Great Western Coffee Shop

It's sometimes a bit difficult to navigate around the coffeshop on a mobile. Are there any plans to make it easier?

I'm aware of a number of areas where improvements could be made with big advantage, and making it more mobile friendly is one of them. But whilst I (and the admin / moderator team) are aware of these things, we're currently running in a steady state mode where the site / forum runs stably and only critical issues that arise in the software are fixed.

The forum has developed over the years into something much bigger than we intended / expected, and what we thought would be a short term campaign and build up to an FAQ database of common questions took on a much longer and wider life of its own.   The initial choice of software has proven to be a good one, but upgrading at this point would be a tricky operation through a number of intermediate versions that might be hard to source, and patches would need to be re-engineered and applied.  Technically possible, but very expensive in terms of time taken and there would probably need to be a financial cost in doing so.  However, we don't take advertising, we don't charge membership (neither paths we can take) and beyond the provision of server space by my company, we're not sponsored.

In summer and autumn 2012, we had provisional plans afoot to make a switch should trains in the West of England be operated by a different TOC - that would have been a logical time to move to something with mobile, search, and other improvements, and perhaps to something that had a different organisational approach behind it.  Having the name "FirstGreatWestern" in the URL is both a blessing and curse;  it's a blessing in making it very clear that "Firstgreatwestern.info is information about First Great Western", but we cannot [mt]ake money from the use of their name, and every page makes it clear that "This forum is provided by a customer of First Great Western, and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk for the official First Great Western website."

The stable / non-changing nature of the underlying software hasn't stopped us upgrading underlying Linux, PHP and MySQL, and it doesn't stop us changing relatively minor things which aren't there in the original software; it could be an issue in the future if deprecated function calls are removed. We can also make a wide range of data  changes and flip switches, so that new boards can be added, membership groups changed, and so forth.  We can even make a few look and feel changes (as indeed we did when we added multiple styles) and it just might allow us to help the mobile users who - I know - are now a significant proportion.  I'm not personally enough of an expert (and I don't have the time) to do such work, but there are two or three longstanding, skilled, trusted members who might be able to help.   They'll know who they are ... and I would be happy to explore options with them and the moderator team.

In the longer term, I note that wnxxforum has basically started afresh (as I understand it) with their old forum archived and the new one - under a different domain name - taking off well.   Perhaps there's some merit in that approach, all be it I would really ("vitally") want to see an ability to look back within our archive of postings as well as at newer material.  That would be a huge decision, though;  this forum has become a significant factor  for quite a number of members, and that's something that I (and I'm sure the moderator and admin team) cherish and wish to protect.

That's a very long answer - thanks for the opportunity to look at where we are and where we might go in this way.   Historic statements above are pretty accurate (I think); thoughts of where we might go are to a degree personal, although much has been discussed on matters like this "behind the counter" over past years.

Stunned silence from all members??   The team does have an eye for the future - very much so - even if you don't see changing facilities and extras being added. 

OK, I^ll stick my head over the parapet!

I should start by saying that, in common with everyone else using this forum I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Graham and the team for all the work they do behind the scenes keeping the Coffeeshop running. I am (uncharacteristically, you may think) reluctant to criticise the forum^s quirks and foibles for that reason if no other.

However it is estimated that by mid-2014 over half of all website visits in the UK will be from mobile web browsers, and this percentage can only grow. Given that the forum is primarily intended for travellers, it may be that its percentage of mobile users is already higher than that (do you have the analytics, Graham?), so moving to a mobile-friendly format has to be highly desirable. 

I suspect that the ^fresh start^ approach that wnxx have used may well be the best way forward, though I agree that the ability to link back to old threads is a must-have.

Need any help?

There is a huge difference between acknowledging and discussing foibles and where we may go - which is really useful (thank you for sticking your head over!) and criticising something (which you are NOT doing, thank you) in the expectation that everything will be as good / perfect as it would be as if you were paying significant fees to use it.  As you say, we do our best and work around things and I / we need to know what are the real irritants / desires, even if the answer is "sorry".


Yes, we do have analytics and server logs.   However, they are going to be biased towards non-mobile browsers exactly because it ain't easy on mobiles.



