[4.0.x] Chameleon: no more first unread post links

[AmigoJack]

As it stands now there is no plan to link to anything other than the first and last post as those are the only links that make sense semantically to link to!

Why is the link to the first unread post about to disappear? Am I in a minority actually using this, i.e. as per egosearch to then quickly see which topics I've participated in have new posts and to directly go to the first unread?

How does such a link not "make sense semantically"? Is this a team decision?

Can you define "latest unread" in an programmatically evaluable way?

Whoever is not aware of this feature: the board marks for each topic/forum which posts/topics have been displayed to you, storing a timestamp for each topic/forum. Thanks to these topics/posts can be displayed differently, indicating new posts since your last visit. It also comes with a link, currently displayed as a tiny red page (also note the URL which clearly addresses this feature):

It is a great help to not lose track of what you read already, especially in large topics/forums that span over dozens of pages and where neither first nor last post/topic is a help.

[warmweer]

Can you define "latest unread" in an programmatically evaluable way?

That quote comes from the main board where the word "latest" was used and "latest" probably means most recent, as opposed to "first" unread which semantically implies a sortorder which could be chronological (ascending or descending) or positional (which then depends on the sortorder used).
This may sound trivial and in direct communication, confusion can be fixed on the fly, but for coding a precise definition is needed.

[david63]

Am I missing something here?

I thought that "front end" provided the means for "back end" end requirements and not "front end" deciding what the "back end" should or should not do.

In my experience first unread post is one of the most used features of a board and it might as well be included because if not then it will either be included in alternative styles (assuming that the data is still provided in the back end) or it will be done as an extension.

[JoshyPHP]

As a point of reference: when logged-in, a topic's title in XenForo's "viewforum" page links to the first unread post. There's no special icon to click because it's assumed that most users want to resume reading the topic where they left off. The last post information does link to the last post.

[mrgoldy]

I must say that I pretty much only use this feature aswell.
I almost never click on an actual topic title, but rather on the topic icon, which has the unread link aswell (rather than the tiny file icon, cause who can position his mouse over that correctly anyway...)

For a custom style I created, I added this functionality to the topic titles aswell.
Where I check if there is an 'unread link' and use that instead for the topic title.

Especially, cause there is no real indicator of what my 'unread' posts are in a topic, I don't want to scroll back up and scan each post to see if I have already read it or not. Not to mention if my first unread post is on a previous page. So I would most certainly be in favor of keeping this link around.

[hanakin]

First Let me clarify somethings here. As this conversation is steaming from the discussion in the chameleon development topic on .com

Where I end by saying

New theme will have the same setup minus the icon linking to first unread for now.

This does not mean that we will not provide for this functionality. Only that Its not implemented in the current component because I do not like how we are currently handling it. There is probably a better way to handle it but I have not worked on it yet so its not implemented. Possibly how Xeneo implements it where the title is dynamic. What I am against is adding more clutter where its not required. We have all the elements we need. We just need to figure out how best to utilize them. So the icon will not be coming back. This will probably not happen until we get to the stage of integrating with the back-end however which we are no where near.

Currently we are still in the wire-framing stage for all the individual components/pages and framework testing.

We will always include rich features where necessary and possible.

Second

Am I missing something here?

I thought that "front end" provided the means for "back end" end requirements and not "front end" deciding what the "back end" should or should not do.

No that is not how things work. Both inform each other and more often front-end informs back-end on what functionality is required.

[AmigoJack]

because I do not like how we are currently handling it
...
What I am against is adding more clutter where its not required. We have all the elements we need.

Thanks, so this is not a team decision but only yours. As you can see from the replies the link is far from "not required" - please don't force your experience and perspective onto others - if no good idea has evolved yet then the solution can't be to simply kill the link in the current layout - it should be killed once the better way has been found.

We will always include rich features where necessary and possible.

I'm glad you give in, because both conditions are met. In doubt, create a poll.

[3Di]

Am I missing something here?

I thought that "front end" provided the means for "back end" end requirements and not "front end" deciding what the "back end" should or should not do.
...

So did I. It all seems counter-natural to me.

...

In my experience first unread post is one of the most used features of a board and it might as well be included because if not then it will either be included in alternative styles (assuming that the data is still provided in the back end) or it will be done as an extension.

Totally agreed.

... Both inform each other and more often front-end informs back-end on what functionality is required.

You are aware that not everyone agrees with you, how do you plan to resolve this situation on your own?
You can't expect the basic code to be totally disrupted on the basis of one person being so many behind the scenes involved.

[mrgoldy]

You guys are now just badgering and not reading properly, only reading what you want to read.

Please note, that there is a distinct difference between the ICON and the LINK.
The actual ICON is not coming back, as it just adds to the clustered topic list.
The actual LINK is not worked out yet, so no implementation has been made yet.
Meaning that there is also no decision made to completely remove the LINK.

It's even mentioned that the topic title might be dynamic: new_post_url ? new_post_url : last_post_url.
We could even make that a user preference that is set through the UCP.

Also, ofcourse the front-end decides what is needed on the back-end.
And, ofcourse the back-end decides what is needed on the front-end.
If there was no front-end, there wouldn't even need for a back-end.
You want to display something on the front-end, eg. a post, so something has to be done/changed on the back-end.
To perform it correctly on the back end, something needs to be displayed on the front-end, eg. a confirm box.
It's a two-way street..

I honestly would urge to read more carefully before making such bold statements.
Cause I am not even the person who this all is addressed to, but even I feel attacked.

And if we've all got so many good ideas and thoughts,
perhaps it's an idea to actually contribute to the development,
rather than opposing every possible change and feature.

[david63]

I honestly would urge to read more carefully before making such bold statements.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I certainly have read the topic before responding to it it's content - perhaps there is information elsewhere that is relevant but if there is then it was not linked to.

Cause I am not even the person who this all is addressed to, but even I feel attacked.

I can see no reason why you should take this personally.

My overwhelming concern in respect of the new style is that it does not destroy phpBB and just dropping one thing after another runs that risk.