Forum header redesign

[Papean]

I think now it is very difficult to understand which topic refers to which product and everything is piled in a heap, it is very difficult to work with such volumes of information, not to mention that everything is mixed up and new ideas and program bugs.

Can we make some kind of breakdown?

 

[GarryP]

The Questions section of the forums is split by Desktop and iPad because the software can have different functionalities in those different OS-types.

The Feedback section of the forums used to be split by application and OS (as can be seen with the V1 feedback sections) but, because the same requests were being made multiple times in different sections for different applications and OSes, Serif decided to ‘roll them up’ into one section to make them easier to find and manage as many requests are for the whole suite and/or are ‘OS-agnostic’.

Bugs, however, are more usually OS-specific, if not also application-specific, so those sections are split by OS.

As for posts being made in the wrong section (e.g. posting something as a bug when it’s just user inexperience), that’s something for individual forum members to get right (in some cases after being told about it multiple times).

There is no ‘perfect’ way to organise this sort of thing as different people want information in different ways but I think Serif have got it just about as right as they can with how things are, and it usually works well if people post things in the correct place.

[Papean]

23 minutes ago, GarryP said:

The Feedback section of the forums used to be split by application and OS

If you're referring to this navigation?:

 

Then yes it was inconvenient because you had to go back to the previous level, even though there is no button to go back to the level above (or it's just not visible to the average user). I would also just create a topic in the section where I am, because being in it you just think that there are no other sections:

 

 

[GarryP]

5 minutes ago, Papean said:

Then yes it was inconvenient because you had to go back to the previous level, even though there is no button to go back to the level above (or it's just not visible to the average user).

The clickable 'breadcrumbs' near the top of each page let you go back to the previous level. Just select the one to the left of the current one.

[Alfred]

1 minute ago, GarryP said:

The clickable 'breadcrumbs' near the top of each page let you go back to the previous level. Just select the one to the left of the current one.

You beat me to it by seconds, Garry! I was just composing a reply saying that the breadcrumb navigation near the top of the page (‘Home > Affinity Support > Feedback & Suggestions > …’) not only tells you that other sections exist and what they are called, but also gives you immediate access to them.

[Papean]

I distinctly remember reading my first book on website usability, and the main idea I remembered was "Don't make me think" - you don't need to strain the user's brain. If a site needs instructions on how to use it, it means there's something wrong with the site.

 

90% of the time you scroll down to 1/5 of the screen to grab more topics and as a result you don't see the top area. And what sections are there - you already forget, there is a dead zone there, which visually is just perceived fluently, hoping that the user will press something hard there - pointless).

 

[Latens]

Breadcrumbs exist a long time and are also to be found at the bottom of the page.
Besides most modern browsers can setup gestures that also work for a mouse so for instance I have setup to go back by using rightmouse+drag to the left.
Also there's rightclick>back accompanied with shortcuts.
Or just use the home and end keys on your keyboard to go to top or end of page where the breadcrumbs reside.
And of course the big back arrow on the toolbar of your browser.

 

[Papean]

By the way yes, it is possible when registering on the forum to organize an exam where you need to pass the tests. If you do not pass, then the retake only in 3 months, it would reduce the number of topics created in the wrong sections.

[Latens]

Don't get me wrong that I would like to see a better approach to these wrong section posts or faq that are user faq and not business/system faq .
It is a live rss like reading forum where so many subjects/topics get buried in no time.
I suggested once that there should be a wiki like page as other vendors do use where the common issues/questions are sorted and easily be found.
So this forum could either link to those topics by members/staff seeing these topics and make this forum more accessible for users to post bugs or sharing their usage.
Now there are only debates about how to use a certain feature or not or what is possible or not.
It would also make searching easier for those just starting out the affinities.

[Papean]

It's about being able to rank topics based on their usefulness:  it's just one of the options for 

[Latens]

21 minutes ago, Papean said:

It's about being able to rank topics based on their usefulness: 

I don't think that should be an option as what you think is useful isn't for me.
What you want is an upvoting system so that your pet peeve get's more ranking and that's what Serif doesn't want.
It would lead to more discussions/debates and this would make this forum even more toxic and hostile.
(and yes there's a "me too" factor there as I also have things/thoughts getting the better of me sometimes as I truly think Serif could and should be further with their endeavors by now)

 

[Catshill]

I’ve been using these forums for many years and don’t have a clue as to how they are grouped. I just list the unread topics and read the ones I’m interested in, rarely starting a new topic but occasionally adding a reply to an existing one.

