Mod Browsing Overhaul Discussion

[Simale]

2 hours ago, Qrsr said:

Oh man this is alot of feedback ... 

I really just wish that you make most of the visual changes and UI changes which differ from the original "optional".

It might sound paradox but this way people can mod the nexus page themself, without using browser extensions. Its a win win.

A visual change for example is the glow behind the images used for https://next.nexusmods.com/profile/.../mods which are now not available anymore. I really liked the glow in the back of the image which really fits to the overall dark environment.

Oodles of websites let you customize what colors to use. Both with premade templates and custom settings. When doing a redesign, why that wasn't included is odd, pertaining to the utter 1990 teen angst homepage color choices they went with.

[Simale]

3 hours ago, pilonexyz said:

I'm terribly sorry, there was a bad formatting with the previous CSS code.

Here's the correct one:

https://pixeldrain.com/u/a13JRcUf

Thank you so much! I can finally read again!

[pilonexyz]

Just now, Simale said:

Thank you so much! I can finally read again!

Glad you like it

[Simale]

The main thing (except for the readability/eye strain) for me is the new search function. The quick search was the GOAT of search engines. The old regular search was eons ahead of this new one. With much more searchable options and a superior presentation in a list view that we could sort in an ascending or descending order. I had a bookmarked search that allowed me to see all the new mods I'm interested in (where I excluded all translation modes and a few other options) in an order by newest to oldest. Which told me that when I got to a mod that I had already downloaded I had bought up with all the latest mods that I am interested in. Now with this gallery layout, I just can't be bothered.

[HeyYou]

Curious why the Poll thread by ortext was nuked..... Picky's reason was 'duplicate', however, I am not seeing another one...... Am I missing something here??

And..... here we are page 148, and still the results here are universally negative..... Curious how staff is coming up with the 'overwhelmingly positive' conclusion...... Personally, given the way reddit works, I am thinkin' basing any decisions on results there, is likely going to lead to the wrong conclusions...

[euph]

54 minutes ago, mfPixel said:

Hey @DefenestratedKoala , the dates on the mod tile are for "Updated"  and "Published" (if you hover over the dates you'll get a tooltip clarifying). When you sort by published, it's sorting by the second, exact date. This should always be in sequential order. Older mods might have a newer updated date, resulting in the updated dates not always being in order. Does this make sense?

No, it does NOT make sense. New mods are NOT updated mods. Get rid of that nonsense. Actually, get rid of the entire UI.

[UX99]

1 hour ago, mfPixel said:

Hey @DefenestratedKoala , the dates on the mod tile are for "Updated"  and "Published" (if you hover over the dates you'll get a tooltip clarifying). When you sort by published, it's sorting by the second, exact date. This should always be in sequential order. Older mods might have a newer updated date, resulting in the updated dates not always being in order. Does this make sense?

 

 

You do realize that relying on tooltips for that kind of information when it comes to viewing a lot of information at once is bad... right?
It's easier for people to read from multiple areas at once when it's displayed properly instead of having to move their cursor to each individual thing.

This is just another example of how poorly thought out this change was.
It's all "style" (and a pretty bad one at that) over substance.
Vague "x months ago" or "x years ago" instead of the actual date only leads to a worse experience.

Edited yesterday at 03:39 PM by UX99

[JobiWanUK]

49 minutes ago, HeyYou said:

Curious why the Poll thread by ortext was nuked..... Picky's reason was 'duplicate', however, I am not seeing another one...... Am I missing something here??

And..... here we are page 148, and still the results here are universally negative..... Curious how staff is coming up with the 'overwhelmingly positive' conclusion...... Personally, given the way reddit works, I am thinkin' basing any decisions on results there, is likely going to lead to the wrong conclusions...

Comments on Reddit are mostly negative too.

[mfPixel]

4 minutes ago, UX99 said:

 

You do realize that relying on tooltips for that kind of information when it comes to viewing a lot of information at once is bad... right?
It's easier for people to read from multiple areas at once when it's displayed properly instead of having to move their cursor to each individual thing.

This is just another example of how poorly thought out this change was.
It's all "style" (and a pretty bad one at that) over substance.
Vague "x months ago" or "x years ago" instead of the actual date only leads to a worse experience.

These tiles are particularly challenging to design for and keep all of the existing meta-data in place. We could explicitly add the labels "Updated" and "Uploaded" in, but that would be yet more text. As for the format being "time since" vs "actual date", there are pros and cons for both. Time since makes it quicker to establish how long ago the update has taken place, but you lose the exact date the longer time has passed.

We'll continue to refine these tiles as we move forward — thanks for the feedback.

[WndMll]

Just now, mfPixel said:

but that would be yet more text.

More text is better. We're not 12. We can read.