Are you sure you want to go to an external site to donate a monetary value?
WARNING: Some countries laws may supersede the payment processors policy such as the GDPR and PayPal. While it is highly appreciated to donate, please check with your countries privacy and identity laws regarding privacy of information first. Use at your utmost discretion.
There are some pretty heavy issues of usability and style going on here:
1.) It's pretty dang annoying when sites force users to use external site logins for their own authentication. Please give us the option of an email/user login.
2.) Further, please give us the ability to remove site authentications from our accounts. I inadvertently added a wrong login authentication from another site, and now have no apparent way to change or remove it. I added another external site auth, thinking it would then let me delete other auths by setting a new default -- but nope.
3.) The styling of this site doesn't lend itself to efficiency and readability. The large heading-sized text is clunky and takes up way too much space. You could comfortably fit double the amount of scripts on-screen if we didn't have giant heading-sized script titles, and further problematic with an atypical font style that doesn't lend itself to fast reading.
4.) The grouping of the site is unintuitive -- "Beggar's Corner"? "The Toolbox"? "The Garage"? These are confusing names and don't give any information as to what they're for or lead to. It may seem cute, but users prefer quick, easy functionality over pretty, cutesy names and looks.
Beggar's Corner would be much more useful as something like "Script Requests" or "Script Ideas" or "Script proposals".
"The Garage" should denote that it's a forum, as something like "Forum", or "Technical Help", etc.
"The Toolbox" should be named "Libraries". But you should also distinguish to users what the difference is between "Libraries" and ordinary scripts, such that it has its own section -- nevermind that there are only four entries there.
5.) Layout -- the current layout is a sin against layout. The site header/nav takes up 33% of the (vertical) page space! The navigation row takes up ~20%! This is an astronomical waste of space, particularly for a static header/nav bar, and when factored in with the massive amount of unused space on the sides. At the very least: the logo should be tucked up into the top-left corner, the buttons should be vastly cut down in size, and the navigation row should be put on the same row (and size) as the site logo.
Look at GitHub, for example: https://github.com/
I'm guessing this is mostly done to pad out the space in lieu of only having a few scripts available. However, it does more damage to usability/readability than it helps conceal the few scripts available.
Given what appears to be Userscripts final farewell, you'd do well to mimic their layout as similarly as possible in order to appeal to the masses of users who will be looking for a new home, and like basic human psychology would dictate, would prefer something closely resembling where they've resided for a number of years now.
Currently, none of the alternative user-script sites are very appealing layout/usability/readability-wise, nor does any command a bulk share of the post-Userscripts treasure. If there's anything that'll drive someone elsewhere (besides abandonment + crickets), it'll be cumbersome design and unintuitive usability.
Just a few suggestions for you.
Further:
-If you don't have enough forums to warrant a full-on "Forum" section/button, then "General discussion" should be accessible as its own button, and not just through an obscure link in an obscure site section, "The Garage".
-For forum threads, the "Comments" indicator should not count the first post as a "comment" -- the internet standard is "Replies" on forum threads, and a "1" denotes that one user has replied to the original post.
-For forum threads, there is far too many lines of information stacked needlessly vertical. That's five vertical lines of information per thread! This should be stretched out horizontally, filling more of the massive amounts of space available. Currently, it appears like this stacking is being done to pad out the site, making it look more full than it actually is. It only serves to make things disjointed, cluttered, and confusing.
-Regarding textbox formatting with "GitHub Flavored Markdown", a box should be displayed with a brief summary of most-used text formatting options, like bold, italic, ordered/unordered list, etc. Users can then go to the link for more advanced formatting, but it's tedious to force users to do this upfront, particularly when every other site or forum has near-universal built-in WYSIWYG text editors.
Most of your points are valid but will be made irrelevant once the site redesign is complete: https://github.com/OpenUserJs/OpenUserJS.org/issues/103
As for your other points:
I've ranted about why I don't want this elsewhere, so unless a lot of users request it or the other developers come to a consensus that I'm wrong: no.
