Web development forum

Forums pop up left, right and centre. I moderate a few forums and frequent forums a lot more, I wanted to try my hand at owning one.

I picked up a copy of Xenforo, a cool theme and got some friends to help me moderate. How does my site look?

http://webmonkeys.io/

 

Xenforo is a great choice. Looks good with that theme.

You just need content to attract more members and traffic from SE. Good luck!

PS: Your BMW S1000RR is awesome. RIDE SAFE!

PSS: also it seems you have spam problems, this user "ShopPakistan" is spamming his profile.

 

Haha, the content I'm working on and thanks about the comments about my S1K! Brilliant bike, it's the 2016 so the colours are awesome too!

Yeah, just seen the spam, I shall deal with it! CAPTCHA won't stop committed people!

 

It's nice and simple, I like it. Like previously mentioned, content is key to forum success.

I would also recommend small descriptions to each forum just to guide the user through your website. Best of luck!

 

Thanks, I'm working on content!

 

Setting aside the bloated mess that is xenforo if I were to try to use as a forums I'd be using noscript and user.css via Stylish to even TRY and use it...

Well, that theme has MAJOR usability issues. I could run down the laundry list like a broken record as I always do, but just read section 1 here:
http://www.cutcodedown.com/article/whats_wrong_with_YOUR_website_part1

1.2, 1.3, and 1.5 all directly apply and would be the big things I'd address -- absurdly undersized fixed metric (pixel) fonts, colour contrasts far below accessibility minimums (exacerbated by the high contrast sectionals), and goofy crappy webfont. (not a fan).

Though being xenforo much like here, sections 2, 3 and 4 of that article ALL apply in that traditional "If you don't know what's wrong with this"

<div id="loginBar">
	<div class="pageContent">
		<span class="helper"></span>
	</div>
	<div class="pageWidth">
		
		
		
	</div>
</div>
	
	
	
		<div id="uix_paneContainer" class="off-canvas-wrapper">
			
				<aside class="uix_sidePane left-off-canvas-content">
	
		<div class="uix_sidePane_content uix_offCanvasNavigation">
<ul>

Code (markup):

... kind of way. Just look at the massive static scripting in the markup, scripting only elements in the markup... Gah!

 

I did not expect a reply from you. It's funny because I wasn't actually logged in to Digitalpoint, I was just looking over the PHP section, looking for a reason to login and be able to help. I realise that you've answered everything, so I started to snoop on your profile and noticed you'd posted here!

Thanks for your input. This is my first time using Xenforo and, the usability of it is not entirely bad. The code, though, is awful. But, it does do it's job and there's no need for me at all to go and re-invent the wheel with something I could create myself. It'd take far too long. If, by some miracle, the forum was ever huge then sure, I'd create something myself!

As for the theme, I'll look in to it. That code is apart of the UIX engine that the theme runs. The theme owners are obsessed with it, but I'm not too keen. However, I do like the theme. It was a bit of a stand-off, really...nice theme > work involved to change it?

I appreciate you commenting and clearly taking an in-depth look. Other than your disagreement with the web font and badly structured HTML, the issues you have seen are fairly minor. Which is good. Maybe one day the forum will be large enough for me to site down and create something using Laravel, which, if you've looked over the forum you'll know I love. And, if the forum was large enough, I'd have someone like you there answering all the questions before I get any chance at all!

 

You hit it on the head, the biggest problems -- the accessibility woes in font sizes and colour contrasts -- are fairly minor and shouldn't be too hard to fix. Make that dark grey on the black brighter, switch any px font declarations to EM's, make sure the element widths are in EM's so that the layout is flexible and doesn't break -- done.

Shouldn't be too hard to fix if you have any experience with document inspection tools. I often badmouth things like dragonfly/firebug when working on your own code -- it's your code you should know what it's doing -- but they're invaluable when working with other people's code to track down where the applied values are coming from.... though honestly the improvements to the ones built into Edge, 11, FF and Chrome means no longer diving for extensions to handle it, and to be frank are far superior to the joke they were just a few years ago.

 

Oh, yeah. No doubt, Chrome developer tools is my best friend. The trouble with Xenforo as you probably know already is the awful way in which templates work, using the Xenforo markup. Not only that, this UIX engine focusses so hard on making everything dynamic and changeable from an admin panel that the CSS is served via PHP and has all the variables in it. But, I will try and find them. I've never worked with UIX before, and I'd prefer the template to be straight up Bootstrap. I love Bootstrap! This is my first time touching Xenforo though, so I'll keep working on it.

 

Whereas I call it bootcrap for a reason... Bloated nonsense that results in garbage presentational use of classes.

... and yeah, serving CSS from the PHP is pretty jacktarded. I always find these rubbish template engines to be nonsensical since PHP is itself for all intents and purposes a template engine. Much less nonsense like UIX that gets J2EE involved for no good reason other than making development harder.

