[RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2

These RFCs were either rejected or have been replaced by an alternative proposal. They will not be included in phpBB.
Locked
User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1834
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: subsilver2

Post by DavidIQ »

FeyFre wrote:Not an argument. The same can be said for prosilver! I do not support both templates, I support only one - subsilver2.
Then I guess you don't have any MODs in the MODDB that require style edits since we require prosilver edits, when needed, to be included in the MODX of all submitted and approved MODs ;) In other words you are in the minority. And, for the most part and from what I've seen in the MODs in Development forum, subsilver2 is usually the style that is brushed aside. For instance I had to make the subilver2 edits for this MOD because the author couldn't be bothered with creating them himself, which is perfectly fine btw as we don't require them anyways.
Image

bolverk
I've been banned
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by bolverk »

DavidIQ wrote:And, for the most part and from what I've seen in the MODs in Development forum, subsilver2 is usually the style that is brushed aside.
viewtopic.php?p=206214#p206214
While I cannot verify the percentages offered by nn-, 61% hardly seems like it gets "brushed aside" by MOD authors especially given that you do not require them to include it in the first place. ;) With the Styles database still comprised of >50% Subsilver based styles the impact of this decision should be carefully reviewed. Just stop and think about the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of boards running Subsilver/SS based styles and what will happen to them when they go to upgrade to 3.1. I personally think the decision was premature and until you can get your hands on some realistic statistics of usage you cannot make an educated decision on whether the community still needs Subsilver to be officially supported. What I do know is that even today you have many boards that refuse to upgrade because their existing style(s) would not work if they did without redoing all their customizations, imagine that mentality multiplied a thousand fold. Trying to port a SS based custom style to a PS based style is no quick easy task, even for experienced skinners. This is a huge barrier to upgrade you are imposing on your user base, just so you understand. Of course the impact would be negligible if SS was truly the ugly stepchild nobody wanted, as has been spun by those wishing to justify dumping it. Unfortunately the *numbers don't support that position and I suspect you are soon to find out that SS is your sooty Cinderella in waiting. ;)

* numbers = MOD's that support it (~60%)/% of total Styles db that are SS based (>50%)/#1 downloaded custom style being SS based (Black Pearl)

Edit: In addition to the #1 most downloaded custom style on phpbb.com being SS based, a little checking on third party resource sites is showing that on average the top 5 most downloaded custom styles are also SS based. I'm not finding any data to support that PS is more popular than SS, the opposite in fact. Based on the usability issue of ease of customization, that is what I would actually expect to find.
Last edited by bolverk on Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DavidIQ
Customisations Team Leader
Customisations Team Leader
Posts: 1834
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by DavidIQ »

bolverk wrote:
DavidIQ wrote:And, for the most part and from what I've seen in the MODs in Development forum, subsilver2 is usually the style that is brushed aside.
viewtopic.php?p=206214#p206214
While I cannot verify the percentages offered by nn-, 61% hardly seems like it gets "brushed aside" by MOD authors especially given that you do not require them to include it in the first place. ;)
That was taken out of context probably because I left something out... :P I was responding to this:
FeyFre wrote:Not an argument. The same can be said for prosilver! I do not support both templates, I support only one - subsilver2.
Basically that MODs that only support subsilver2 are a pretty small percentage of the overall MOD picture and that he is in the minority in building MODs that only support subsilver2.
Image

bolverk
I've been banned
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by bolverk »

Ok, you were addressing MOD's that support SS only, fair enough. The way I read your reply was that SS is so little supported by modders as to be negligible, which if nn- is to be taken at face value is obviously far from true. Regardless of that, this whole RFC is comical to read as literally no data was presented to support the proposal to drop SS, other than of course it requires effort from the development team to add in the new features and is overall regarded as a "PITA" (based on anecdotal remarks from a handful of people.) Ok, so do a plus and minus column weighing the costs/benefits of dropping it. You should not add or remove features of a product without measuring the value added or lost from doing so.

The supporters of dropping seem to be saying that it will save development time by not having to maintain it. Okay, how much development time exactly will you save? Years? Months? Weeks? Days? Hours? Is it a significant amount of time and resources that clearly offsets the negative impact to the user community using SS styles? (It would have to be a fairly large time savings to even compare to the staggering amount of boards that will be affected, just an fyi :P )

Another reason for dropping it was
It causes extra work for MOD authors to support two very different templates - many don't even bother support both templates
MOD authors are not required to support SS today, so how exactly does this force extra work for them? It seems to me that if they wish to only support PS they are free to do so and the user who wants to use a MOD without SS instructions has to figure it out on their own or ask for help <-which no one is *forced* to provide. Seems quite fair and reasonable to me.