What is your rationale for this feature? Why would you need to do this?
Umm.. it's counting comments. Why wouldn't it count the first one? It doesn't say "Replies" so it isn't misleading. I never got the point of counting replies anyway. I don't care if it's non-standard. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, it stays.
Nope, not the reason. That's just how the web designer I was working with when I initially created the site decided to style it.
Regarding login methods:
I am not especially conversant with OAuth, but I know I can de-authorize the connection on Google's end from this page:
https://security.google.com/settings/security/permissions
Do I need to be concerned that OpenUserJS.org has retained anything that could ever compromise my Google account? If not, then I don't see any harm retaining it. Simply knowing I once used a Gmail address for signin doesn't seem to be a big problem.
We receive an identification value from authenticators (doesn't matter if its OpenID, OAuth, OAuth2), but we then hash that value (except GitHub since we provide integration) and that is what we store and use to authenticate you in the future. That is all we keep. You can check our source and verify if you like.
Thanks, sizzle.
(I know in theory I can check the source. But I can assure you there was no way I could answer my own question on this.)
I've ranted about why I don't want this elsewhere, so unless a lot of users request it or the other developers come to a consensus that I'm wrong: no.Why don't you sum up your rant here so we don't have to go searching for "elsewhere"?
My guess is you're worried about security, not wanting to be responsible for handing user logins over on a plate to the first bidding hacker. You probably also don't want the hassle of dealing with the backend -- much easier to let the big-dogs do the work for you. Understandable.
But surely you're aware that, at least in the tech community, it's an unpreferred method of login, particularly when forced on users. No one wants their accounts and identities all in one place, interconnected and knowing of each other. You'll find few sites that don't allow both options.
What is your rationale for this feature? Why would you need to do this?What is your rationale for not letting us? Why would you not let us do this?
There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to remove/deauth whatever we want, when we want. It's our information. In my case, I inadvertently auth'd a separate account that's unrelated to this account, and now I'm apparently stuck with that tie (even if I break it via the external site, it still remains documented here).
Why wouldn't a user want the ability to remove personal information from a site? It's a bit suspicious why you wouldn't allow this, as it'd be a cinch to implement.
Why wouldn't it count the first one?Why would it count the first one? Isn't it already implied by the fact that there's a post to begin with?
It's entirely redundant information, that's why. What possible benefit is there to count post "#0"? Beyond the initial couple comments, the number wouldn't matter anyway, as users won't remember from their previous visit (like if it was 6 or 7 yesterday). So it's primary use comes in the early stage, to determine whether there are any replies or not. Users typically don't want to jump into empty threads -- it's why we used to attached "N/t" onto thread titles.
My guess is you're well aware of the web standard of "Replies", but you're going against standard in order to hide lack of activity, like users would assume seeing a page full of "0's". However, your hope that users seeing all "1's" will think there's activity is misguided -- they'll quickly figure it out and be annoyed having been "tricked" into jumping into empty threads, like happened with myself. They'll then have to remember this nonsensical countering of standard whenever on this site, as it goes against the vast majority of the outer web.
Ultimately, it counters common standard without any added benefit for the "cost" of the change, which is a cardinal sin of good design.
I don't care if it's non-standard.This stubborn attitude epitomizes a failure to understand proper design principles. And at a time when you're in competition for USO's crown (there will ultimately only be one), stubbornly injecting non-standard design just because you want to is nothing short of foolish.
It's like building a house to sell, but on every door inside the house, you put the doorknobs at the bottom right corner of the door, and then refuse to change except if enough potential buyers tell you to do so. Unless the house has some other crazy attractive features to counter the annoying "cost" of nonstandard doors, most buyers will simply turn and leave without saying a word -- just like I was about to do myself, in favor of Greasyfork, but decided to take the time to help this site, in favor of good competition, as competition fosters benefits and growth for all parties.
Unless there is a consensus otherwise, it stays.There is a consensus -- it's called the entire rest of the internet.
