Digest format

[ChrisGreaves1]

I'm starting this thread to discuss the digest layout.
Specifically, is it just me, or are others finding the HTML format confusing?
(I'm trapped here as ChrisGreaves1, and don't feel like logging out/in as ChrisGreaves to change to the text format to see what it looks like)
I've been receiving the digest only for a couple of days, but the content seems very ragged, I would say: "Too much vertical white space"

I feel that a digest should hold just enough data to let me make a decision as to whether i should go online and visit the thread, but no more, otherwise I'm wading through the same volume of data, but formatted in a worse (less-efficient) manner than I would if i went online at 8:00 a.m. each morning and had a session.

I'm not sure how to describe the content.
I figure that in one humongous email with a digest of multiple forums, I'd need
(1) one line holding the forum name and the thread subject
(2) one line(s) holding the body of the post.

It would be nice, but I can't see how to do it, to inhibit the user signatures and other 'fluff" that makes more sense when reading the post online, but to me seems "to be just so much clutter" when reading a digest.

It's been a while since I subscribed to a digest - seven years, maybe, so my memory is perhaps confused by the Good Old Days^(TM) when we didn't have big or graphic signatures. (Thunderbird has blocked images, so there's a filter!)

It's hard to select a definitive example, but in the attached screenshot I've outlined the stuff that really seems relevant.
I could bear to have lines glued together so that

Code: Select all

Hi Geoff,

Mike can repair this easily, but you'll have to wait at least until after the Super Bowl match.
____________________
Regards,
Hans

became

Code: Select all

Hi Geoff, Mike can repair this easily, but you'll have to wait at least until after the Super Bowl match. Regards, Hans

[HansV]

Mike will have to post a definitive answer, but I doubt that we're going to thoroughly customize the digests.

[ChrisGreaves1]

Mike will have to post

Thanks Hans. My posting was "for the record", also curious as to whether others had felt the same way I did.

[Wendell]

It appears Samantha didn't find it objectional -Digest function works great! - I haven't tried it in this version however. Another thing to note is that in times gone by the digest was occasionally used to restore lost posts, etc, so that may have impacted the design of it originally.

[ChrisGreaves1]

It appears Samantha didn't find it objectional ....

Wendell, thanks for reply. Yes, it was Samantha's original post that set me off. I decided that if she found it OK, it had to be good.(grin!)
Maybe she and I should exchange screenshots.

[Samantha]

It appears Samantha didn't find it objectional ....

Wendell, thanks for reply. Yes, it was Samantha's original post that set me off. I decided that if she found it OK, it had to be good.(grin!)
Maybe she and I should exchange screenshots.

I expect, Chris, that the digest serves different purposes for each of us. I use the digests as a quick archive system for those times when I'm not online, so I like seeing the full text.

So far, I've been able to keep up with every post made to Eileen's Lounge, but I anticipate that in the very near future that will change. Being able to review in one digest each post made in a sensible chronological order, grouped by topic, is exactly what I'm looking for in a digest. I don't want to have to click on a link to get the rest of the discussion.

And since I have a very strong visual memory, I also don't mind having the smilies, graphics and signatures attached to the digest, as they provide one more cue to my memory.

[ChrisGreaves1]

... so I like seeing the full text.

OK. But does your email message look anything like my screenshot above, with acres and hectares of white space?

[Samantha]

... so I like seeing the full text.

OK. But does your email message look anything like my screenshot above, with acres and hectares of white space?

Sure -- but I like it like that. It makes it much more readable (besides, I'm not printing it out, so the white space doesn't result in any wasted paper).

[ChrisGreaves1]

... so the white space doesn't result in any wasted paper).

Right, but it adds an awful lot of mechanical work (scrolling), when I'd rather use my eyes to scan material.
Thanks for the confirmation though; I wondered whether it was just me seeing all the white space ....

[Samantha]

... so the white space doesn't result in any wasted paper).

Right, but it adds an awful lot of mechanical work (scrolling), when I'd rather use my eyes to scan material. ...

That's one of the benefits of being left-handed. I can simultaneously use my left hand for the mouse / scroll wheel while keeping my right hand near the page up/down keys for easy reading with minimal effort.

I *can* use a right-hand configured mouse with my right hand if I'm using someone else's computer, but on all of my computers, the mouse buttons and position have been switched to accommodate my southpaw tendencies. My right-handed granddaughter can now navigate via mouse with either hand (left-handed at home and right-handed at pre-school).

[Bigaldoc]

That's one of the benefits of being left-handed.

Another southpaw! I knew we had something in common... My adult son has learned to use my mouse in the "left handed" position on the desktop, even though it's wireless and he could easily move it to the right side of the keyboard. I smile when I see him doing it...

[mwolfman]

Right now, I'm not planning any major overhaul on digests. Not saying it couldn't happen in the future. Have you looked at the other options in the UCP. I don't use the default html option. I use html classic. It's not pretty but its easy to read.

[ChrisGreaves]

Have you looked at the other options in the UCP.

Mike, I'm slower than a wet weekend.
I thought of skins this morning, when I went to Cancel my digest, then saw the various HTML options, and set myself up for a different one.
I'll try one each day and see what looks better.

[mwolfman]

I pretty sure you can try one now for 9am (my time), if you don't like it, set it for 10am with a new one. So it won't take a week to figure out which one you like.

[ChrisGreaves]

... it won't take a week to figure out which one you like.

Ah Mike! You take all the misery out of computers :sulk: (I'm trying for 9 a.m., as advised ...)
(later)"HTML Classic" is a distinct improvement IMHO.PLUS!It has a clickable link that takes me directly to the post.