Yet a third reason was given as
Keeping two very different base templates up to date with MODs is a lot of work for users
Pardon, but isn't that choice the users? There is no requirement that boards running both style templates keep them up to date, unless they wish to. If they feel it is too much work they can quite easily not update one or the other and stop using it. I am not sure how taking away the ability to choose helps the users. :D

To be honest MOD's should not have even been a factor in the RFC as MOD's are an optional add-on and have nothing to do with the core development process. Since .com does not require SS support from MOD's, they should have no bearing in a discussion regarding SS's continued existence.

note: (in case you haven't figured it out)
SS=subsilver
PS=prosilver

User avatar
A_Jelly_Doughnut
Registered User
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:23 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by A_Jelly_Doughnut »

We took a survey on this topic. No one expressed support for continuing subsilver2. Its done. Its not coming back. If the conclusions were wrong, we'll live with it.
A_Jelly_Doughnut

bolverk
I've been banned
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by bolverk »

A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:We took a survey on this topic.
Not really. There was no survey. This was just an obscure topic on a board/site that most of the user community does not even remember exists because it was abandoned for so many years. The feedback you received prior to the "ok it is decided" was from 12 individual users (inclusive of team). You consider that representative of the phpBB user base as a whole? A survey? I don't. When you consider also the fact naderman's refusal to post information regarding the 3.1 feature discussions over on .com (to inform the masses so to speak during the process as opposed to after) his response was
I definately will not post an announcement, since this is quite simply irrelevant to any regular phpBB user.
:shock: I know I read posts here from several regular users very disturbed by the lack of visibility over on .com as to what decisions were being made over here. I certainly perceived your intent to be deliberate mitigation of input from the "regular" users in favor of quick decisions and limited debate from a non-representative microcosm. I'm not saying you hid the discussions in private forums like before, but knowing how little traffic/participation this board gets compared to .com you certainly didn't go out of your way to make the general user base aware of potentially controversial changes.
A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:No one expressed support for continuing subsilver2.
I'd say the deck was stacked against them before most potential supporters even knew it was a possibility.
A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:Its done. Its not coming back.

Nothing is done until 3.1 is released. A decision made without valid data or incomplete data should not be exempt from being revisited. There is no shame in backtracking when you find yourself on the wrong path, there is shame in continuing down the wrong path even after you know you are on the wrong path.
A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:If the conclusions were wrong, we'll live with it.
Your user base will be the ones living with it. :P

User avatar
A_Jelly_Doughnut
Registered User
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:23 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by A_Jelly_Doughnut »

I don't claim to be all knowing. I can't claim to see the inside of a sealed envelope. And I certainly can't predict what will be controversial.

You're of course right that it would be cheaper in every way to fix a errant decision now instead of later.

So, I did what anyone can do. I opened another topic. http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=2098665
A_Jelly_Doughnut

bolverk
I've been banned
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by bolverk »

A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:And I certainly can't predict what will be controversial.
Any change that negatively impacts (from their perspective) a large number of users would be the first red flag I would look for. :P I would say dumping SS support meets that criteria. Rename MSNM to WLM <- not so much. ;) There is no psychic hotline involved, merely basic impact analysis skills. The greater the number of users affected by a proposal the more due diligence must be done to understand the impact. :D
A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:I opened another topic. http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=2098665
Styles Support & Discussion? I thought you wanted people to see it..... phpBB Discussion is where I would have (and actually have before) posted something I wanted to bring attention to with the intent of reaching the largest audience possible. Styles Support is where topics go to die. :lol: :lol: :P

Mark1200
Registered User
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:26 am

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by Mark1200 »

A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:We took a survey on this topic. No one expressed support for continuing subsilver2. Its done. Its not coming back. If the conclusions were wrong, we'll live with it.
I never have used Subsilver2, i don't like the images etc. So it's no problem for me!

User avatar
EXreaction
Registered User
Posts: 1555
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am

Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2

Post by EXreaction »

It is still possible to have a prosilver based style that looks very close to subsilver2 with only modifying the CSS.

Additional development work is one part of the problem of two styles, another big part being that many mods do not support both and as such a large audience is potentially left to figuring out how to edit their style by modifying the given instructions to fit their own style (which most are unable to do).

Locked