How do I get a more dense view of threads / posts

[Tesla DeLorean]

How can I get a more Classic Forum view, say just the Subject/Title, like an email client, where I can see 50 posts, perhaps 25 to the physical height of the screen?

Posting to main "Board" as there isn't a selection for "About Forum" or more appropriate venue.

Also no appropriate "Label"

[STOne-32]

@Lina_DABASINSKAITE  Your help is much appreciated @Amel NASRI 

[Amel NASRI]

Hi @Tesla DeLorean ,

You can customize your view from Your Profile > Settings > Preferences > Display.

I let @Lina_DABASINSKAITE confirm or provide appropriate answer to your questions.

-Amel

[Amelie ACKERMANN]

Hello @Tesla DeLorean,
as mentioned, you can customize your personal settings to define the number of topics to display on the page when viewing a forum board. However, if I understand your request correctly, you suggest only seeing the title/subject line of a post without the currently following teaser of the first few lines of the question. This would require a change in the CSS style. We will pass on your suggestion to Khoros as platform provider and get back to you as soon as we have more information on the feasibility. 

Thanks,
Amelie

[Tesla DeLorean]

I don't think the current settings can achieve what I'm looking for. The image shows my screen height and relative density of the SparkFun vs ST Forum post list views. My gmail view is twice as dense as the SparkFun's, and I can increase or decrease the density/size via Ctrl[+] or Ctrl[-]

ST Implementation show about 4 post details per screen, vs 16 or so from SparkFun

Think of it as a more Executive / Manager view point, the title should convey enough detail to engage or not, and I can see replies/views and authors at a glance.

[Lina_DABASINSKAITE]

Hi @Tesla DeLorean , 

Thanks for sharing. I can't promise the exact solution you pointed out but we will work on it with the UX team to make the activity display more extensive. 

BR,
Lina

[LWChris]

For the time being, I have created a userstyle: https://userstyles.world/style/12669/community-st-com-condensed

.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile {
 padding: 10px 0;
}
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > footer .UserAvatar > img,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > footer .UserAvatar > img {
 height: 25px;
 width: 25px;
}
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > div h3,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > div h3 {
 font-size: 16px;
 padding: 8px 0 4px;
}
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > div p,
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > div figure,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > div p,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > div figure {
 display: none;
}
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > aside,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > aside {
 font-size: 10pt;
}
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > div h3 *,
.custom-message-list article.custom-message-tile > aside *,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > div h3 *,
.message-list article.custom-message-tile > aside * {
 font-size: inherit !important;
}

Preview image of the forum with the userstyle applied

[Lina_DABASINSKAITE]

Hello @LWChris , 

Thanks for the effort and proposal, looks great! We are currently working on a "new look" and will implement the change once ready.

Regards,
Lina

[LWChris]

Hello @Lina_DABASINSKAITE ,

that's great news! My userstyle was a quick makeshift solution, until the official "new look" is available from the settings, which obviously has a lot more potential by shuffling or reformatting the contents entirely.

The style's not perfect, but in the meantime it's getting the job done "good enough" I guess. I can get 9 topics in the space where usually 3 and a headline would've been. And most importantly, it's available now, giving your team as much time as necessary to thoroughly develop the actual board feature, while users have a simple way to achieve a better experience during the wait.

Best regards,
Chris

[waclawek.jan]

Looks like this has been implemented ":natively".

One small step, and took not even even half a year.

JW

[waclawek.jan]

Before we get too excited about one change from the dozens needed - which was probably just a click in setup, as we've seen this arrangement elsewhere on the site already - let's discuss how could it be at least a bit closer to being actually usable:

Remove all marked items. There's absolutely no need for the "by", for "Posted in"; there's no use of the "social ranks" in the list of threads (which has confusing to inappropriate naming anyway). And there's no use of the sorting, either - sorting 10+ years' of threads by popularity or whatnot makes absolutely no sense.

Less unneeded things means more space for better layout. It also means less data to transfer, less memory consumption, overal faster operation.

