[Redesign Launch - Stage 2 in progress]

First of all, thank you for fixing image placement on the new design. :thumbsup:

 

Just a couple of questions:

 

Will mod authors be given the option of uploading a new background picture for the Mod info header? Since the one I have right now is all fubar.

 

The expanded files download section is rather clunky. Personally, I think it would be better if the virus report (safe to use, etc) was next to the file download options as it was in the old design, rather than above it as it is in the new one. It's not like there's not room for it; there's an acre of space.

 

In the logs section there is also a list of people who endorse. Is this something only I see as the mod author? Or does everyone see this? If the latter then this is really going to clog up a section that should be about updates to the mod and not who has liked it, because presumably it is meant to take the place of the old "uploaded on Xdate" "last updated on Xdate" information?

 

I like the new larger default font! Can someone tell me what it is so I can use it?

 

Edit: Also, how long have you been renaming my file downloads for? Are you making any other automatic changes to my files?

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648, #54688928, #54689253, #54689373, #54689458, #54689713, #54689868, #54689943, #54690023, #54690088, #54690318, #54690618, #54690843, #54691443, #54691698, #54692043, #54692763, #54693868 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

Dark0ne wrote: There are serious issues with image descriptions that Elianora has already brought up.

On top of that, if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions, it would be a lot better (for both you, and user experience in terms of loading times) to have it as one big image (or a few big images) organised however you like within the image itself, rather than a spliced up assortment of many, many smaller images that you then have to rely on the page formatting to organise.

Elianora wrote: I didn't say or assume ANYTHING about you. I said a thing about description images and mod pages and explained why they're terrible in the grand scheme of things. Stop overreacting and treating everything said as a personal insult and making this about you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pacfish wrote: To add to reasons: Google Translate doesn't work with images.

aufisch wrote: Menathradiel. I understand the need for more visual descriptions. I see that you included images of various locations including their names written on it. Couldn't you achieve the same by creating a largely text based description with much less images, and then just upload all these additional images to the image section, especially since you already have the images labelled with text overlays (so it is clear what they are)?

You can always refer to the image section in your description so the reader knows where to find more information.

ScrollTron1c wrote: Just a suggestion, merge your images exactly like you want them displayed - example

This only won't work if you additionally wanted each image linked to larger original images.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora You are hilarious. When complaining about images you cite those with sight problems, but when it comes to people who need visuals... You might as well have said to shut up and stop complaining because this disability doesn't factor in your world view.

You are a hypocrite.

Elianora wrote: Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: Alright, I'm going to reiterate Eli's point using different words, because I don't think you understood it.

She wasn't telling you not to use images in your description. She was telling you that you shouldn't use text that is in the form of images in your description.

There's a huge difference, and the reasons for this difference are important. The first being the inability for search engines to parse text that is in the form of images. Another being the inability of translators to translate text in the form of images. Another is the inability of screen-readers to be able to read text that is in the form of images.

I'm having a really hard time understanding why text in the form of text and text in the form of images are somehow more or less readable for someone who has autism, as you claimed. The issue is not the layout or the use of actual images. The issue is the use of images as a way of displaying text.

Believe it or not, everyone here is actually trying to help you.

menathradiel wrote: @Dark0ne: "if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions"

Yes, I'll make all my mod description text only. Never mind those who need visual images, just so long as your new site works, eh?

You can explain to me all day what a thing is, I will not understand until I see it, and I include the seeing in my description. Never realised that this is a bad thing to do until you decided it was. My mod has been on this site for five years, with not a whisper, but now suddenly it's bad to have pictures. Not just bad, according to Elianora, I'm literally discriminating against people with sight problems by using pictures. A problem only now, not before. A problem, I'm willing to bet, only because I disagreed.

pacfish wrote: It's not autism .... oh god why. Autism does not prevent a person from reading though they might be angry with the points mentioned below but that's an entirely different story and I would hope someone would be there to calm them down and try to explain that it's like a "meme" and show them that it's okay.

It's blindness and screen resolution. When scaling the image up, it loses quality and thus can be harder to read. As it sits right now on my screen, the characters (letters) don't show all the normal pixels. The e's for example are missing the lower left hand corner of the curve and thus look weird and can produce unexpected results when trying to read them.
Yes blind people play games too. My friend plays on xbox on a 52 inch screen and sits about 20 inches from it, can't help but to say he'll burn his eyes out but I don't think he really cares since he literally can't see anything otherwise. He also plays for the story.

pacfish wrote: No, I hate the new site too... And I know I've used mods in the past that have a description setup just like yours, I was younger and the world was less offended by things back then.

Use images! They really do help. But don't include PLAIN text in them. Make the text bold and colorful so it stands out with a purpose. There is a REASON behind why this is the way it is. Give it some weight and meaning besides just explaining. A good example of okay text, maybe not the best color choice, would be the very first image in the description, another good example of text but may not the right font would be the Tilted Rigging (can't read the word Tilted and spell check was the word I chose to go with). The Old Windmill Inn is perfect aside from the text that is attached at the bottom.

menathradiel wrote: @pacfish

I would have preferred not to use images with text, but the only other format is tables, and they don't work here. I tried, a lot, to make the text not tied to the image by using tables but it always ended up totally borked. So I did the only thing I could.

menathradiel wrote: "Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff."

I can't win the debate (because I have no argument that makes sense) so I'm going to flounce away and call you prejudiced in the hope it catches on. *skipping merrily*

pacfish wrote: Applaud you for hacking the problem, though find a better hack.
Maybe a google spreadsheet?
Tables in web design are terrible in general. Pain in the arse to use they are (at least back in 2008). Do tables work better with the dynamic design? Probably not... Since Dark is part of the discussion

SUGGESTION FOR NEW SITE: fix tables!

edit: best not to insight a riot and not post anything at all. No reason to fight on the internet, in mud pit with bikinis is much better.

menathradiel wrote: @pacfish
Can I load a google spreadsheet here? Even if I can, will it load for anyone else but me?