All adding up to nonsense that results in 73k of markup and 290k of CSS spanning 5 files doing the job of 10k of markup per page and 32 to 48k of CSS for an entire site.

But somehow using more code and writing more code is "easier"? That takes a special kind of thinking... in the same way some Olympics are special.

 

Can't help but disagree, Bootstrap is superb for a great deal of development. Why waste time developing some sort of grid system CSS when you can just use Bootstrap? You can customise bootstrap down to 21k if you're that worried, or, just use flexbox at ~2k!

 

Grids are just as huffing stupid. Content dictates markup, content and markup dictate layout... but again where most people throw four to eight dozen K of HTML at a problem I usually top-out at around 24k averaging 12, and where people use several hundred K of CSS I use 12 to 32k depending on the site.

Starting out with even 21k of CSS before you've even got semantic markup or written your own code? That's just silly, and wasteful of both time and bandwidth. Much less how idioitic halfwit NONSENSE like bootcrap pisses all over the markup with vague PRESENTATIONAL use of classes.

In the traditional "If you don't know what's wrong with this:"

<nav class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-fixed-top">
      <div class="container">
        <div class="navbar-header">
          <button type="button" class="navbar-toggle collapsed" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#navbar" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="navbar">
            <span class="sr-only">Toggle navigation</span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
            <span class="icon-bar"></span>
          </button>
          <a class="navbar-brand" href="#">Project name</a>
        </div>
        <div id="navbar" class="collapse navbar-collapse">
          <ul class="nav navbar-nav">
            <li class="active"><a href="#">Home</a></li>
            <li><a href="#about">About</a></li>
            <li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li>
          </ul>
        </div><!--/.nav-collapse -->
      </div>
    </nav>

Code (markup):

"... you probably shouldn't be making websites" kind of way. I'm supposed to believe that nearly 1k of markup doing the job of a quarter that is good programming and "easier"? BULL-FREAKING-****!

Quite literally writing the same thing I'd have:

	<input type="checkbox" id="menuCheck">
	<label for="menuCheck"></label>
	<ul id="mainMenu">
		<li class="active"><a href="#">Home</a></li>
		<li><a href="#about">About</a></li>
		<li><a href="#contact">Contact</a></li>
	</ul>

Code (markup):

Maybe with an extra DIV around it depending on the style. It also wouldn't rely on scripttardery like their steaming pile of developer ineptitude does since CSS3's :checked, sibling selectors, and generated content can do our heavy lifting on mobile/responsive.

Czech this out, drop this in the media query when the screen is too small for the menu:

#menuCheck { position:absolute; left:-999em; }
#menuCheck+label:before { content : "show menu" }
#menuCheck:checked+label:before { content : "hide menu"}
#mainMenu { display:none; }
#menuCheck:checked~#mainMenu { display:block; }

Adjust the generated content to the ambiguous ui asshat hamburger icon crap if desired.... but that does the same thing using a input and label as their bloated mess of scripttardery and presentational use of classes.

Then people wonder why I constantly tell developers to find a stick to scrape the bootcrap off with, and keep referring to "JS for nothing"

JS for nothing and your scripts for free, that ain't workin', that's not how you do it; lemme tell ya, these guys ARE dumb.

I want my, I want my, I want my PHP.

 

See, I still don't agree. You're dropping usability to save 600 bytes of code. I'd rather have a nice collapsible menu with smooth transitioning than save 600 bytes of code. I think your programming style adheres to a much older standard, where 20k would be detrimental. I believe in creating fast applications, don't get me wrong. I'll fuss over the size of an image or CSS files that are too large, but the size of Bootstrap? That's pedantic!

You could also use Flex, as mentioned, but to make it cross-browser compatible, you'll need to do some work and I don't think you'd approve of any CSS file that has more than 10 lines! I will agree with you that the markup is messy, but that point is null when considering the amount of time it has saved me over the time I've used it. If a client ever said to me; "My site takes 1 second to load because Bootstrap is struggling over my 10kbps connection, make it smaller but keep all of the cross-browser compatibility and modal windows", then I think it's time to worry.

Edit: wrong terminology

 

Which you can let CSS do, just use transitions and overflow... though since the ONLY reason for the "hide the menu" garbage is for small displays, and small displays are battery powered, animated asshattery scripted or CSS3 is just a waste of battery power - which is why more and more users are blocking JS.

Thing is that's a 25% reduction to just one PART of the code, usually you take the average mouth-breathing halfwit broken inaccessible nonsense bootcrap developers vomit up and have the unmitigated gall to call a website and apply what I'm saying you reduce the ENTIRE PAGE's markup 50 to 80%, use a fraction the CSS, a fraction the total number of files, meaning the difference between a 30 second pageload and a 3 second one.