Add what's acutely needed: number of posts in the thread, last contribution author and timestamp, and individual unread/read/contributed/new-contribution-since-last-read markings.

Add some sort of progress indicator for clicking on "Next" (and as everything else, test it on slow and intermittent connection, think bad signal wifi and rural 2nd/3rd world net).

JW

 

@Laurids_PETERSEN 

[LWChris]

While I agree with some of your remarks, @waclawek.jan, I think removing the marked bits doesn't really save space in places where place is needed to fit more content. Or to put it maybe less convoluted: you're freeing up space by removing items that weren't competing for any space.

But those labels are important for people with sight impairment. I imagine a screen reader to just brush over everything and without the "by" and "Posted in" bits it all becomes a slush of abbreviations.

Regarding "what's actually needed", I agree, that data is useful, it does however not aid in getting more threads on one screen height, which was the demand here.

Removing the sorting is probably not viable, because I feel like the "sub forums" are more like filters in this forum software, meaning you will eventually break all the topics down far enough that it makes sense to sort not only by date.

But all in all, I think with all the shortcomings the forum software has, the most clever thing to do would be to migrate to an entirely different software that has all the modern features like (multi-)quoting, view options, and so on, but that's probably off the charts here.

Full agreement on the misleading rank namings, I am an "Associate III". As a German, my English lessons taught me that "associate of X" where X is a company means I'm in some way financially related to that company (STM, in this case), which I am not.

[waclawek.jan]

> doesn't really save space

On current monitors, you can fit all the needed information in 2 rows, increasing number of threads displayed at one screen's space even further. Placing related items into separate columns also increases the "ease" or "speed" of viewing threads (in the same way how removing the "first few lines" of posts did, by removing the noise).

Columns, and also other methods exist (font size/weight/color for example) to separate items visually further. The goal is to enhance readibility, "modern feel and look" is irrelevant - this again is something ST stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. See the hard-to-read grey used as basic font color in the editor and the individual posts.

There are examples out there in functional fora.

> all the shortcomings the forum software has,

Key issue is, that this is *not* a forum software, it was *not* written in fora in mind, it is *not* written by folks who actively do fora and probably the developers don't even use real fora actively. This is "Digital customer engagement platform" (to quote Khoros directly), just bent to sell it to ST and similar companies; and of course this shows.

> that has all the modern features

Those are *not* modern features; those are rudimentary features in real forum softwares. Internet fora have been around ever since internet, thus there are established sets of features and also folks around who know what features are needed. It's just that ST chose not to talk to them.

> misleading rank namings

In this regard, I've told ST exactly the same objection as yours, at the rollout, together with several more (e.g. "Evangelist" has religional connotations I don't like, slightly so does the new "Guru" too).

JW

 

PS. And yes, I've noticed the enlarged default edit window size as per requests back then, lazy to look up the thread; but it's such a rudimentary requirement that I don't consider it worth praising.

 

[LWChris]

Okay so you'd put

(Avatar) by username · Rank

and

Timestamp | Posted in Forum name

in one line, then then try to shorten that by getting rid of the "by", the rank, and the "Posted in".

I agree this could be put into one line. I would still keep the "posted in", or at least "in". The combination of "avatar next to username" is probably common enough to be understood without the "by".

The rank is totally irrelevant in the overview. Even if the ranks were named indisputably accurate, I'm not sure what use the rank has. What does it tell me if a question is by a "high" rank, what does it tell me if an answer is by a "low" rank? I don't think the listing should inflate or diminish the value of any contribution based on the poster's rank.

So a shortened version would look like this:

(Avatar) username | Timestamp | In Forum name

This cannot be achieved through CSS to my knowledge (I can force the lower line on the same vertical position as the top line, causing it to overlay; but the variable length of the username means I can't horizontally position its content correctly to not collide).

So a userstyle is out of question, I think. It is something that can be done with a userscript, though. I could easily make one that does that. Are you interested?