Nope, not the reason. That's just how the web designer I was working with when I initially created the site decided to style it.That's fine and I believe you, but it still doesn't quell the initial presumption. Whether or not the reasoning was "pure", it still gives a certain impression. And in either case, it's still poor design, making the layout long and confusing, and needlessly stacking information vertically, necessitating unnecessary scrolling.
Look at Greasyfork -- able to display 200 scripts all on one page, and with only 3-4 page-downs.
In the end, you can debate, counter, and attack my suggestions ad nauseum, remaining planted firmly in place, unchanging. But other than self-satisfaction, it's only inhibiting your own growth. I have over 20+ years of design experience, and decided to take the time to offer up some free advice for this site's benefit. I have no vested interest or anything to gain whatsoever. They're not "personal" nitpickings of mine, but rather, web-wide design principles that foster comfort, familiarity, and usability amongst users.
I've seen no added benefit for these counterings, and thus far, your primary retort of reasoning seems to be "Because I said so, that's why."
If this site is just some project for your own self-gratification, that's fine. But if this site hopes to take the passing of USO's crown, you'd do well to consider my suggestions. No skin off my back if you don't. I only hope your users will see the added benefits in countering standardized design principles, and that those benefits outweigh the costs.
Why don't you sum up your rant here so we don't have to go searching for "elsewhere"?
My guess is you're worried about security, not wanting to be responsible for handing user logins over on a plate to the first bidding hacker. You probably also don't want the hassle of dealing with the backend -- much easier to let the big-dogs do the work for you. Understandable.
But surely you're aware that, at least in the tech community, it's an unpreferred method of login, particularly when forced on users. No one wants their accounts and identities all in one place, interconnected and knowing of each other. You'll find few sites that don't allow both options.
What is your rationale for not letting us? Why would you not let us do this?
There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to remove/deauth whatever we want, when we want. It's our information. In my case, I inadvertently auth'd a separate account that's unrelated to this account, and now I'm apparently stuck with that tie (even if I break it via the external site, it still remains documented here).
Why wouldn't a user want the ability to remove personal information from a site? It's a bit suspicious why you wouldn't allow this, as it'd be a cinch to implement.
Why would it count the first one? Isn't it already implied by the fact that there's a post to begin with?
It's entirely redundant information, that's why. What possible benefit is there to count post "#0"? Beyond the initial couple comments, the number wouldn't matter anyway, as users won't remember from their previous visit (like if it was 6 or 7 yesterday). So it's primary use comes in the early stage, to determine whether there are any replies or not. Users typically don't want to jump into empty threads -- it's why we used to attached "N/t" onto thread titles.
My guess is you're well aware of the web standard of "Replies", but you're going against standard in order to hide lack of activity, like users would assume seeing a page full of "0's". However, your hope that users seeing all "1's" will think there's activity is misguided -- they'll quickly figure it out and be annoyed having been "tricked" into jumping into empty threads, like happened with myself. They'll then have to remember this nonsensical countering of standard whenever on this site, as it goes against the vast majority of the outer web.
Ultimately, it counters common standard without any added benefit for the "cost" of the change, which is a cardinal sin of good design.
This stubborn attitude epitomizes a failure to understand proper design principles. And at a time when you're in competition for USO's crown (there will ultimately only be one), stubbornly injecting non-standard design just because you want to is nothing short of foolish.
It's like building a house to sell, but on every door inside the house, you put the doorknobs at the bottom right corner of the door, and then refuse to change except if enough potential buyers tell you to do so. Unless the house has some other crazy attractive features to counter the annoying "cost" of nonstandard doors, most buyers will simply turn and leave without saying a word -- just like I was about to do myself, in favor of Greasyfork, but decided to take the time to help this site, in favor of good competition, as competition fosters benefits and growth for all parties.
There is a consensus -- it's called the entire rest of the internet.