It's unreasonable to expect people to install something just so something else will work as it should, especially if that thing is a few pictures on a desc page.

pacfish wrote: That's the whole point of hacking. Do I think you could load google docs here? I don't know.
But I do know that they are visible if you choose to share them.
It was merely a suggestion as to how to attack the problem of poor formatting of tables. Beauty in hacking is that you come up with your own solution.

Not at all. I install windows because most of bethsda's games don't run well in a Linux environment. And I paid for windows... just for something as simple to play a game.
I install a different browser because Edge's cross site scripting is a "feature" just to do something as simple as view a webpage
I install an archive program to do something as simple as unzip archives because people upload their files in different formats and windows only natively supports .zip
I install steam because some of the games I play have DRM and that's just silly. (Probably will get in trouble for this but ... the pirates never had an issue with the Creation Club update and never will, their games also still works and was uninterrupted by the update, and any mods out there that don't rely on CC work just fine. Stating a fact of history shouldn't condone any actions from moderators/admins since punishing the person who stated the fact is saying you want to live in ignorance and forget the past).
I install SKSE to do something as simple as provide functionality to a game that Bethsda can't do right for the 5th time now.
I install MO Beta and live with the problems it has because it's original creator deserted us in favor of a real job that pays bills and puts food on the table.
I just suggested to Dark that he use JS to mine crypto currency instead of having ads on the website... and that's as simple as maintaining site availability and turning a profit (it's a .com)
So you see, asking someone to install something just to do something as simple as an image is more complicated than you think... There's a really bad meme from the 2000's about audio problems on linux where Google would suggest audio problems on windows. But you would have to install something just to get something as simple as an image to display (including a display of some kind)

We could compare notes on why your OS is difficult, but actually what this comes down to is you telling me that I should expect people to install something to make the internet work. If I want more than one image per line then I should not expect this site to work like any other, instead I should ask people to install an additional prog to make bbcode code here work as it does elsewhere.

I'm not going to do that. If it comes to it I will take my money, and my mod, elsewhere.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648, #54688928, #54689253, #54689373, #54689458, #54689713, #54689868, #54689943, #54690023, #54690088, #54690318, #54690618, #54690843, #54691443, #54691698, #54692043 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

Dark0ne wrote: There are serious issues with image descriptions that Elianora has already brought up.

On top of that, if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions, it would be a lot better (for both you, and user experience in terms of loading times) to have it as one big image (or a few big images) organised however you like within the image itself, rather than a spliced up assortment of many, many smaller images that you then have to rely on the page formatting to organise.

Elianora wrote: I didn't say or assume ANYTHING about you. I said a thing about description images and mod pages and explained why they're terrible in the grand scheme of things. Stop overreacting and treating everything said as a personal insult and making this about you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pacfish wrote: To add to reasons: Google Translate doesn't work with images.

aufisch wrote: Menathradiel. I understand the need for more visual descriptions. I see that you included images of various locations including their names written on it. Couldn't you achieve the same by creating a largely text based description with much less images, and then just upload all these additional images to the image section, especially since you already have the images labelled with text overlays (so it is clear what they are)?

You can always refer to the image section in your description so the reader knows where to find more information.

ScrollTron1c wrote: Just a suggestion, merge your images exactly like you want them displayed - example

This only won't work if you additionally wanted each image linked to larger original images.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora You are hilarious. When complaining about images you cite those with sight problems, but when it comes to people who need visuals... You might as well have said to shut up and stop complaining because this disability doesn't factor in your world view.

You are a hypocrite.

Elianora wrote: Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: Alright, I'm going to reiterate Eli's point using different words, because I don't think you understood it.

She wasn't telling you not to use images in your description. She was telling you that you shouldn't use text that is in the form of images in your description.

There's a huge difference, and the reasons for this difference are important. The first being the inability for search engines to parse text that is in the form of images. Another being the inability of translators to translate text in the form of images. Another is the inability of screen-readers to be able to read text that is in the form of images.

I'm having a really hard time understanding why text in the form of text and text in the form of images are somehow more or less readable for someone who has autism, as you claimed. The issue is not the layout or the use of actual images. The issue is the use of images as a way of displaying text.

Believe it or not, everyone here is actually trying to help you.

menathradiel wrote: @Dark0ne: "if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions"

Yes, I'll make all my mod description text only. Never mind those who need visual images, just so long as your new site works, eh?

You can explain to me all day what a thing is, I will not understand until I see it, and I include the seeing in my description. Never realised that this is a bad thing to do until you decided it was. My mod has been on this site for five years, with not a whisper, but now suddenly it's bad to have pictures. Not just bad, according to Elianora, I'm literally discriminating against people with sight problems by using pictures. A problem only now, not before. A problem, I'm willing to bet, only because I disagreed.

pacfish wrote: It's not autism .... oh god why. Autism does not prevent a person from reading though they might be angry with the points mentioned below but that's an entirely different story and I would hope someone would be there to calm them down and try to explain that it's like a "meme" and show them that it's okay.

It's blindness and screen resolution. When scaling the image up, it loses quality and thus can be harder to read. As it sits right now on my screen, the characters (letters) don't show all the normal pixels. The e's for example are missing the lower left hand corner of the curve and thus look weird and can produce unexpected results when trying to read them.
Yes blind people play games too. My friend plays on xbox on a 52 inch screen and sits about 20 inches from it, can't help but to say he'll burn his eyes out but I don't think he really cares since he literally can't see anything otherwise. He also plays for the story.

pacfish wrote: No, I hate the new site too... And I know I've used mods in the past that have a description setup just like yours, I was younger and the world was less offended by things back then.

