Topic: A new convert

After experimenting with ikonboard, e-blah and PunBB I've realised that only PunBB offers the sort of quality that I was looking for. As someone who is very particular about quality (aka an anal twit smile I didn't like certain things about PunBB initially, but compared to the others that I've tried it is streets ahead. So PunBB it is for me, I'm a convert.
          .
I'd like to thank everyone involved in making PunBB into what it is for having done such a fine job.

Positives
---------
Templates
Formatted/indented HTML
Nice URLs and titles!
Header usage resulting in good document outline (very rare)
Good quality UI
Not just valid HTML Strict code, but skillfully crafted HTML and CSS (very rare again)
Street lenghts ahead compared to e-blah and ikonboard (which are not the worst by some margin)

Being the anal twit that I am, I have to have a moan:

Not my choice
-------------
Cookie dependency, silent failing if not enabled
Definition list usage (not used semantically)
Float "CSS layout" (not a good way to create a page layout)
Accesskeys (harmful to accessibility)
XHTML instead of HTML (easy to change tho)
CSS to verbose & fragile (difficult to integrate into an existing site design)

And my

Whishlist
---------
Spambot protection
More granularity for board features (for example board stats inclusion, although easely removed from the code)
Single step creation of a new forum and it's name
Option to not to offer users to choose a stylesheet (deleting all but one of the CSS files works, but it's a bit silly to offer a choice of one)
Indent offset for PHP generated HTML to fit into existing site code (use the indentation from the template?)
More consitent indentation of <div>s

Finally the provisional result of my wrestling match with PunBB's code (the actual board is not online yet): http://homepage.ntlworld.ie/spartanicus/punbb.png

2 (edited by Jansson 2006-11-08 15:42)

Re: A new convert

I will try to counter some of your suggestions, and explain what's already planned for 1.3 smile

Spartanicus wrote:

Not my choice
-------------
Cookie dependency, silent failing if not enabled

I don't see the problem with cookie dependancy in itself, but yeah, a message telling whoever turned it off to activate it would be neat.

Spartanicus wrote:

Definition list usage (not used semantically)
Float "CSS layout" (not a good way to create a page layout)
Accesskeys (harmful to accessibility)

The markup, along with all CSS will be rewritten for 1.3, very much with accessibility in focus. The above things will be addressed, accesskeys removed.

Spartanicus wrote:

XHTML instead of HTML (easy to change tho)

What's wrong with XHTML?

Spartanicus wrote:

CSS to verbose & fragile (difficult to integrate into an existing site design)

Apparently, the new markup/CSS will be much more flexible, making it easier to integrate.


Spartanicus wrote:

Whishlist
---------
Spambot protection

Will probably never happen, since once a protection is in there by default, it will be bypassed by every bot in a matter of days smile It will be easy to install your own protection though with the new extension system.

Spartanicus wrote:

More granularity for board features (for example board stats inclusion, although easely removed from the code)

Sorry, don't get this one smile

Spartanicus wrote:

Single step creation of a new forum and it's name

Well, there's not really a reason not to do it. But it's not a priority because, let's face it, you don't create forums that often.

Spartanicus wrote:

Option to not to offer users to choose a stylesheet (deleting all but one of the CSS files works, but it's a bit silly to offer a choice of one)

I thought having only one style installed removed the field?

Spartanicus wrote:

Indent offset for PHP generated HTML to fit into existing site code (use the indentation from the template?)

AFAIK, would be very difficult to implement in an effective way, and PunBB is all about doing things fast smile


I hope that'll bring some clarity on where PunBB is heading.


EDIT: If you want to try out the latest of 1.3, you may hook up with the SVN (if you know how to use it). URL to 1.3 dev source: http://punbb.org/svn/punbb/branches/punbb-1.3-dev (Note that it's not ready for regular use at all, and we're not yet open for bug reports etc. of it)

Re: A new convert

Spartanicus wrote:

Not my choice
-------------
Cookie dependency, silent failing if not enabled

It's impossible for PHP to detect if cookies are enabled, unless you check if the cookie is set after logging in.

Float "CSS layout" (not a good way to create a page layout)

I personally like the way the CSS is done in PunBB. It's perfectly valid and works just fine.