That's fine and I believe you, but it still doesn't quell the initial presumption. Whether or not the reasoning was "pure", it still gives a certain impression. And in either case, it's still poor design, making the layout long and confusing, and needlessly stacking information vertically, necessitating unnecessary scrolling.
Look at Greasyfork -- able to display 200 scripts all on one page, and with only 3-4 page-downs.
In the end, you can debate, counter, and attack my suggestions ad nauseum, remaining planted firmly in place, unchanging. But other than self-satisfaction, it's only inhibiting your own growth. I have over 20+ years of design experience, and decided to take the time to offer up some free advice for this site's benefit. I have no vested interest or anything to gain whatsoever. They're not "personal" nitpickings of mine, but rather, web-wide design principles that foster comfort, familiarity, and usability amongst users.
I've seen no added benefit for these counterings, and thus far, your primary retort of reasoning seems to be "Because I said so, that's why."
If this site is just some project for your own self-gratification, that's fine. But if this site hopes to take the passing of USO's crown, you'd do well to consider my suggestions. No skin off my back if you don't. I only hope your users will see the added benefits in countering standardized design principles, and that those benefits outweigh the costs.
You are quite capable of issuing a time tested RFE on the repo. It is a courtesy that anyone is dealing with you with your presented bad attitude.
This is very rude and is considered hostility in my book... you need to clean up your act or this "dog" will bite your...
I think it's a rather clever idea and I sure don't see any verified citation on your part other than rambling on.
I'm one of the most cautious people here and I can understand potentially not wanting a global login system... however for the time being this is how it is going to be. You've failed to convince me why current development request needs to stop everything just for your misplaced request.
Provided I'm not outvoted from other active devs on the project this issue is closed and nothing further will be responded to about it.
I have a saying for zealots like this that flame a site... "Get off the cross...someone needs the wood.".
I'm feeling an implied suggestion in here... this is very serious... Would you like me to remove your account so you can take your negativity elsewhere?
I welcome anyone to give feedback about the site and convince us how we could change it to make it better. The site is built by a community, not one man. But I will not engage someone who insinuates hidden motives behind our design decisions. I consider this a blatant attempt at character assassination. Either change your tone if your motives are genuine, or gtfo.
You spent the entire first half of that post dwelling on a singular suggestion of mine (re: logins). The rest of your post was getting worked up in personal offense, wishing the words would have been crafted more "delicately". For the record, sizzle hasn't been the epitome of politeness himself, with blunt refusals and shutting down of suggestions without any backing reasoning, logic, or even gratitude for the input (both here and on GH).
You've similarly exhibited some of the same behavior -- rather than encouraging open feedback and development through reasoning and logic, you've merely stated the equivalent of "Because we said so, that's why." You've added no explanation, logic, or reasoning to the issues I've mentioned and the suggestions I've proposed, shedding no light on the unconventional design and features.
Again, that's fine, that's your prerogative -- it's your site. No skin off my back whether you take the suggestions or not. Again, as I mentioned -- I have not a penny to gain by such. I used my background of many years in web-dev/design to offer up a free consultation on what can be done to improve the site, wishing that, in the wake of USO's sinking, competing alternative sites can all thrive amongst each other, encouraging development, progress, and evolution amongst the community.
Oh, please -- cut the drama. It's your own perception that's turning a post of suggestions into some sort of "attack" or battle. This is akin to someone running up to you and saying "Your house is on fire! You should get an extinguisher!", but instead of taking the message for its useful information, you instead get offended that the person didn't whisper the message in a nicer tone, bluntly tell the person that the house couldn't be on fire simply because you say it's not, and then suggest the person is making a "threat" with their suggestion.
Instead of interpreting this as some sort of person "fight" -- which it's not -- why don't you address the actual points rather than the straw-man argument?
I've not only given you a copious amount of feedback, but I've backed nearly all of my suggestions with logic, reasoning, and rationale.
