Your comments
This should be relatively easy for us to add - the only thing is that you have to approve photos and stories separately, even if they were submitted together. (Which is the case now for regular user-contributed news, which can have an associated photo.)
11 years ago
Hi Jason!
We are already planning on adding this in our next minor update. It will just be a "clear sections" button at the bottom of the section popup.
\
Let me know what you think! =)
Christine
We are already planning on adding this in our next minor update. It will just be a "clear sections" button at the bottom of the section popup.
\Let me know what you think! =)
Christine
Hi Matthew!
I have not heard any reports of our standard CSS or JS crashing the browser or causing conflicts... Most likely, this is a case of some site-defined scripts not playing well together.
If you haven't already, I would suggest submitting a ticket to our Customer Support staff with the browsers being used and the pages that are problematic, and we can check it out. =)
Many sites, especially larger sites like TD, have dozens of different types of non-standard JS being included - OAS, DFP, third-party ads, custom integrations, etc. It is often difficult to provide sites with the flexibility they want (to be able to add third-party stuff), while at the same time being able to change, upgrade and improve our own scripts.
That being said, we have been working diligently (over the last few years especially) to try to reduce and consolidate JS and CSS files as much as possible. To do this in a way that does not affect existing sites (who have their own customizations) is complicated and takes a long time.
Here is what we've been working on more specifically:
- Removed unneeded files, or files that were necessary for only one block or task and combined it with others. For example, most of our slideshow blocks are now built on top of the Cycle jQuery plugin, instead of each having separate JS scripts.
- Removed separate smaller scripts into one larger, minified file, where possible. We've reduced http requests for JS and CSS by at least 60% in the last year.
- We are now moving aggressively toward loading smaller script files asynchronously when needed (instead by default). Again, this reduces http requests and helps the site run faster. Asynchronous scripts make the site appear to load faster as well, since they are loaded at the end of the site build.
- We've also consolidated and minified most of our CSS files. Unfortunately, we can't make huge wholesale improvements here (like chopping off huge chunks of CSS we think may be unnecessary) because some site might be depending on that code.
Even though we have made a lot of progress in this area, there is only so much we can do without negatively affecting existing sites and the custom JS and CSS that they may have added. So, we are secretly working behind the scenes on a new set of templates that have NO backwards compatibility requirements (meaning, it would not be a soft update... this would require a full site redesign). There is not an ETA yet for these, which is why I can't talk about it =), but we're looking to launch a beta sometime next year.
As for preprocessing, let me respond to that separately. Thanks!
Christine
I have not heard any reports of our standard CSS or JS crashing the browser or causing conflicts... Most likely, this is a case of some site-defined scripts not playing well together.
If you haven't already, I would suggest submitting a ticket to our Customer Support staff with the browsers being used and the pages that are problematic, and we can check it out. =)
Many sites, especially larger sites like TD, have dozens of different types of non-standard JS being included - OAS, DFP, third-party ads, custom integrations, etc. It is often difficult to provide sites with the flexibility they want (to be able to add third-party stuff), while at the same time being able to change, upgrade and improve our own scripts.
That being said, we have been working diligently (over the last few years especially) to try to reduce and consolidate JS and CSS files as much as possible. To do this in a way that does not affect existing sites (who have their own customizations) is complicated and takes a long time.
Here is what we've been working on more specifically:
- Removed unneeded files, or files that were necessary for only one block or task and combined it with others. For example, most of our slideshow blocks are now built on top of the Cycle jQuery plugin, instead of each having separate JS scripts.
- Removed separate smaller scripts into one larger, minified file, where possible. We've reduced http requests for JS and CSS by at least 60% in the last year.
- We are now moving aggressively toward loading smaller script files asynchronously when needed (instead by default). Again, this reduces http requests and helps the site run faster. Asynchronous scripts make the site appear to load faster as well, since they are loaded at the end of the site build.
- We've also consolidated and minified most of our CSS files. Unfortunately, we can't make huge wholesale improvements here (like chopping off huge chunks of CSS we think may be unnecessary) because some site might be depending on that code.
Even though we have made a lot of progress in this area, there is only so much we can do without negatively affecting existing sites and the custom JS and CSS that they may have added. So, we are secretly working behind the scenes on a new set of templates that have NO backwards compatibility requirements (meaning, it would not be a soft update... this would require a full site redesign). There is not an ETA yet for these, which is why I can't talk about it =), but we're looking to launch a beta sometime next year.
As for preprocessing, let me respond to that separately. Thanks!
Christine
Hi Natalie and Jacki!
The current plan is to create a new setting which allows the photo-upload-on-event-creation feature to be enabled. (This way, it is not available by default, so site admins known they need to start approving photos.)
However, if you do not have user-submissions set to be auto-approved (meaning, if you have it set up so that it needs to be approved), you'll need to publish or approve both the event and the associated photo.
In the future, we are looking at ways to make this a one-stop process, but for now we'll have to approve each asset.
What do you think? Thanks!
Christine
The current plan is to create a new setting which allows the photo-upload-on-event-creation feature to be enabled. (This way, it is not available by default, so site admins known they need to start approving photos.)
However, if you do not have user-submissions set to be auto-approved (meaning, if you have it set up so that it needs to be approved), you'll need to publish or approve both the event and the associated photo.
In the future, we are looking at ways to make this a one-stop process, but for now we'll have to approve each asset.
What do you think? Thanks!
Christine
The versatile slideshow has a "showcase" style that was modeled to look like the Mega block. Like this:
The custom properties are:
slider_columns = 2 (can also be 3)
slider_force_adjust = true
slider_id = slider-2-col (needs to be different if there are more than one on a page)
slider_style = showcase
The custom properties are:
slider_columns = 2 (can also be 3)
slider_force_adjust = true
slider_id = slider-2-col (needs to be different if there are more than one on a page)
slider_style = showcase
Thanks Cory! As a side note, we should only add this to the "versatile" block, rather than the "mega" block which is deprecated. Then, we'll have to get Mike to migrate his block, since he's on the old one.
(But, I did check and the new block has the eyebrow gallery problem as well.)
By the way, I wish I could provide an award or something for the "eyebrow gallery" phrase. That's classic! =)
(But, I did check and the new block has the eyebrow gallery problem as well.)
By the way, I wish I could provide an award or something for the "eyebrow gallery" phrase. That's classic! =)
Also, if you love the idea, please vote it up! =)
Hey Steven, what do you mean "additional subscription"? Do you mean, for the user? Or, do you mean, that you as a customer would have to buy it? If so, yes. =)
Customer support service by UserEcho