Use images! They really do help. But don't include PLAIN text in them. Make the text bold and colorful so it stands out with a purpose. There is a REASON behind why this is the way it is. Give it some weight and meaning besides just explaining. A good example of okay text, maybe not the best color choice, would be the very first image in the description, another good example of text but may not the right font would be the Tilted Rigging (can't read the word Tilted and spell check was the word I chose to go with). The Old Windmill Inn is perfect aside from the text that is attached at the bottom.

menathradiel wrote: @pacfish

I would have preferred not to use images with text, but the only other format is tables, and they don't work here. I tried, a lot, to make the text not tied to the image by using tables but it always ended up totally borked. So I did the only thing I could.

menathradiel wrote: "Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff."

I can't win the debate (because I have no argument that makes sense) so I'm going to flounce away and call you prejudiced in the hope it catches on. *skipping merrily*

pacfish wrote: Applaud you for hacking the problem, though find a better hack.
Maybe a google spreadsheet?
Tables in web design are terrible in general. Pain in the arse to use they are (at least back in 2008). Do tables work better with the dynamic design? Probably not... Since Dark is part of the discussion

SUGGESTION FOR NEW SITE: fix tables!

edit: best not to insight a riot and not post anything at all. No reason to fight on the internet, in mud pit with bikinis is much better.

@pacfish
Can I load a google spreadsheet here? Even if I can, will it load for anyone else but me?

It's unreasonable to expect people to install something just so something else will work as it should, especially if that thing is a few pictures on a desc page.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648, #54688928, #54689253, #54689373, #54689458, #54689713, #54689868, #54689943, #54690023, #54690088, #54690318, #54690618, #54690843, #54691443 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

Dark0ne wrote: There are serious issues with image descriptions that Elianora has already brought up.

On top of that, if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions, it would be a lot better (for both you, and user experience in terms of loading times) to have it as one big image (or a few big images) organised however you like within the image itself, rather than a spliced up assortment of many, many smaller images that you then have to rely on the page formatting to organise.

Elianora wrote: I didn't say or assume ANYTHING about you. I said a thing about description images and mod pages and explained why they're terrible in the grand scheme of things. Stop overreacting and treating everything said as a personal insult and making this about you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pacfish wrote: To add to reasons: Google Translate doesn't work with images.

aufisch wrote: Menathradiel. I understand the need for more visual descriptions. I see that you included images of various locations including their names written on it. Couldn't you achieve the same by creating a largely text based description with much less images, and then just upload all these additional images to the image section, especially since you already have the images labelled with text overlays (so it is clear what they are)?

You can always refer to the image section in your description so the reader knows where to find more information.

ScrollTron1c wrote: Just a suggestion, merge your images exactly like you want them displayed - example

This only won't work if you additionally wanted each image linked to larger original images.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora You are hilarious. When complaining about images you cite those with sight problems, but when it comes to people who need visuals... You might as well have said to shut up and stop complaining because this disability doesn't factor in your world view.

You are a hypocrite.

Elianora wrote: Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: Alright, I'm going to reiterate Eli's point using different words, because I don't think you understood it.

She wasn't telling you not to use images in your description. She was telling you that you shouldn't use text that is in the form of images in your description.

There's a huge difference, and the reasons for this difference are important. The first being the inability for search engines to parse text that is in the form of images. Another being the inability of translators to translate text in the form of images. Another is the inability of screen-readers to be able to read text that is in the form of images.

I'm having a really hard time understanding why text in the form of text and text in the form of images are somehow more or less readable for someone who has autism, as you claimed. The issue is not the layout or the use of actual images. The issue is the use of images as a way of displaying text.

Believe it or not, everyone here is actually trying to help you.

menathradiel wrote: @Dark0ne: "if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions"

Yes, I'll make all my mod description text only. Never mind those who need visual images, just so long as your new site works, eh?

You can explain to me all day what a thing is, I will not understand until I see it, and I include the seeing in my description. Never realised that this is a bad thing to do until you decided it was. My mod has been on this site for five years, with not a whisper, but now suddenly it's bad to have pictures. Not just bad, according to Elianora, I'm literally discriminating against people with sight problems by using pictures. A problem only now, not before. A problem, I'm willing to bet, only because I disagreed.

pacfish wrote: It's not autism .... oh god why. Autism does not prevent a person from reading though they might be angry with the points mentioned below but that's an entirely different story and I would hope someone would be there to calm them down and try to explain that it's like a "meme" and show them that it's okay.

It's blindness and screen resolution. When scaling the image up, it loses quality and thus can be harder to read. As it sits right now on my screen, the characters (letters) don't show all the normal pixels. The e's for example are missing the lower left hand corner of the curve and thus look weird and can produce unexpected results when trying to read them.
Yes blind people play games too. My friend plays on xbox on a 52 inch screen and sits about 20 inches from it, can't help but to say he'll burn his eyes out but I don't think he really cares since he literally can't see anything otherwise. He also plays for the story.

pacfish wrote: No, I hate the new site too... And I know I've used mods in the past that have a description setup just like yours, I was younger and the world was less offended by things back then.

Use images! They really do help. But don't include PLAIN text in them. Make the text bold and colorful so it stands out with a purpose. There is a REASON behind why this is the way it is. Give it some weight and meaning besides just explaining. A good example of okay text, maybe not the best color choice, would be the very first image in the description, another good example of text but may not the right font would be the Tilted Rigging (can't read the word Tilted and spell check was the word I chose to go with). The Old Windmill Inn is perfect aside from the text that is attached at the bottom.

menathradiel wrote: @pacfish

I would have preferred not to use images with text, but the only other format is tables, and they don't work here. I tried, a lot, to make the text not tied to the image by using tables but it always ended up totally borked. So I did the only thing I cold.

"Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff."