XHTML instead of HTML (easy to change tho)

What might be the problem here? XHTML is the new standard that should be used everywhere.

CSS to verbose & fragile (difficult to integrate into an existing site design)

It's quite easy to integrate IMO. The only thing you can screw up in PunBB is the text colour =P

Re: A new convert

Jansson wrote:

I don't see the problem with cookie dependancy in itself, but yeah, a message telling whoever turned it off to activate it would be neat.

People switch stuff off for a reason, telling users to stop doing that or arguing that "there's nothing wrong with cookies" is not a good solution.  Usually when I encounter a site that insists on cookies (or javascript) I find a better site, did I mention that I'm the obstinate type? wink

But the drawback of the alternative will probably be that a session ID will have to be stuck on the URL. This would degrade the currently very clean PunBB URLs, but if used only for clients that do not accept cookies I'd consider it a big plus.

I've participated on forums that employ at least 3 different sorts of board software, all of them work without me having to accept cookies. At least a routine should be used to check if cookies are accepted (by immediately reading it back), and the user informed that PunBB doesn't work without cookies if that fails.

Jansson wrote:

The markup, along with all CSS will be rewritten for 1.3, very much with accessibility in focus. The above things will be addressed, accesskeys removed.

Nice to know that development is continuing and that these issues were already known. Meanwhile it was not much work to remove the accesskeys from the current version.

Jansson wrote:

What's wrong with XHTML?

Everything, or nothing, depending on your angle. This isn't a discussion for this board, my opinion on XHTML is documented here: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

Jansson wrote:

Will probably never happen, since once a protection is in there by default, it will be bypassed by every bot in a matter of days smile

PunBB seems more vulnerable to spam bots than some other forum software (using CAPTHCA's for example). I'm not suggesting that there is a 100% effective method, but the amount can be drastically reduced.

PunBB not being the feature bloated software that most people go for, it seems to be appreciated by a niche market. I'm guessing that the resulting lower installed base doesn't make PunBB systems an attractive target to write the type of bot routines for that would be required to defeat the more sophisticated bot protection methods.

Jansson wrote:

It will be easy to install your own protection though with the new extension system.

Not an option for me as a non programmer, unless there is an existing extension.

Spartanicus wrote:

More granularity for board features (for example board stats inclusion, although easely removed from the code)

Sorry, don't get this one smile

PunBB places some type of user statistics info on one of the main user pages that I didn't find useful. It would be nice to be able to disable that through the administration panel, rather than having to cut it from the code as I did.

5 (edited by Jansson 2006-11-08 18:51)

Re: A new convert

Spartanicus wrote:

People switch stuff off for a reason, telling users to stop doing that or arguing that "there's nothing wrong with cookies" is not a good solution.  Usually when I encounter a site that insists on cookies (or javascript) I find a better site, did I mention that I'm the obstinate type? wink

Yeah, it's just that, nobody has every given me a valid reason to turn them off. Right, if you want to turn them off for some pages, not my problem, but give me at least one reason why not accepting cookies on a board that you want to log in to?

Spartanicus wrote:

Everything, or nothing, depending on your angle. This isn't a discussion for this board, my opinion on XHTML is documented here: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

Those arguments are all true, but that doesn't provide a reason to go from XHTML to HTML, does it? As long as it's semantically correct, valid and accessible, what's the problem? (Yes, 1.2 lacks some accessibility, I'll give you that tongue)

Edit: My personal opinion (though I'm not the one writing the markup for Pun, so it doesn't really matter in this case) would be that so-called "trouble" of writing XHTML, is all based on skill. I find it easier to write valid XHTML than HTML, since that's what I've been doing the last years,

Spartanicus wrote:
Jansson wrote:

Will probably never happen, since once a protection is in there by default, it will be bypassed by every bot in a matter of days smile

PunBB seems more vulnerable to spam bots than some other forum software (using CAPTHCA's for example). I'm not suggesting that there is a 100% effective method, but the amount can be drastically reduced.

PunBB not being the feature bloated software that most people go for, it seems to be appreciated by a niche market. I'm guessing that the resulting lower installed base doesn't make PunBB systems an attractive target to write the type of bot routines for that would be required to defeat the more sophisticated bot protection methods.