Yes ... indeed I wonder if a fresh 'skin' may be added - perhaps rather more that a style - in the "site style" section.  There's a danger there of taking ourselves into even more of a cul-de-sac though ... it's more a discussion topic and this month and next priority of (my) volunteer time is on (a) getting people onto trains and (b) helping correlate views and answers to the 2015 - 2020 consultation.

Thanks for your reply Graham, your site is much appreciated. 

I agree with what has been said.  Yes a more mobile friendly version would be good.  But we recognise the limitations of what volunteers can realistically do. And we are hugely indebted for what you have and continue to do.

As is so often the case it seems, I'm of an entirely contrary opinion to the majority. I'm genuinely not bothered about this site going "mobile friendly". In fact, I'd really rather it stayed as it is.

When I want live, as-it-happens, sometimes before-it-even-happens, news updates, I have various different apps and Twitter feeds providing me with more than enough information to absorb while I'm mobile.

What I look to this site for is in-depth analysis, insider facts and knowledgeable opinions - and for that, I'd much rather enjoy wide-screen viewing, with comfortable scrolling and text, links and pictures that I'm not having to squint at.

In short, to me the Coffee Shop is a treat - and I like to savour my treats, and sit down with a screen in front of me that does it justice.

... and, as something of an innate / inadvertent Luddite myself, I'd rather like to say that I agree with Phil, in what he has posted above.  :P ::) ;D

I'm fine with it as is. It's fairly easy to navigate around it on my iPhone.

Blimey, that's a first! Thanks, CFN :)

You, sir, are being cheeky: I agree with you rather more often than you might perhaps acknowledge.  ;) ::) ;D

Starting with a re-assurance.  Making the site "more mobile friendly" would be an additional style or skin - initially selected either from the top menu "Site Style" setup with an extra "M", and / or via a URL such as http://mobile.firstgreatwestern.info . No changes to the main presentations of data which some of us have grown rather fond of; users should see no difference except the "mobile" offer.

IF the extra skin took us into new realms of members then it's possible (Phil's point) that the new members and their style might make for some much shorter posts due to the nature of the mobile 'beast' and I suppose that it it was a burning success, then it might mean that such new content significantly diluted the in-depth analysis elements.  But that's way off, pie in the sky beyond the stratosphere and can be tuned to a degree by content / board management.

Anyway - all very theoretical.   A very useful conversation for looking to the future but (unless Red Squirrel's offer was skilled and serious) the resource ain't there at the moment - more time critical to deal with build up of passengers on the TransWilts and to answer the DfT consultation to ensure we have the trains from December 2016 to actually put the passengers on to, rather than loosing half our peak services again.

Been researching a bit more ... analytics report for last month attached as an image.   Our figures for mobile are relatively low.

I will join the chorus of members that congratulate Graham for devoting much time and effort to keep this great site going.

I do sometimes wish the forum had a "thanks" or "like" button that some other forums have. Sometimes I agree with or enjoy a post, but don't want to clutter the forum with a post of one or two words just to say as much. But a like button would be a way to members know I really appreciated a particular post, even if I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

I would definitely appreciate a mobile version of this site. Note to those braking into a sweat, I said version and not replacement!

Thanks, Network SouthEast!  :D

I, too, would like to thank grahame yet again for providing us all with such a fantastic forum here in the Coffee Shop.  ;)

In the absence of a 'like' button, I must admit to having occasionally simply posted a ;D in a reply to a post which I found particularly amusing, for example.  After a couple of weeks, when that particular context has passed and the discussion has perhaps moved on, I merely remove that 'smiley' post.  :P

As to adding an additional 'mobile version' of this forum: I'm really not opposed to the idea at all - I just don't want to lose the absolutely brilliant site we already have here.  :-X

 ;D

Ooooohhh, a like button has appeared. Thanks!  :)

It's under test ... and as my Javascript it crap, it doesn't automatically refresh the page, so as yet you get no confirmation of your action.   I'm going to leave it at that for tonight - I've had some fun doing something I wasn't supposed to have the time for today, but it's something I've wondered about in the past ....

OK ...I have some feedback (at least) on the button when you press it now.  Not clever if you press the same button several times without refreshing the page, but at least you get some feedback the first time.