I can't win the debate (because I have no argument that makes sense) so I'm going to flounce away and call you prejudiced in the hope it catches on. *skipping merrily*

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648, #54688928, #54689253, #54689373, #54689458, #54689713, #54689868, #54689943, #54690023, #54690088, #54690318, #54690618, #54690843, #54691698, #54692043 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

Dark0ne wrote: There are serious issues with image descriptions that Elianora has already brought up.

On top of that, if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions, it would be a lot better (for both you, and user experience in terms of loading times) to have it as one big image (or a few big images) organised however you like within the image itself, rather than a spliced up assortment of many, many smaller images that you then have to rely on the page formatting to organise.

Elianora wrote: I didn't say or assume ANYTHING about you. I said a thing about description images and mod pages and explained why they're terrible in the grand scheme of things. Stop overreacting and treating everything said as a personal insult and making this about you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pacfish wrote: To add to reasons: Google Translate doesn't work with images.

aufisch wrote: Menathradiel. I understand the need for more visual descriptions. I see that you included images of various locations including their names written on it. Couldn't you achieve the same by creating a largely text based description with much less images, and then just upload all these additional images to the image section, especially since you already have the images labelled with text overlays (so it is clear what they are)?

You can always refer to the image section in your description so the reader knows where to find more information.

ScrollTron1c wrote: Just a suggestion, merge your images exactly like you want them displayed - example

This only won't work if you additionally wanted each image linked to larger original images.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora You are hilarious. When complaining about images you cite those with sight problems, but when it comes to people who need visuals... You might as well have said to shut up and stop complaining because this disability doesn't factor in your world view.

You are a hypocrite.

Elianora wrote: Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: Alright, I'm going to reiterate Eli's point using different words, because I don't think you understood it.

She wasn't telling you not to use images in your description. She was telling you that you shouldn't use text that is in the form of images in your description.

There's a huge difference, and the reasons for this difference are important. The first being the inability for search engines to parse text that is in the form of images. Another being the inability of translators to translate text in the form of images. Another is the inability of screen-readers to be able to read text that is in the form of images.

I'm having a really hard time understanding why text in the form of text and text in the form of images are somehow more or less readable for someone who has autism, as you claimed. The issue is not the layout or the use of actual images. The issue is the use of images as a way of displaying text.

Believe it or not, everyone here is actually trying to help you.

menathradiel wrote: @Dark0ne: "if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions"

Yes, I'll make all my mod description text only. Never mind those who need visual images, just so long as your new site works, eh?

You can explain to me all day what a thing is, I will not understand until I see it, and I include the seeing in my description. Never realised that this is a bad thing to do until you decided it was. My mod has been on this site for five years, with not a whisper, but now suddenly it's bad to have pictures. Not just bad, according to Elianora, I'm literally discriminating against people with sight problems by using pictures. A problem only now, not before. A problem, I'm willing to bet, only because I disagreed.

pacfish wrote: It's not autism .... oh god why. Autism does not prevent a person from reading though they might be angry with the points mentioned below but that's an entirely different story and I would hope someone would be there to calm them down and try to explain that it's like a "meme" and show them that it's okay.

It's blindness and screen resolution. When scaling the image up, it loses quality and thus can be harder to read. As it sits right now on my screen, the characters (letters) don't show all the normal pixels. The e's for example are missing the lower left hand corner of the curve and thus look weird and can produce unexpected results when trying to read them.
Yes blind people play games too. My friend plays on xbox on a 52 inch screen and sits about 20 inches from it, can't help but to say he'll burn his eyes out but I don't think he really cares since he literally can't see anything otherwise. He also plays for the story.

pacfish wrote: No, I hate the new site too... And I know I've used mods in the past that have a description setup just like yours, I was younger and the world was less offended by things back then.

Use images! They really do help. But don't include PLAIN text in them. Make the text bold and colorful so it stands out with a purpose. There is a REASON behind why this is the way it is. Give it some weight and meaning besides just explaining. A good example of okay text, maybe not the best color choice, would be the very first image in the description, another good example of text but may not the right font would be the Tilted Rigging (can't read the word Tilted and spell check was the word I chose to go with). The Old Windmill Inn is perfect aside from the text that is attached at the bottom.

menathradiel wrote: "Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff."

I can't win the debate (because I have no argument that makes sense) so I'm going to flounce away and call you prejudiced in the hope it catches on. *skipping merrily*

pacfish wrote: Applaud you for hacking the problem, though find a better hack.
Maybe a google spreadsheet?
Tables in web design are terrible in general. Pain in the arse to use they are (at least back in 2008). Do tables work better with the dynamic design? Probably not... Since Dark is part of the discussion

SUGGESTION FOR NEW SITE: fix tables!

edit: best not to insight a riot and not post anything at all. No reason to fight on the internet, in mud pit with bikinis is much better.

@pacfish

I would have preferred not to use images with text, but the only other format is tables, and they don't work here. I tried, a lot, to make the text not tied to the image by using tables but it always ended up totally borked. So I did the only thing I could.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54671943. #54672703, #54677478, #54678053, #54681883, #54683388, #54683578, #54686488, #54686998, #54687253, #54687418, #54687503, #54688283, #54689173 are all replies on the same post.

Pegasix wrote: Can we please just have an option to stick with old layout? I personally just don't like the looks of this design.

SharraShimada wrote: Maintaining 2 Designs is a waste of time, because its work, that wont repay in any way. So, the old design will perish some day. And yeah, its always hard to change to something different, and leaving style, used, and attached to, behind. And yes, the new design looks... boring? Just another flat, tile-design, as seen on nearly every other crap-site in the internet the last 2 years.
But i must admit, the primary function of a mod-page is to deliver info. And they come in form of pictures most of the time.
You may explain, what your armor-mod does, how it looks, and where are the belt is attached... but no one will really imagine int. Put a picture on it, and kabooom.
And thats, what this design is made for.
Personally, i would had made some stuff the other way. But i´m not in charge. If have to, and i can, live with that.

pintocat wrote: I don't mind if they don't maintain the old one, I'll use a buggy one until the new one is fixed

Jokerine wrote: I personally understand that maintaining two different versions of the site may be too much work, and this will probably be an "adapt or die" situation. But, well, if the site is switched over for good and we're all forced to use the new redesign I'll most likely stop using the site altogether, or only visit very, very rarely. I have a choice in this matter, thankfully. I'll just take death :laugh:

kn1ghtfall wrote: Once again I have agree with Jokerine.

