The Portable Freeware Collection Forums

Version and release date are intricately-related fields. They almost always change together.

Thoughts?

Makes sense, and a real easy change.

I have done it for the CLI edit page. If there are no intense objections, I will do it for the main site edit page as well in a couple of days.

I agreed.

I'd actually make an objection in the other direction: let's make an effort to change all fields to group by topic or relationship now.

I say this because I've worked out a batch posting function to get multiple entries up quickly, due to the fact that I now have a rather long list of programs that are portable and I want to add to the database once I get a free weekend. Since changes break the script I came up with, I'd like to just get that all sorted out now rather than repeatedly tweak my script.

So if you had anything other than the release date, I'd like to work that out now.

vevy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:25 am PS Just so you know, I have been contemplating suggesting revamping the entry edit page based on related fields/view presentation and better fit things together instead of every little field in a separate line. But first, I'd like to hear from you and other members, especially billon.
For starters, I'd move the release date next to the version field, since both are usually changed together.

vevy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:42 pm

vevy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:25 am PS Just so you know, I have been contemplating suggesting revamping the entry edit page based on related fields/view presentation and better fit things together instead of every little field in a separate line. But first, I'd like to hear from you and other members, especially billon.
For starters, I'd move the release date next to the version field, since both are usually changed together.

Works for me.

I spent some time today looking through stuff I'd like to rearrange but couldn't find anything wrong with the current setup. The separation into "required" and "optional" fields seems very logical, and most of the elements mirror entry construction (e.g. screenshot comes after icon). I don't see anything that stands out as either misplaced or disorganized.

So not sure what other changes are necessary to group into this batch of changes I suggested. Maybe it's just the one.

webfork wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:05 am Works for me.

I spent some time today looking through stuff I'd like to rearrange but couldn't find anything wrong with the current setup. The separation into "required" and "optional" fields seems very logical, and most of the elements mirror entry construction (e.g. screenshot comes after icon). I don't see anything that stands out as either misplaced or disorganized.

So not sure what other changes are necessary to group into this batch of changes I suggested. Maybe it's just the one.

I am considering two things:

1. General order: "All Mandatory then all optional" vs "Mirror the entry view and visually distinguish the mandatory ones". Both have pros/cons.

2. Better space usage, less scrolling. For example, many fields don't need to be full width, many field elements can be fitted without sacrificing clarity.

I may whip up something to show what I mean.

vevy wrote:I may whip up something to show what I mean.

Please do -- it'll make this discussion a lot more productive, IMHO...

This is one possible rearrangement, to put much of the fields in one page.

The "?" are hover texts for information about the field.
Blue-green = optional

A few fields, like use cases, keywords, path portablility, unicode, alternatives, stealth, I felt to better leave them to one scroll down.
Tbh I forgot about additional categories, but the mock-up is less than 800*800. I tried to be conservative with space assumptions so I think you can fit more.

As I noted earlier, although the design you propose would look more compact on a desktop PC screen, it would be an absolute mess on any portable device vertically oriented display, higher resolution or not...

I am aware. Responsive web design is our friend.

As you may be aware, I am an absolute mess what it comes to frontend design. Last facelift was done by tproli way back.

If you guys want any design changes, you'd have to send me the full template (responsive or not).

I don't know enough to make a good one, so we'll have to see if someone capable volunteers.

looks ok to me the way it is fwiw

what bothers me is some older entries dont have any info in latest release date field

bitcoin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:06 pm looks ok to me the way it is fwiw

The main problem for me is that It requires too much scrolling, and the order could be better.

Can you elaborate? Do you like the one-per-row design or what exactly?