Revising the profile options for PunBB 1.2 (Page 1 of 2)

I don't disagree with any of you remarks & suggestions, except perhaps your initial comment regarding the stats you present:

I would argue that it means that only a fraction of a percentage of users:

1. Are aware that capability exists to turn these thing off, and;
2. Have gone looking for a way to turn them off, and;
3. Have decided to turn them off.

A majority of users do not change options, regardless whether it's in a forum profile or a desktop application (e.g. word processor). That's not a reason IMO to remove options -- though obviously Firefox developers might argue

It might be interesting to look at the percentage of users who have changed their timezone. For those who haven't, I wonder is it because they live in GMT or because they are not aware that the capability to do so exists?

A great many users, especially less seasoned ones, will tend to not use the profile. In it's current state I think it is too wordy, too long, and not focused -- please don't take that as criticism. I'd like to see it restructured so that it displays in a 800x600 window with no scrolling, and presents a series of checkboxes and textfields organized in  categories. Help for each item would be provided separately in a small popup window.

Which leaves the question (your original question!) of which options to include. Perhaps it might be useful to start a list of potentials, organized by category? e.g.,

Identity:
- Real name
- Email
- etc.

Posts:
- Show smilies
- Show images
- etc.

Signatures:
- Show signatures
- Show images in signatures
- etc.

etc.

sleddog: Restructuring the profile page completely isn't something I'm very keen on doing. I did the profile page the way it is today because I hated the way it was done in every other bulletin board. I like it this way. However, I never intended for it to be as big as it is today. One of the things that bothers me the most is the large number of checkboxes for options.

What I need help with is to determine which options PunBB 1.2 should have regarding the display of smilies, images, avatars, signatures etc. How they will be grouped or how it will be displayed is a different issue.

Edit: I agree that the statistics are inaccurate because of peoples inability to review the options, but I can't really see how it changes anything. If a piece of software has a feature, but most people are either unaware of it or choose not to use it, why keep it?

Fisrst of all I'm glad to see that you're still commited to fixing this. Sleddogs suggestion is exactly what I had in mind when posting the original request, so that one gets my vote as well, with some minor adjustments (see below).
If "Show images in posts", "Show avatars" and "Show user signatures" where dropped I don't think it would be any major problem and reducing the number of features in the profile is definately a Good Thing. But lets see what the statistics will tell - the primary concern here I guess is the compability issue.

To sum up, my suggestion for the options part of the profile is:

() Display your e-mail address.
() Hide your e-mail address but allow form e-mail.
() Hide your e-mail address and disallow form e-mail.

[] Save username and password between visits.

[] Include post in subscription e-mails.

[] Show smilies as icons.

[] Show images in post.

[] Show images in signatures

I like the possibility of turning off images, sigs, and so on. Few people use them here because it's not needed, very few use images in signatures in this forum (which are terribly annoying in most cases) and even if they do they are not big or animated. But for other forums it would be a BLESS. Don't change it!

As for images in sigs, I just disable them all, as an admin. And I think that's enough. If you want to separate imgs and smilies, well, I'll just disable both groups in my forums :D. And I think most people will do the same --just a guess, though.

Personally, I love the way PunBB handles the user profile. True, there's a lot of checkboxes that make your eyes hurt, but the options are there and while most users will ignore them, you can direct them to the right one if the need arises. I always get lost managing an account on IPB for instance. On the other hand the Admin panel at PunBB is a bit exhausting, but you get used to it pretty quickly.

PS. I cannot give feedback, I'm starting up.

I must say I agree with your first post Rickard, about the images.
What I wouldn't mind to see is also the signature on/one/off option (on and off I don't explain, but the one means that each users sig is only shown once per page, only need a small array to keep the viewed userid's, shouldn't take that much cpu time to use it)
This is also due to the thing that many people have very annoying signatures, huge colorful with irritating colors etc ....

just a suggestion, while we're in those sections anyway (I didn't see it up there, but if I did I'm sorry for having missed it )

I've given this some more thought and there's one thing I'm not sure how I'm gonna solve.

I think we all agree that a profile option that sets whether smilies are displayed as icons or not is a good thing. Adding that is a no-brainer. However, we discussed keeping the per-post setting for smilies as icons as well because people that choose to show smilies as icons may want to disable it for certain posts. Now, here's the problem. If I choose to not view smilies as icons in my profile the per-post settings doesn't make any sense for me. Why have an options for showing/hiding smiliey icons when I've already setup my account to never display them at all? You see the problem?

Yeah, your right. Thanks.

I would prefer to have external links open in a new window, and local ones in the same window.   If you are going to remove the option from the profile, then you might set it up in the code to automatically do this.

Myself, I'd prefer to see the option remain in the profile, and leave it in the user's hands to make the choice.

Whether the option is included or not doesn't really matter to me, but I'd just like to clarify what I said and meant.

First off, I don't think it is a classic discussion. The "classic discussion" you're referring to pertains to whether links should be coded to open in a new window or the same window, perhaps with a determining factor like whether or not they are "external" links. I think that discussion (and method of HTML coding) is passe. What I raised is a new discussion.

Modern web browsers (like Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, and others, especially on non-windows platforms) are about putting more control of web browsing in the hands of users. Thats why we see features like popup-blocking, javascript controls that prevent (for example) statusbar hijacking, the ability to load alternate stylesheets, etc. Included with this are features that allow the user to control how and when new windows (or tabs) are opened. It is my discussion, everytime I click a link, whether it should open in the same window or a new window (or tab), not the webmaster's decision.

dhdesign says he'd prefer to "...leave it in the user's hands to make the choice". That's exactly what I mean, except that today, the user is able to make that choice using his/her web browser technology, according to his/her decision for each individual link. The profile option represents a decision of the webmaster about which links (e.g., "external" links) should be opened in new windows. Again, that decision should be the user's to make.

Dividing links into "internal" and "external" classes may be seen as entirely arbitrary decision by some users (like me). When I'm reading a post in a BB and the post contains a link to another post on the same board (an "internal" link), I might want to open that link in a new window (or tab) and preserve my place in the original window. When I post a request for help in a BB and someone responds with a reference web site that will help solve my problem (an "external" link), I may want to go to the new site immediately in the current window -- I'm done with that BB for now.

Web links are interconnections between information sources, and how each person uses those sources will differ. Modern web browsers provide users with much more efficient and flexible capabilities for traversing the Internet. Web sites should (IMO) get out of the "open in a new window" business and let users manage their own web browsing with the tools they have.

Just my 2 cents. I'll shut up now

Well I said I'd shut up on this, and I will -- except to offer an apology on the "he'd" part.

sleddog: You make a good argument. I agree with you 100%. The only question now is if we should keep the option or not. As you might have noticed, if I get the change to remove something from PunBB, I jump at the occation. It's your job to make sure I don't remove too much :)

Very good - that's exactly how I think it should be. The only thing that bothers me is the help texts -  they are not 100% consistent, some of them telling what happens if the option is enabled some what happens if the options is disabled. It's not a big deal and not sure I could do better, english is not my native tounge, but I think providing good help to the users should be a high priority.