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 MODsFeyFre wrote:Not an argument. The same can be said for prosilver! I do not support both templates, I support only one - subsilver2.
[RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
- DavidIQ
- Customisations Team Leader
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: subsilver2
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
viewtopic.php?p=206214#p206214DavidIQ 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.
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.
* 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.
- DavidIQ
- Customisations Team Leader
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
That was taken out of context probably because I left something out...bolverk wrote:viewtopic.php?p=206214#p206214DavidIQ 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.
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.
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.FeyFre wrote:Not an argument. The same can be said for prosilver! I do not support both templates, I support only one - subsilver2.
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
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
)
Another reason for dropping it was
Yet a third reason was given as
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
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
Another reason for dropping it was
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.It causes extra work for MOD authors to support two very different templates - many don't even bother support both templates
Yet a third reason was given as
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.Keeping two very different base templates up to date with MODs is a lot of work for users
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
- A_Jelly_Doughnut
- Registered User
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:23 pm
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
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
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
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 wasA_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:We took a survey on this topic.
I definately will not post an announcement, since this is quite simply irrelevant to any regular phpBB user.
I'd say the deck was stacked against them before most potential supporters even knew it was a possibility.A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:No one expressed support for continuing subsilver2.
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.
Your user base will be the ones living with it.A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:If the conclusions were wrong, we'll live with it.
- A_Jelly_Doughnut
- Registered User
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:23 pm
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
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
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
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
Any change that negatively impacts (from their perspective) a large number of users would be the first red flag I would look for.A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:And I certainly can't predict what will be controversial.
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.A_Jelly_Doughnut wrote:I opened another topic. http://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopi ... &t=2098665
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
I never have used Subsilver2, i don't like the images etc. So it's no problem for me!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.
- EXreaction
- Registered User
- Posts: 1555
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am
Re: [RFC|Accepted] Removal of subsilver2
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).
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).