Foxia wrote: HEAR, HEAR!!! I must agree with Jokerine myself. Death it will be as well for myself.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: YEAH! Everyone over to Bethesdanet!

Oh wait...

Crimsomrider wrote: I feel the same way Jokerine.

I spoke to a few friends about this design and not one of them likes it. One actually hates it so much he threw a tantrum.

I really hope for some visual and design improvements until the final launch day which reduces the cluster**** of ugliness and information and scales down the UI, which I offered my suggestions on, otherwise I'll just go away because I really can't stand this new design. I am really trying hard forcing myself to suffer through it, but it's just impossible and frustrating. On a mobile the site is PERFECT! It looks good, it feels good... except the mod pages which are ugly as hell no matter where you view them from. But it's just not worth sacrificing something that was perfect in order to make a mobile version more better.

I'll keep on surviving until the final launch day and see what changes happen from now till then. All I can do until then is just offer my opinion on the matter and like you said... adapt or die.

I am forced to death however because I really can't stand another Bethesda.net lookalike.

I am under no illusion that my opinion or me quitting matters at all, after all I'm just another random peon who already got milked for money and will be forgotten after a day of departure... but I would like to remain on this site... hopefully... :(

#SaveNexus

fredlaus wrote: I had thumbs up yesterday - today I feel like I lost my best friend.

Changes are OK to me but then you have to show up something entirely new - some braver stuff than this.

Come on guys and gals you are a resourceful site with millions of fans contributing.

What happened?

goatsnatcher2 wrote: Ha, I went to bed last night thinking what the hell have they done that for, then I get up this morning to my son asking what the hell have they done that for.

It's not that people don't like change, it's more, people don't like change when unnecessary or makes thing's worse.

menathradiel wrote: @SharraShimada: It is normal for a website to have a desktop and mobile version - and I know this because I maintain several - so your point is rather invalid.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: @menathradiel
Yeah, it was perfectly normal, back in 2010 before responsive design really took off and became a standard.

Ironically enough, 2010 was right about where the Nexus' previous design was stuck.

menathradiel wrote: All right. (that would be why all the major websites have a mobile version, because that is a thing of the past.... but shhhhh, not your point, is it.) What part of this design is "responsive" to me? The part where it's arbitrarily decided that my description layout is not good enough as I have coded it and decides to break it?

Don't get me wrong. I'll get used to the new design, but I'll also have to spend time making my mod page layout compatible with PC users again, which is insane when you think about the fact that this site is for people who use mods for PC games.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: The entire site is responsive. Which is why the layout changes to accommodate your display's width, which is an incredibly common strategy for dealing with many different users across many different devices, and it's far easier to design and maintain than two or more separate designs under potentially multiple different subdomains.

Interestingly enough, you could get two different designs entirely by using the very same media queries and scripting that is used to make a single design responsive. Since you're apparently a web designer/developer/maintainer, you surely know that this is all that a responsive design is... one that conforms to the device that it's being viewed on.

The request here isn't one that can easily be accommodated by that though. The request is to keep two COMPLETELY different designs live and maintained because some people don't like the new one, which you should know is an unreasonable request considering this design is not only so radically different from the previous, but also adequately accommodates both mobile and desktop devices.

The request is made even more unreasonable because of your own stated issue of corrupted mod page layout. It has been known since they opened up this redesign to mod authors that mod description formatting doesn't translate well between the two designs and many pages need to be updated to once again conform to the author's vision. This works both ways, as making edits to the page on either the old design or the redesign results in the opposing design being broken in various ways. To fix this, one of these designs would have to be changed regardless, in order to create format parity between the two, and there would still be various issues caused by the change in colors and overall design philosophy that would cause unintended results based simply on the author's own preference for one version of the site over the other.

Keeping both sites live and optional is not a wise idea.

"Keeping both sites live and optional is not a wise idea"

Because most people would choose the old design, and we can't have that.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648, #54688928, #54689253, #54689373, #54689458, #54689713, #54689868, #54689943, #54690023, #54690088 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

Dark0ne wrote: There are serious issues with image descriptions that Elianora has already brought up.

On top of that, if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions, it would be a lot better (for both you, and user experience in terms of loading times) to have it as one big image (or a few big images) organised however you like within the image itself, rather than a spliced up assortment of many, many smaller images that you then have to rely on the page formatting to organise.

Elianora wrote: I didn't say or assume ANYTHING about you. I said a thing about description images and mod pages and explained why they're terrible in the grand scheme of things. Stop overreacting and treating everything said as a personal insult and making this about you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pacfish wrote: To add to reasons: Google Translate doesn't work with images.

aufisch wrote: Menathradiel. I understand the need for more visual descriptions. I see that you included images of various locations including their names written on it. Couldn't you achieve the same by creating a largely text based description with much less images, and then just upload all these additional images to the image section, especially since you already have the images labelled with text overlays (so it is clear what they are)?

You can always refer to the image section in your description so the reader knows where to find more information.

ScrollTron1c wrote: Just a suggestion, merge your images exactly like you want them displayed - example

This only won't work if you additionally wanted each image linked to larger original images.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora You are hilarious. When complaining about images you cite those with sight problems, but when it comes to people who need visuals... You might as well have said to shut up and stop complaining because this disability doesn't factor in your world view.

