu has to be slightly different if there are 50 or 100 menus it probably running low on memory.
Since I cannot detect the amount of memory on a users computer but I can detect their operating system, I wonder if I should change the Select-o-Dial to simple roll-over icons on any operating system that is Windows 98 or earlier?
Has anyone else noticed that viewing large threads has slowed considerable since I launched the Select-o-Dial on April 29th? I'm only referring to viewing threads here. What about Mac users with older mac machines?
I suspect the problem here is the local computers RAM memory (or lack of a larger more modern memory amount). The menus are loaded into RAM since each menu has to be slightly different if there are 50 or 100 menus it probably running low on memory.
Since I cannot detect the amount of memory on a users computer but I can detect their operating system, I wonder if I should change the Select-o-Dial to simple roll-over icons on any operating system that is Windows 98 or earlier?
Has anyone else noticed that viewing large threads has slowed considerable since I launched the Select-o-Dial on April 29th? I'm only referring to viewing threads here. What about Mac users with older mac machines?
Bump
Just want to be sure, since I've only heard from two people about this I will ask this question again:
Has anyone else noticed that viewing large threads has slowed considerable since I launched the Select-o-Dial on April 29th? I'm only referring to viewing threads here. What about Mac users with older mac machines?
Just want to be sure, since I've only heard from two people about this I will ask this question again:
Has anyone else noticed that viewing large threads has slowed considerable since I launched the Select-o-Dial on April 29th? I'm only referring to viewing threads here. What about Mac users with older mac machines?
Tried to download Mozilla Firefox yesterday, but it says it's not compatible with Widows 98. Anyone have suggestions for any other browser that would work with Windows 98? I'd like a new PC, but just can't afford it now. Thanks.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
I now own a Wascomat washer- Latest: adam-aussie-vac
-
-