Instead of getting offended by the correlation, why not address the points with reasoning and rationale? If someone accused you of being the culprit in a bank robbery, would you A.) get a megaphone and denounce the accusations, taking personal offense at them and telling them to "Get the **** out", or B.) logically state that it could not have been you, because you were somewhere else at such and such a time, so it couldn't possible be so?
And yet, you still have not addressed any of the correlations with logic or reasoning, other than equivalently saying "Nope", "Because I said so", "Someone else designed it".
I've pointed out how many of these counterings of common design practice nearly all similarly contribute to some manner of "padding", whether post counts, vertical space, etc. You've still said nothing to show otherwise, and instead of switched to a straw-man of "Ignore the message; Attack the messenger." If you would simply address the points with your rationale, the matter would've been silence a number of posts ago.
Interesting -- telling someone to play with a nicer tone or to "Get the **** out."
That really instills a sense of peaceful levelheadedness in the matter.
Although I'd hope for otherwise, I anticipate that the attacks on the "messenger" will continue, and that the "message" will be lost from discussion and explanation. I wouldn't be surprised if my posts and account even get deleted for this. But if there won't be any response to the content of my message, then I'll offer this last tip --
If you're looking to claim the crown of USO's passing, the success of your site, and any other alternative site, is in the most critical time of opportunity -- now. With each passing minute, the userscript community is picking and solidifying a new "home". Your design and layout changes should be implemented yesterday, on a rolling basis, and not on a future v2.0. Although it's nice to roll out a package of change all at once, when you're in a period of criticality as you are now, you should be making immediate changes as they come. Very soon, the majority of users are going to be set on their new "home" for userscripts. If you continue to hold off on critical design and layout changes, it will surely serve to drive users toward alternate sites.
If you don't mind that happening, and you're content with being a niche site in the userscript realm, then that's completely fine and understandable. But in my professional opinion -- take it or leave it -- there are a number of design principles here that go against web convention and without any seeming added benefit for such. In general, no one likes arbitrary change just for the sake of changing. A car manufacturer that swaps the placement of the ignition key with the placement of the gas cap will not only fail to attract users with this design/layout change, but will surely drive users away, as there would be no logical reasoning for such a change.
So if you still want to ignore the suggestions and subsequent logic and reasoning, that's fine -- but at the very least, start rolling out whatever design changes you have up your sleeve now, on a rolling basis, and not waiting for a future day when they're refined and polished. While that may be the ideal for an established brand and product, the difference in this case is that you have a nation of user's who are frantically at a fork in the road for their new home -- with each passing minute, more and more users are making their choice, and short of catastrophe or dramatic change, they'll likely follow where the most users go and stick with their choice.
So time is of the essence!
So to summarize Coldblackice's endless ramblings and martyrdom: we should count replies (not comments), add email-based user registration, and allow the removal of authentication methods from an account. I'll think about it.
But I don't doubt you'll try to continue to stir up more shit since that is clearly your goal (although I fully expect a long-winded diatribe to the contrary). Goodbye.
+1 for account barring
Actually I find the new layout nice. There was a WIP version which was orange and had Install buttons next to search results IIRC (and nicer fonts) which I liked possibly more, but generally it seems to be heading in the right direction.
As for the OP, only two things really stood out for me. I find authenticating via a third-party service such as OpenID perfectly reasonable - StackOverflow.com and countless other great community sites do the same. The odd thing I found though was I now only have to type in my username and it authenticates me (must be some cookie?), kind of odd.
The second thing is I agree the Discuss sub-forums could be better named, but it's hardly a deal breaker ;)
Cheers
Re: @TimidScript:
It's called making a new script because when you change the name that is exactly what you are doing by changing the name. The only annoyance is what your actions do... so don't change your script name. Think first before you publish a work. You make a "mistake" then that is your responsibility not OUJS.
Re: @TimidScript:
Opening a hole for spammers and malicious scripts is not in the best interest of anyone. You can "rebrand" just fine with the existing methodology by having it create a new script for your brand (that would be you btw). Aggregated statistics can also be gamed with your suggestion... not to mention SEO manipulation.