Note that the like button, and a listing of the likers of a page, is only shown to logged in members.

I am just discovering taptalk:

http://tapatalk.com/

I don't think it is supported here but are there any plans to do so, I belong to a number of forums and it certainly makes navigating round them easier.

Chances are that it is not supported here and that there won't be a plugin for the rather mature software that we run (I've taken a quick look at the website and that's how they do it).  I'm also not familiar with tapatalk and I don't think it's [yet?] got a significant number of users.   I stand open to correction by other forum members on that, by the way.

There have been some exchanges between the admins as to how / if we could take "mobile friendly" forward, looking in particular at the risks of damaging / effecting / disrupting the established experience, and of having the resources available (skills and time) to do it.   Some experiments I did the other day have persuaded me that a different URL for a different mobile browsing (initially) experience may be possible, with a server login to write / test / update that experience available to a trusted volunteer with the right technical skills.    By personal message, I'll bring this note to the attention of a couple of people;  other well established technical member who could help are very welcome to contact me - but please note it's all a volunteer / no pay thing, and the work will purely be on the current version which may be dramatically changed in due course as described above.   In reality, I'm going to suggest that won't be for at least 15 months.

I have found that using Opera Mini (not regular Opera) browser on my phone this forum is reformatted as a very mobile friendly site. I don't know how the Opera server does it but it works for me.

You mean like this?  http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=14021.new;topicseen;wap

My old phone (which didn't have wifi or 3G) would display this version automatically.

No, not like that, just like the full size website but formatted in a single column with everything showing on the screen just to be scrolled down.

The forum already has this capability. But as some smartphones and tablets have browsers that can understand real html. The mobile devices doesn't always pick up the settings from Apache like they should.

Try these links:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop?wap (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop?wap)

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop?wap2 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop?wap2)

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop?imode (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop?imode)

I've looked at those links, but they don't seem to be much use if you actually want to post a reply!

Some new data - the profile of our user base over the last month

Which Operating System?   29,147 sessions. Data columns are: rank, OS, Session count, percentage new sessions, new user count, bounce rate, pages per session, session duration; latter columns all averages.

1.   Windows   16,500(56.61%) 30.49% 5,031(48.92%) 33.67% 6.17 00:06:31
2.   iOS   5,899(20.24%) 48.38% 2,854(27.75%) 53.81% 3.31 00:03:06
3.   Macintosh   2,918(10.01%) 25.67% 749(7.28%) 32.52% 6.18 00:10:14
4.   Android   2,780(9.54%) 44.24% 1,230(11.96%) 55.00% 3.64 00:03:26
5.   Linux   601(2.06%) 34.78% 209(2.03%) 28.79% 4.57 00:05:44
6.   Windows Phone   246(0.84%) 50.00% 123(1.20%) 63.01% 3.07 00:02:07
7.   (not set)   88(0.30%) 7.95% 7(0.07%) 55.68% 1.93 00:03:49
8.   BlackBerry   76(0.26%) 60.53% 46(0.45%) 68.42% 1.61 00:01:00
9.   Chrome OS   34(0.12%) 88.24% 30(0.29%) 76.47% 2.38 00:01:13
10.   SymbianOS   2(0.01%) 100.00% 2(0.02%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
11.   Nintendo 3DS   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
12.   Series40   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 0.00% 2.00 00:03:57
13.   Xbox   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 0.00% 5.00 00:03:33

That Bill Gates...

He's doing something right.  :P ;) ;D

Are you referring to his charitable work?  :)

Without wishing to add to grahame's workload, I wonder what the breakdown is by browser? W3C have Chrome at 60% now! http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Their OS split is reasonably close to grahame's, with the various flavours of Windows taking about 73%: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

All of which I find a bit confusing, given reports like this ( http://www.intelligentpositioning.com/blog/2014/01/mobile-and-tablet-traffic-set-to-overtake-desktop-by-mid-2014/ ) which claim that by now most traffic should be from mobile browsers. Does it just come down to how you measure it?