You are a hypocrite.

Elianora wrote: Oh so now it's about me, not about a mod description being accessible to as many users as possible. Alright. I see you're just looking for reasons to pick fights and be angry, so I'm walking away, I have mods to make, and stuff.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: Alright, I'm going to reiterate Eli's point using different words, because I don't think you understood it.

She wasn't telling you not to use images in your description. She was telling you that you shouldn't use text that is in the form of images in your description.

There's a huge difference, and the reasons for this difference are important. The first being the inability for search engines to parse text that is in the form of images. Another being the inability of translators to translate text in the form of images. Another is the inability of screen-readers to be able to read text that is in the form of images.

I'm having a really hard time understanding why text in the form of text and text in the form of images are somehow more or less readable for someone who has autism, as you claimed. The issue is not the layout or the use of actual images. The issue is the use of images as a way of displaying text.

Believe it or not, everyone here is actually trying to help you.

@Dark0ne: "if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions"

Yes, I'll make all my mod description text only. Never mind those who need visual images, just so long as your new site works, eh?

You can explain to me all day what a thing is, I will not understand until I see it, and I include the seeing in my description. Never realised that this is a bad thing to do until you decided it was. My mod has been on this site for five years, with not a whisper, but now suddenly it's bad to have pictures. Not just bad, according to Elianora, I'm literally discriminating against people with sight problems by using pictures. A problem only now, not before. A problem, I'm willing to bet, only because I disagreed.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648, #54688928, #54689253, #54689373, #54689458, #54689713, #54689868 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

menathradiel wrote: @Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

Dark0ne wrote: There are serious issues with image descriptions that Elianora has already brought up.

On top of that, if you refuse for whatever reason to do away with the image descriptions, it would be a lot better (for both you, and user experience in terms of loading times) to have it as one big image (or a few big images) organised however you like within the image itself, rather than a spliced up assortment of many, many smaller images that you then have to rely on the page formatting to organise.

Elianora wrote: I didn't say or assume ANYTHING about you. I said a thing about description images and mod pages and explained why they're terrible in the grand scheme of things. Stop overreacting and treating everything said as a personal insult and making this about you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pacfish wrote: To add to reasons: Google Translate doesn't work with images.

aufisch wrote: Menathradiel. I understand the need for more visual descriptions. I see that you included images of various locations including their names written on it. Couldn't you achieve the same by creating a largely text based description with much less images, and then just upload all these additional images to the image section, especially since you already have the images labelled with text overlays (so it is clear what they are)?

You can always refer to the image section in your description so the reader knows where to find more information.

ScrollTron1c wrote: Just a suggestion, merge your images exactly like you want them displayed - example

This only won't work if you wanted each image to additionally be linked to larger original images.

@Elianora You are hilarious. When complaining about images you cite those with sight problems, but when it comes to people who need visuals... You might as well have said to shut up and stop complaining because this disability doesn't factor in your world view.

You are a hypocrite.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143, #54686903, #54687293, #54688648 are all replies on the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

menathradiel wrote: ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

fredlaus wrote: mena, I feel sorry for you and all others experiencing this travesty.
It is not only the images but the layout that is totally wrong - seems to have been made for the wrong site.
Decisions need to be taken I guess - it is extremely difficult to run two wagons at the same time - especially if you like to win the race.

Elianora wrote: Stop using images as text and write a text description. Image text description won't show up in Google searches so it impairs the way users may find your mod while searching the net, and people won't be able to Ctrl + F search through your description to find the information they need. People with reading and vision disabilities will have difficulty scaling or altering your description to their needs (colour / text size / etc.) because images don't scale or clear well.

Image descriptions are awful. Sure they may "look pretty" in some way, but they make it extremely hard to understand your mod's documentation.

@Elianora: I have a text description. If you had bothered to even look at my mod page you would know this. I use images to supplement it - and btw, I do it for people like me, people on the autistic spectrum who need visual images because text is not enough. So I would kindly ask that you stop assuming things about me when you know absolutely nothing.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54671943. #54672703, #54677478, #54678053, #54681883, #54683388, #54683578, #54686488, #54686998, #54687253, #54687418, #54687503 are all replies on the same post.

Pegasix wrote: Can we please just have an option to stick with old layout? I personally just don't like the looks of this design.

SharraShimada wrote: Maintaining 2 Designs is a waste of time, because its work, that wont repay in any way. So, the old design will perish some day. And yeah, its always hard to change to something different, and leaving style, used, and attached to, behind. And yes, the new design looks... boring? Just another flat, tile-design, as seen on nearly every other crap-site in the internet the last 2 years.
But i must admit, the primary function of a mod-page is to deliver info. And they come in form of pictures most of the time.
You may explain, what your armor-mod does, how it looks, and where are the belt is attached... but no one will really imagine int. Put a picture on it, and kabooom.
And thats, what this design is made for.
Personally, i would had made some stuff the other way. But i´m not in charge. If have to, and i can, live with that.

pintocat wrote: I don't mind if they don't maintain the old one, I'll use a buggy one until the new one is fixed

Jokerine wrote: I personally understand that maintaining two different versions of the site may be too much work, and this will probably be an "adapt or die" situation. But, well, if the site is switched over for good and we're all forced to use the new redesign I'll most likely stop using the site altogether, or only visit very, very rarely. I have a choice in this matter, thankfully. I'll just take death :laugh:

kn1ghtfall wrote: Once again I have agree with Jokerine.

Foxia wrote: HEAR, HEAR!!! I must agree with Jokerine myself. Death it will be as well for myself.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: YEAH! Everyone over to Bethesdanet!

Oh wait...

Crimsomrider wrote: I feel the same way Jokerine.

I spoke to a few friends about this design and not one of them likes it. One actually hates it so much he threw a tantrum.