With idiocy like frameworks that usually ends up being 200k or more in several dozen files by the time a site is crapped together with them... and with the impending bandwidth crunch, more and more places having bandwidth caps with charged overages (Canada, Oz), or flat out cutoffs of service (Kiwi's) you're seeing more and more people blocking scripts, blocking images, and telling fat bloated slow website to go plow themselves.

Hence why google now penalizes slow loading scripting heavy sites -- a laugh from a company that then pisses on websites with bloated slow loading scripttardery like thier ad service and allegedly useful tracking crap that should be redundant to things the server should already be recording. :/

Given that it's not just it's css but how it pisses on the markup with presentational classes, and relies on scripttardery to do things CSS can do without scripting, it's not just the ridiculous size of the library (Even minified) but also the bullshit hoops and time wasted trying to use it... the laugh being the claims of it improving accessibility whilst telling users with accessibility needs to go plow themselves!

If it's "saving you time" you're either vomiting out broken inaccessible disasters, or don't know enough about HTML or CSS. Admittedly, I say the same thing about EVERY web framework.

I have NEVER seen a site sleazed together with bootcrap that was worth a damn - - but then I say that about sites that start life as a PSD so YMMV.

Literally, NEVER seen one. STILL waiting for someone to prove me wrong. It is the pinnacle of developer ignorance, stupidity and sloth.

 

It looks good! You definitely need some content on it though!

 

Well, we obviously have very different ideas of how sites should look and feel, because Bootstrap can produce some beautiful sites. If you want some examples, browse through Themeforest. You can't honestly say that ALL of the themes on there are bad. You're either lying to save face and admit that Bootstrap sites can be beautiful or your idea of a beautiful site is something dreadful (and all signs point to the latter).

I've been a developer for over 10 years, I know HTML and CSS perfectly fine, I just think a lot of your ideals are outdated, massively.

But, each to their own!

 

Which I consider a bunch of scam artist bullshit because the sites there are bloated slow loading accessibility TRAIN WRECKS; Typically sleazed together by PSD jockeys who don't know the first damned thing about HTML, CSS, much less joe forbid Accessibility norms like the Web Content Accessibility guidelines.

Doesn't matter how pretty the result if it's USELESS to visitors! But then I consider the pinnacle of good web design to be sites like Google Search and Craigslist.... You point most of these ignorant "designer" types at Craigslist and they recoil in horror at the mere SUGGESTION it's a well thought out design. This is because they view design as art, NOT engineering. It's like hiring Bob Ross when you need Charlie Frattini. It's like hiring Ferran Adrià when you need Gordon Ramsey.

End result is like building a building for business with no wheelchair access, a roof too flat and improperly shored up to survive a winter, and skipping seeing if the ground is too moist to support the building without turning into a sinkhole.

I've never come across one that was worth a flying purple fish so far as accessibility, usability, and delivery of CONTENT was concerned. YES, a LOT of them are VERY pretty, but pretty is only a small part of design -- overuse of whitespace to hide a lack of content, illegible colour contrasts, fixed metric fonts, pathetically broken attempts at being responsive, and agonizingly painful load times seem to be the order of the day in the scam artist whorehouses that are most off the shelf template sites like ThemeForest or TemplateMonster.

They can be very pretty! I'm not arguing that -- they are also shit poorly coded train wrecks that flip a double bird at users with accessibility needs; 90%+ of what you'll find on those sites are instant "Hey look, if you deploy this for a business in the UK you're going to get fined" territory. This is most entirely from the lack of even acknowledging the WCAG even exists, design concepts that have ZERO damned business on websites in the first place if you care about accessibility and usability, and a general ignorance over what HTML and CSS are, or even are for.

For me, "Pretty" is pretty damned far down the list behind usability, accessibility, and speed. While they are not mutually exclusive, a lot if not all these artsy, fancy sites are useless to me and instant bounce inducing, AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE MAJOR ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES other than the need for dynamic fonts or diving for the zoom. Being aware of accessibility needs I wonder how the **** most of these sites would even have traffic since most of them tell anywhere from 20 to 50% of users to go take a flying ****.

Declare your flow and heading fonts in pixels? You just told users to go **** themselves. Fixed widths (even with responsive)? You just told users to go **** themselves. Predetermined "grids"? You just told the people writing content to go **** themselves. An entire 1920x1080 display area with six words and some massive image where you blindly hope people will scroll down? You just told users you don't care about why they landed on a site!

Pretty much EVERY template I've ever seen at those nube predating hives of scum and villainy average over 80% of the things I outline in my "What's wrong with YOUR website" article!

But sure, let's just plod on with artsy pretty websites that nobody wants to visit as a user, just so we can stroke some PSD jockey's ego. Yeah, let's say ego. I mean something else.