   1.   Chrome   8,096(27.78%) 37.50% 3,036(29.52%) 40.93% 5.93 00:07:02
   2.   Safari   7,697(26.41%) 41.04% 3,159(30.72%) 47.34% 4.18 00:05:43
   3.   Internet Explorer   7,101(24.36%) 31.57% 2,242(21.80%) 36.09% 5.93 00:04:57
   4.   Firefox   4,341(14.89%) 28.59% 1,241(12.07%) 28.96% 5.29 00:05:52
   5.   Android Browser   1,149(3.94%) 33.77% 388(3.77%) 49.96% 4.53 00:04:32
   6.   Opera   216(0.74%) 19.91% 43(0.42%) 33.80% 4.95 00:06:13
   7.   Opera Mini   131(0.45%) 10.69% 14(0.14%) 45.04% 2.55 00:03:33
   8.   IE with Chrome Frame   117(0.40%) 12.82% 15(0.15%) 37.61% 4.11 00:06:23
   9.   BlackBerry   76(0.26%) 60.53% 46(0.45%) 68.42% 1.61 00:01:00
   10.   Amazon Silk   67(0.23%) 74.63% 50(0.49%) 79.10% 1.70 00:01:04
   11.   Iron   62(0.21%) 24.19% 15(0.15%) 3.23% 7.81 00:03:31
   12.   Mozilla Compatible Agent   50(0.17%) 8.00% 4(0.04%) 16.00% 4.34 00:01:11
   13.   Safari (in-app)   15(0.05%) 93.33% 14(0.14%) 66.67% 1.87 00:00:47
   14.   Maxthon   10(0.03%) 0.00% 0(0.00%) 10.00% 8.70 00:03:52
   15.   Camino   6(0.02%) 66.67% 4(0.04%) 0.00% 4.17 00:00:57
   16.   Nokia Browser   3(0.01%) 100.00% 3(0.03%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
   17.   SeaMonkey   3(0.01%) 100.00% 3(0.03%) 66.67% 1.33 00:01:50
   18.   UC Browser   2(0.01%) 100.00% 2(0.02%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
   19.   (not set)   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
   20.   BrowserNG   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
   21.   Nintendo 3DS Browser   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00
   22.   S40 Ovi Browser   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 0.00% 2.00 00:03:57
   23.   ThumbnailAgent   1(0.00%) 100.00% 1(0.01%) 100.00% 1.00 00:00:00

Squirrels are such inquisitive things, aren't they?  ::) ;D

Chrome top of the list.  ;D

Good to see that the once ubiquitous IE is in third.

Now if only the 'Preview Post' bug when using Chrome can be sorted... Not a criticism of our excellent host, grahame. I'm sure it's a Simple Machines Forum issue.

Oh, and one user reading the forum on a Nintendo 3DS. What the...?

Weird, I've only recently moved from Firefox to Chrome and wondered why the preview box looked different. Now I know it's a peculiarity of the browser.

Any chance of a screenshot?  Just tested the 'Preview' button in Chromium on my Linux machine and couldn't see anything different to Firefox.

This is how preview looks for posting this message on Google Chrome in Windows 7.

Thanks for posting the screenshot, Surrey 455.  I seem unable to replicate the problem on my Linux machine, so it must be a problem specific to Chrome on Windows.

I get almost the same problem with Safari on an iMac; my 'preview post' appears in a scrollable box about 1 line high.  I emailed Grahame about it some time ago, but I'm sure he has more important things to do.

Paul

I'm very much aware of a handful of software issues such as this which are irritating but not show stopping, and to the best of my understanding do not compromise security.   A look at the code has lead me to conclude that the pragmatic approach has been to let sleeping dogs lie, and offer some form of explanation when asked - which I am now doing.    There is a more general discussion to be had looking forward, on a forum that has grown in post volume and age way way way beyond what either of the founders expected and which is run in our own time and is free to users and unsponsored from outside myself / my own business.

Paul - it sounds like I failed to acknowledge your email on the subject?   If that's the case - sorry - I can offer the "I get a lot of spam" excuse when clearly it wasn't spam, but then a bad workman blames his tools.  I tend to be either quick answering things or to think "I'll get back to it later" and often overlook in that latter case - however, I do remember when later reminded. I don't recall this one, though - so probably my spam trap or my personal non-reading on a perusal of subject lines, etc.