I really hope for some visual and design improvements until the final launch day which reduces the cluster**** of ugliness and information and scales down the UI, which I offered my suggestions on, otherwise I'll just go away because I really can't stand this new design. I am really trying hard forcing myself to suffer through it, but it's just impossible and frustrating. On a mobile the site is PERFECT! It looks good, it feels good... except the mod pages which are ugly as hell no matter where you view them from. But it's just not worth sacrificing something that was perfect in order to make a mobile version more better.

I'll keep on surviving until the final launch day and see what changes happen from now till then. All I can do until then is just offer my opinion on the matter and like you said... adapt or die.

I am forced to death however because I really can't stand another Bethesda.net lookalike.

I am under no illusion that my opinion or me quitting matters at all, after all I'm just another random peon who already got milked for money and will be forgotten after a day of departure... but I would like to remain on this site... hopefully... :(

#SaveNexus

fredlaus wrote: I had thumbs up yesterday - today I feel like I lost my best friend.

Changes are OK to me but then you have to show up something entirely new - some braver stuff than this.

Come on guys and gals you are a resourceful site with millions of fans contributing.

What happened?

goatsnatcher2 wrote: Ha, I went to bed last night thinking what the hell have they done that for, then I get up this morning to my son asking what the hell have they done that for.

It's not that people don't like change, it's more, people don't like change when unnecessary or makes thing's worse.

menathradiel wrote: @SharraShimada: It is normal for a website to have a desktop and mobile version - and I know this because I maintain several - so your point is rather invalid.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: @menathradiel
Yeah, it was perfectly normal, back in 2010 before responsive design really took off and became a standard.

Ironically enough, 2010 was right about where the Nexus' previous design was stuck.

All right. (that would be why all the major websites have a mobile version, because that is a thing of the past.... but shhhhh, not your point, is it.) What part of this design is "responsive" to me? The part where it's arbitrarily decided that my description layout is not good enough as I have coded it and decides to break it?

Don't get me wrong. I'll get used to the new design, but I'll also have to spend time making my mod page layout compatible with PC users again, which is insane when you think about the fact that this site is for people who use mods for PC games.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54671943. #54672703, #54677478, #54678053, #54681883, #54683388, #54683578, #54686488, #54686998, #54687253 are all replies on the same post.

Pegasix wrote: Can we please just have an option to stick with old layout? I personally just don't like the looks of this design.

SharraShimada wrote: Maintaining 2 Designs is a waste of time, because its work, that wont repay in any way. So, the old design will perish some day. And yeah, its always hard to change to something different, and leaving style, used, and attached to, behind. And yes, the new design looks... boring? Just another flat, tile-design, as seen on nearly every other crap-site in the internet the last 2 years.
But i must admit, the primary function of a mod-page is to deliver info. And they come in form of pictures most of the time.
You may explain, what your armor-mod does, how it looks, and where are the belt is attached... but no one will really imagine int. Put a picture on it, and kabooom.
And thats, what this design is made for.
Personally, i would had made some stuff the other way. But i´m not in charge. If have to, and i can, live with that.

pintocat wrote: I don't mind if they don't maintain the old one, I'll use a buggy one until the new one is fixed

Jokerine wrote: I personally understand that maintaining two different versions of the site may be too much work, and this will probably be an "adapt or die" situation. But, well, if the site is switched over for good and we're all forced to use the new redesign I'll most likely stop using the site altogether, or only visit very, very rarely. I have a choice in this matter, thankfully. I'll just take death :laugh:

kn1ghtfall wrote: Once again I have agree with Jokerine.

Foxia wrote: HEAR, HEAR!!! I must agree with Jokerine myself. Death it will be as well for myself.

HomicidalGrouse wrote: YEAH! Everyone over to Bethesdanet!

Oh wait...

Crimsomrider wrote: I feel the same way Jokerine.

I spoke to a few friends about this design and not one of them likes it. One actually hates it so much he threw a tantrum.

I really hope for some visual and design improvements until the final launch day which reduces the cluster**** of ugliness and information and scales down the UI, which I offered my suggestions on, otherwise I'll just go away because I really can't stand this new design. I am really trying hard forcing myself to suffer through it, but it's just impossible and frustrating. On a mobile the site is PERFECT! It looks good, it feels good... except the mod pages which are ugly as hell no matter where you view them from. But it's just not worth sacrificing something that was perfect in order to make a mobile version more better.

I'll keep on surviving until the final launch day and see what changes happen from now till then. All I can do until then is just offer my opinion on the matter and like you said... adapt or die.

I am forced to death however because I really can't stand another Bethesda.net lookalike.

I am under no illusion that my opinion or me quitting matters at all, after all I'm just another random peon who already got milked for money and will be forgotten after a day of departure... but I would like to remain on this site... hopefully... :(

#SaveNexus

fredlaus wrote: I had thumbs up yesterday - today I feel like I lost my best friend.

Changes are OK to me but then you have to show up something entirely new - some braver stuff than this.

Come on guys and gals you are a resourceful site with millions of fans contributing.

What happened?

goatsnatcher2 wrote: Ha, I went to bed last night thinking what the hell have they done that for, then I get up this morning to my son asking what the hell have they done that for.

It's not that people don't like change, it's more, people don't like change when unnecessary or makes thing's worse.

@SharraShimada: It is normal for a website to have a desktop and mobile version - and I know this because I maintain several - so your point is rather invalid.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54677498. #54680143 is also a reply to the same post.

menathradiel wrote: Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

Battlestar1965 wrote: I did look at the two versions of your mod page. And i have to agree with you. It looks horrible now.Clearly, the designers had only mobile phone users in mind when doing this pointless redesign.

ikr. Ugh. I'm probably going to have to spend time redoing the images to get it to display properly again.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

In response to post #54676808. #54678143 is also a reply to the same post.

skepticck wrote: Everything is so big, this seems made for mobile devices and touch screens more than PC screens, the new Nexus looks like Bethesda.net and that's not a good thing.
So much scrolling to get to the relevant information, everything is now in big blocs, big images, big text etc... the compact and smaller design of old nexus was much more efficient imo.
I don't hate it and again this is just my opinion but modern is not always better.

moisturehead wrote: Agreed. Seems like there's a lot of underutilized space on the site now.