Please don't split my paragraphs, read on:

Spartanicus wrote:
Jansson wrote:

It will be easy to install your own protection though with the new extension system.

Not an option for me as a non programmer, unless there is an existing extension.

The new extension system (which I was referring to) comes with 1.3 and will make it a matter of clicking a link to install an extension. No programming skills needed.

Spartanicus wrote:

PunBB places some type of user statistics info on one of the main user pages that I didn't find useful. It would be nice to be able to disable that through the administration panel, rather than having to cut it from the code as I did.

If you want total control of your board, code is the way to go. An admin option like this would be what many refer to as "bloat", and might fit in more heavy board packages. The stats data has it's own variable in the 1.3 templates though, so it will be far more easy to remove it there.

Re: A new convert

Jansson wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:

People switch stuff off for a reason, telling users to stop doing that or arguing that "there's nothing wrong with cookies" is not a good solution.  Usually when I encounter a site that insists on cookies (or javascript) I find a better site, did I mention that I'm the obstinate type? wink

Yeah, it's just that, nobody has every given me a valid reason to turn them off. Right, if you want to turn them off for some pages, not my problem, but give me at least one reason why not accepting cookies on a board that you want to log in to?

There you go again, arguing with a user about their choice. Not a good solution. My site development philosophy is to not rely on any optional technology, that includes CSS, images, javascript, cookies, Java, Flash etc. etc. The PunBB developers have made a considerable effort to produce accessible forum software with fine results. The reliance on cookies and the "switch them on then" or "what's the problem" response is therefore rather suprising. This isn't about catering to my particular quirks, blocking all cookies is not uncommon. While it may only be a single digit percentage of people doing this, as I've stated before I consider not relying on optional technologies a fundamental mark of quality authoring, figures don't come into it (even though a few percent most certainly matters a lot in my trade).

Jansson wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:

Everything, or nothing, depending on your angle. This isn't a discussion for this board, my opinion on XHTML is documented here: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

Those arguments are all true, but that doesn't provide a reason to go from XHTML to HTML, does it?

If the reasons in favor of a technology are bogus then adopting the technology is unwise, if only not to further the bogosity.

Jansson wrote:

As long as it's semantically correct, valid and accessible, what's the problem? (Yes, 1.2 lacks some accessibility, I'll give you that tongue)

Certainly structural and semantic correctness is what it is really about, but HTML has the exact same features to express those. Btw, there is no XHTML1.2.

Re: A new convert

Spartanicus wrote:

There you go again, arguing with a user about their choice. Not a good solution. My site development philosophy is to not rely on any optional technology, that includes CSS, images, javascript, cookies, Java, Flash etc. etc. The PunBB developers have made a considerable effort to produce accessible forum software with fine results. The reliance on cookies and the "switch them on then" or "what's the problem" response is therefore rather suprising. This isn't about catering to my particular quirks, blocking all cookies is not uncommon. While it may only be a single digit percentage of people doing this, as I've stated before I consider not relying on optional technologies a fundamental mark of quality authoring, figures don't come into it (even though a few percent most certainly matters a lot in my trade).

I'm not really arguing with you to turn it on, I just want to know why you turned it off. Developing without the requirement of any optional technology is of course a good approach, but from the user's POV, not having support for it is not the same thing as turning it off smile

Oh well, I hope there would be some kind of a solution of this coming into 1.3, so we can end this discussion once and for all. You're not the first one to mention it.

Spartanicus wrote:

Btw, there is no XHTML1.2.

No, but there is a PunBB 1.2.

Re: A new convert

I'm pretty sure PunBB can be easily modified to use HTTP authentication, but you'd lose some stuff that is in the cookie =/

Re: A new convert

Jansson wrote:

I'm not really arguing with you to turn it on, I just want to know why you turned it off.

Privacy concerns, I don't want to be tracked. Nothing to do with shady activities, I primarily object to the type of tracking used to gather information about my interests and the consequent targeted advertising.

Selectively dealing with cookies is a royal bother, so the easy way is to simply not accept any.