No problem at all Graham, it's easy enough to check a post once made and edit if necessary.  It's just intended as a 'data point' in case you ever went off looking for something affecting the browsers mentioned earlier.

Thanks

Paul

The preview bug should be easy to fix - the div with id 'preview_body' has an inline style of 'height: 20px'. If you remove that then it'll grow to the correct height.

How does one remove that part of the element permanently? I can do so on a post by post basis, but can't get the preview box to full height for every post.

Taking a look - seeing if that's hard coded or generated on the fly, and wondering if it will effect anything else - fix one problem and introduce another.   In any case thanks for the pointer; these things are only easy if you / I can identify what to do  ;)

Richard, it's not hard coded anywhere I can see - changes back at the source would need to be made to code that's filtered by PHP and then run by JavaScript before being rendered - so it's easy enough to change as BigNoseMac has done at his browser, on a one-off, but rather harder to do so two levels back. I fear that if I start something during the daytime and then end up with an effect wider than I expect, I would be likely to render the whole forum unstable in what's proving to be out rush-hour today ... in fact rather like cutting a signalling cable and then having to struggle to repair it.   And I'm not honestly sure that I still have the skills to do the repair.  If you're familiar with SMF and can confidently point in the right direction or do the job, great - but even then in the middle of the night.

I don't think you can, unfortunately. I'd usually suggest the Stylish extension for cases like this, which lets you write your own styles for any website. (I use it for the BBC website to stop the witless "Have Your Say" boxes cropping up in live blogs!) But this is an inline style so will override any stylesheet directives.

I'm not a PHP person, I'm afraid, let alone one who knows about SMF! But on a quick Googling...

It's clearly a known problem: see here (https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21523.5) and here (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=371269.msg2543264#msg2543264). They seem to suggest it's a problem with the theme rather than SMF itself.

If you look through the JavaScript in each forum page, you'll see that there's a function smf_codeFix. This is setting the element height to (...offsetHeight + 20) + "px"; .

My guess is that, at the time this code is executed, offsetHeight is 0 because Chrome hasn't rendered it yet. Hence it's setting the height to 20px.

My suggested quick-and-dirty fix would be either not to run this code for elements with an offsetHeight of 0, or not to run it at all for Webkit browsers (Chrome/Safari). So you could change the code to:

(to stop the code executing at all under Webkit:)

			function smf_codeFix()
			{
				if ('WebkitAppearance' in document.documentElement.style) return;

				var codeFix = document.getElementsByTagName ? document.getElementsByTagName("div") : document.all.tags("div");

				for (var i = 0; i < codeFix.length; i++)
				{
					if ((codeFix[i].className == "code" || codeFix[i].className == "post" || codeFix[i].className == "signature") && codeFix[i].offsetHeight < 20)
						codeFix[i].style.height = (codeFix[i].offsetHeight + 20) + "px";
				}
			}

or to:

(to stop it running for objects with offsetHeight of zero)

			function smf_codeFix()
			{
				var codeFix = document.getElementsByTagName ? document.getElementsByTagName("div") : document.all.tags("div");

				for (var i = 0; i < codeFix.length; i++)
				{
					if ((codeFix[i].className == "code" || codeFix[i].className == "post" || codeFix[i].className == "signature") && codeFix[i].offsetHeight < 20 && codeFix[i].offsetHeight)
						codeFix[i].style.height = (codeFix[i].offsetHeight + 20) + "px";
				}
			}

Having a play with that ... first glance it looks good but let's wait and see what feedback we get ... whether it's upset something else, and / or is only partial in what it's done.

I have previewed this on Safari and it now looks better.

THANKS ... and fingers crossed!

Full height preview box here using Chrome.

Thanks, and fingers crossed also.  ;D

Also working as you'd expect for me on Safari 7.1 for Mac OSX.

Thanks for checking it out so quickly.

Paul

While I honestly didn't understand a word of all the technical discussion above, I am delighted that I can now preview my posts again in a full height box.  :D

I seem to remember that I used to be able to do so, until perhaps one of our server outrages caused it to become discomnadgerated (my own technical term)?  ::)