It's like Google news. All this white space...

Except I didn't pay google for the privilege of being ignored.

[New Nexus Mods design launched]

Have had a look at the new design and have to say: Why did you bork my description page? Why are you forcing every image to display on a new line even when in bbcode and wysiwyg editors they are not? It looks absolutely horrible, and makes me look like I put no thought or effort into my mod page. If I put two images on the same line, I do that for a reason. Yes, it's nice that the video is bigger, but you have every single one of my NPC pictures on a separate line, and they do not need it - this would be why I didn't do what you've essentially forced me to do.

 

Take a look at my nexus page for my mod on the old layout, and then the new layout, and then explain to me why you've made it look so excruciatingly bad on the new one, and why I can't fix it?

[What did you like about Dragonborn?]

I love everything to do with Hermaeus Mora's realm. Okay, not everything, just a few things really. Well, actually only one. BOOKS! Spent ages in there because I overencumbered myself picking up all the books and refused to put any of them down again. Yes, some people love the new armours, the new swords, new puzzly dungeons. Me, I am wandering Solstheim and having a nerdgasm when I find a book I haven't read yet. :facepalm:

[Skyrim's Humour]

Speaking of the Lusty Argonian Maid...

 

I was in a nordic ruin full of Rieklings. Got some distance in, putting arrows in the angry garden gnomes as I went, then stopped to look around for any interesting loot and found a pile of Lusty Argonian Maid books in one of the Riekling tents. A whole pile of them, both volumes, like some Riekling fetish library.

[Blog piece: Ads, Supporters, Endorsements and Bandwidth Throttling]

For those who are afraid of getting ripped off (even if using paypal) you could use a prepaid credit card to fund online purchase and live without worries.

 

The trouble is that this only works if the site in question has other options than paypal, as most of the prepaid cards can't be used with paypal. Or at least this was the state of affairs when I used to use one for internet transactions. I think now there are some that can be used with paypal, but most of those are so expensive to use that it's really not worth it unless you have no other option.

 

 

 

In general, I think that a good option for the supporter fee would be a text message that charges, if it could be implemented.

[Editing Meshes in Blender]

Came back to update. I still get the errors when importing a mesh, even when using the settings that the above mentioned tutorial told me to. However, the meshes load into blender (with either tutorial) and I am able to edit them, so should I just ignore the python errors, since they do not appear to be affecting functionality? Also, I tried to import an Oblivion mesh, to see if that would work, and it did with no errors, so perhaps this is something to do with Skyrim meshes or a step I am missing in NifSkope?

 

What I do in Nifskope.

 

Change User Version & User Version 2: 11 and 34 respectively.

Delete the branches for BSLightingShaderProperty.

Save as new file.

 

If there's something else I should be doing it is not mentioned in either of the tutorials.

 

edit: confusion over numbers, got them backwards.

[Modding a Mod]

I don't mean to be an ass, but I answered that question.

 

And no offence, but you have two posts here, both on this thread.

True, but I did confirm he was 100% correct. ;)

 

Give him/her some kudos for making a correct, and relevant 1st post. :thumbsup:

 

Aye, I know. Apologies to you, CoeurConnect. It was late and I was in a rather strange mood. So sorry.

[Modding a Mod]

I don't mean to be an ass, but I answered that question.

 

And no offence, but you have two posts here, both on this thread.

[Modding a Mod]

Yes, I understand that if you intend to redistribute them you should get permission, but I'm asking about times when you mod a mod just for yourself.

[Modding a Mod]

This is something I have been wondering for a while, about the etiquette of modding a mod. Say that, for example, you find an armour mod that you really like, but the colour is not to your taste - for example, this armour, which I love but wanted a Stormcloak colour theme for. Is it okay to recolour something for your own personal use without seeking permission from the author of the mod? Or should you refrain from doing so unless you ask?

 

I'm not talking about recolours that you intend to make available on nexus, but ones you will use only in your own game. Is there a rule about modding a mod if you only want to change it in your own game, or is it one of those grey areas that has no rule?

 

 

 

(A note: I am using this armour as an example. I have recoloured this with Grace Darkling's permission.)

[First Person or Third Person]

First person. I can't stand that the view from horses is fixed in 3rd person, especially when the view in 3rd person is so terrible. I ride my horse with my weapon drawn so I can have a better view of upcoming terrain. The default view is useless; I'd like to not watch the back of my chars ass when something attacks me.

[Editing Meshes in Blender]

I recommend to have a look at the tutorial section of TES Alliance:

http://tesalliance.org/forums/index.php?/tutorials/category/40-3d-craftworks/

 

"Creating Skyrim Armor in Blender " - Part 3 covers the import of armor into blender for instance.

 

 

Thanks for the link! It seems like a much more comprehensive tutorial than the one I have been using. I'll let you know if it helps.

[Editing Meshes in Blender]

I've decided to try and learn how to make meshes, but since I've never done anything except retexture before (which is a relatively simple process, let's be honest) I thought it would be better to play around with one of the vanilla Skyrim armours, just to learn my way around blender and get the hang of things before taking on the more ambitious project of creating something from scratch.

 

I'm having a problem importing the armour I've chosen (basic female hide) into blender. I've followed the steps in this tutorial, downloaded and installed everything it says, but I keep getting a series of python errors when importing the mesh into blender. I've followed the instructions about editing the mesh with NifSkope before importing, but it doesn't seem to be working. Is there another step that the tutorial has missed?

 

Any help would be most appreciated!