Note that I am well aware of other tracking methods based on IP logging and/or reverse DNS, but few go to that length.

Jansson wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:

Btw, there is no XHTML1.2.

No, but there is a PunBB 1.2.

Ah, since your remark was made whilst discussing HTML vs XHTML I took it to be referring to that.

Re: A new convert

Spartanicus wrote:
Jansson wrote:

Will probably never happen, since once a protection is in there by default, it will be bypassed by every bot in a matter of days smile

PunBB seems more vulnerable to spam bots than some other forum software (using CAPTHCA's for example). I'm not suggesting that there is a 100% effective method, but the amount can be drastically reduced.

PunBB not being the feature bloated software that most people go for, it seems to be appreciated by a niche market. I'm guessing that the resulting lower installed base doesn't make PunBB systems an attractive target to write the type of bot routines for that would be required to defeat the more sophisticated bot protection methods.

What kind of spam bot protection can be implemented efficiently while preserving accessibility?

Spartanicus wrote:

Certainly structural and semantic correctness is what it is really about, but HTML has the exact same features to express those.

If PunBB claims to be "Valid html" that tells you very little "Valid xhtml strict" however tells you a lot more.

Spartanicus wrote:

While it may only be a single digit percentage of people doing this.

I doubt even if you just include PunBB users anywhere near a single percentage of people completely block cookies. Its not a problem I have come across anyway.

Re: A new convert

I agree that PunBB silently failing when a client does not access cookies is bad. We need to work on that for 1.3. That doesn't mean we should implement session support though. I strongly dislike URL-propagated session IDs. They're ugly, insecure and it just feels like a big hack.

Spartanicus wrote:

Spambot protection

I'm all for spambot protection, but as someone already pointed out, I don't believe there are any good protection schemes that are also truly accessible.

Spartanicus wrote:

More granularity for board features (for example board stats inclusion, although easely removed from the code)

This should be better in 1.3.

Spartanicus wrote:

Indent offset for PHP generated HTML to fit into existing site code (use the indentation from the template?)
More consitent indentation of <div>s

Finally someone who's on my side! I've been referred to as the indentation nazi smile No, but really, the problem with going all the way with the indentation from the template is that we would need to indent everything two or three tabs. Not just the markup that we output when we're in markup mode (?>), but the markup we output in PHP mode (<?php). It's a lot more work than it sounds like smile

"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."

Re: A new convert

Rickard wrote:

I agree that PunBB silently failing when a client does not access cookies is bad. We need to work on that for 1.3. That doesn't mean we should implement session support though. I strongly dislike URL-propagated session IDs. They're ugly, insecure and it just feels like a big hack.

Great to learn that the silent failing issue is being considered for a fix. I'd like to stress that I'd be quite happy if PunBB were to ask a user to allow cookies for a site if they are rejected initially. I'd also again like to mention that I do appreciate the currently clean PunBB URLs.

Rickard wrote:

I'm all for spambot protection, but as someone already pointed out, I don't believe there are any good protection schemes that are also truly accessible.

Perhaps my worry about being spammed will turn out to be unfounded. The current spam protection method of emailing a password to a user does create a bit of a barrier in itself, it requires users who try to avoid spam to trust the forum's administrator not to use the provided email address inappropriately.

Spartanicus wrote:

Indent offset for PHP generated HTML to fit into existing site code (use the indentation from the template?)
More consitent indentation of <div>s

Rickard wrote:

Finally someone who's on my side! I've been referred to as the indentation nazi smile

smile For what it's worth I certainly appreciate the indentation, after a bit of experimentation the PunBB code is now an almost indistinguisable part of my site code.

Once again thanks for having done such a fine job.

Re: A new convert

Spartanicus wrote:
Rickard wrote:

I'm all for spambot protection, but as someone already pointed out, I don't believe there are any good protection schemes that are also truly accessible.

Perhaps my worry about being spammed will turn out to be unfounded. The current spam protection method of emailing a password to a user does create a bit of a barrier in itself, it requires users who try to avoid spam to trust the forum's administrator not to use the provided email address inappropriately.

There are mods around to add image verification etc and I think the theory is that for PunBB 1.3 there will be a few spambot protection extensions which you will be able to choose from smile