[Papean]

The point of the proposed system is to highlight topics that users like and find useful = they expect them to be implemented = they are implemented first. But perhaps the number of participants of this forum does not allow to get objective data on the usefulness of this or that innovation

[Latens]

6 hours ago, Papean said:

The point of the proposed system is to highlight topics that users like and find useful = they expect them to be implemented = they are implemented first. But perhaps the number of participants of this forum does not allow to get objective data on the usefulness of this or that innovation

Like said you want a voting system that is of no interest to many users as I want feature A and you want feature B implemented.
Serif made it clear that development is not a democracy and the developers decide in conjunction with management where and what get's implemented.
Otherwise the loudest or those that create multiple accounts get to vote for their preferred feature which will disrupt other implementations as it would also feed expectations that may be not valid just like a roadmap that was retracted as people expect things which aren't met in a certain amount of time.

[Alfred]

6 hours ago, Papean said:

The point of the proposed system is to highlight topics that users like and find useful = they expect them to be implemented = they are implemented first. But perhaps the number of participants of this forum does not allow to get objective data on the usefulness of this or that innovation

As has been pointed out many times in previous discussions, desirable new features often depend on other new features being implemented first, and such prerequisites may not be easy to implement.

[fde101]

On 1/19/2025 at 6:00 AM, Papean said:

 

 

 

That section at the top highlights important guidelines that users are expected to follow when posting to the forum.  Many of them ignore it and then complain when others point out the fact that they did not follow the clearly presented guidelines, suggesting that the information you crossed out in red should be made MORE prominent, not less.

[bures]

1 hour ago, fde101 said:

That section at the top highlights important guidelines that users are expected to follow when posting to the forum.  Many of them ignore it and then complain when others point out the fact that they did not follow the clearly presented guidelines, suggesting that the information you crossed out in red should be made MORE prominent, not less.

The section is there and some users ignore it anyway. So it is probably useless.
Those who ignore it will never stoop to looking to see if the same question has already come up. And those who do search may not know the exact terminology. And if they do use the exact terminology, that terminology may not be used in the search topics.

Similarly, the section title, which is listed in the breadcrumb navigation anyway, is unnecessary. And the description below it is often useless because it says nothing new that is not clear from the title.

The follow button could just as easily be at the bottom.

[fde101]

1 hour ago, bures said:

some users ignore it anyway. So it is probably useless.

Wrong.  The fact that users so readily ignore information which has been so prominently placed highlights those users as problematic.  For everyone else, they help to establish expectations.  Different forums have different expectations and people who frequently visit several may need a quick way to remind themselves of these differences.

 

1 hour ago, bures said:

And those who do search may not know the exact terminology. And if they do use the exact terminology, that terminology may not be used in the search topics.

Yes, this happens sometimes, and doesn't bother me nearly as much as people blatantly not even trying.

 

1 hour ago, bures said:

Similarly, the section title, which is listed in the breadcrumb navigation anyway, is unnecessary.

True.  Highlighting it by making it a different color and underlining it in the breadcrumbs would likely suffice for the title.

 

1 hour ago, bures said:

And the description below it is often useless because it says nothing new that is not clear from the title.

The one in your screenshot is a counter-example.  It makes clear that the section labeled "feedback" is intended for "feature requests", which is not clear from the term "feedback" alone.

 

1 hour ago, bures said:

The follow button could just as easily be at the bottom.

True, or moved next to the buttons to choose the listing format.  No need for it to be on a separate line by itself.

 

All being said, while there are plenty of ways that the site's presentation could be condensed, I disagree with the premise that it needs to be.  I think it is fine - but that is coming from the perspective of someone who accesses it from a computer with a large monitor.

 

As to the original post trying to break topics down by application, there is so much overlap between them that while that is how Serif originally broke it down (for the V1 apps), they evidently determined that it was working against them and decided not to do that this time around.  Consider that a feature that was wanted across all three apps often wound up being posted in all three places, creating even more excessive duplication and thus increasing their workload.

[Papean]

A website with perfect navigation