[Emily Graham]

If people are going to act like this, what's the point of this thread?

I thought people were universally OK with it, so there was nothing to discuss. Now it turns out that there's not universal liking of it, so could anyone else that's been not telling me what they think please start speaking their mind, and perhaps presenting alternative ideas for differentiating them from the surrounding text? The worst that will happen is that I will ignore you, in which case you have lost nothing...

EDIT: Online BOSSlog updated with filter options to hide Bash Tag suggestions, incompatibility messages and requirement messages. Should I also make "Note:" messages filter-able?

Act like what? I thought, like you, that people were universally OK with it, and simply did not see the point in recording a single dissention comment. I just do not see the point in highlighting the version and checksums so strongly. I don't know how it would look, but perhaps if they were text coloured instead of background coloured they would not jump out of the page at you so violently. It seems to me that a requirement comment deserves to be highlighted in this way far more than a version number or a checksum, which most people, I think, will not even take any notice of.

[Roisan Sweeney]

Act like what? I thought, like you, that people were universally OK with it, and simply did not see the point in recording a single dissention comment. I just do not see the point in highlighting the version and checksums so strongly. I don't know how it would look, but perhaps if they were text coloured instead of background coloured they would not jump out of the page at you so violently. It seems to me that a requirement comment deserves to be highlighted in this way far more than a version number or a checksum, which most people, I think, will not even take any notice of.

Act like not giving me their full opinion when the point of this thread is to gather them. It's a bit misleading at best or useless at worst if I don't get a full and accurate picture of what people think. I have no qualms about your opinion itself, just that you weren't going to give it until someone else gave a similar opinion. Sorry if I'm being a bit snappy, it's just annoying.

Requirement messages aren't specific, which is why they don't get colouring. If they only showed when a requirement was missing, then they would be candidates for colouring, but otherwise all the 'false positives' would be annoying. I'll try out just colouring the text of those labels.

@ Metallicow: I'd look into a browser extension that did that for the moment, seeing as a lot of pages are white. I don't think it's something I can easily add in for now, but I'll attempt it for 1.8 as an option for a config file.

EDIT: Following Hickory's suggestion, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17043363/BOSSlogAlt.html with the version, ghosted and checksum badges having their background colour turned into their text colour. It actually looks OK IMO, although I should make the colours darker so they're easier to read. What do people think?

[Minako]

Act like not giving me their full opinion when the point of this thread is to gather them. It's a bit misleading at best or useless at worst if I don't get a full and accurate picture of what people think. I have no qualms about your opinion itself, just that you weren't going to give it until someone else gave a similar opinion. Sorry if I'm being a bit snappy, it's just annoying.

Ok, point taken.

EDIT: Following Hickory's suggestion, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17043363/BOSSlogAlt.html with the version, ghosted and checksum badges having their background colour turned into their text colour. It actually looks OK IMO, although I should make the colours darker so they're easier to read. What do people think?

I think that looks a thousand time better. I personally don't think the colours need to be darker, though people with colour blindness or vision problems may disagree.

[Portions]

I think it is looking better than ever.

Just a thought - does it make sense to include the link for cleaning at the beginning of the log rather than repeat the same link for each mod that requires cleaning - imho, it would look neater and would emphasise the main message to clean the mod rather than the link.

[Anna Kyselova]

I think it is looking better than ever.

Just a thought - does it make sense to include the link for cleaning at the beginning of the log rather than repeat the same link for each mod that requires cleaning - imho, it would look neater and would emphasise the main message to clean the mod rather than the link.

While that is possible in v1.7, the stuff required to do that is messy, it can be done via a global message, but that then requires two lines in the masterlist per dirty mod check. Dirty mod messages are going to be some of the first things that will become conditional on whether or not the plugin itself is actually dirty, so in time the messiness will only serve as another reason to clean your mods, with messages no longer being shown for cleaned mods.

Online masterlist updated with the text-coloured labels and a new Swap Colour Scheme filter that will set a darker display. Let me know what you think. I also changed the colour of the "Bash Tag Suggestion" prefix as the old one didn't work so well on a dark background.

[Lew.p]

While that is possible in v1.7, the stuff required to do that is messy, it can be done via a global message, but that then requires two lines in the masterlist per dirty mod check. Dirty mod messages are going to be some of the first things that will become conditional on whether or not the plugin itself is actually dirty, so in time the messiness will only serve as another reason to clean your mods, with messages no longer being shown for cleaned mods.

Online masterlist updated with the text-coloured labels and a new Swap Colour Scheme filter that will set a darker display. Let me know what you think. I also changed the colour of the "Bash Tag Suggestion" prefix as the old one didn't work so well on a dark background.

I'm convinced on the url

Are the various options and filters on the demo log page meant to work? If so, they are not working on IE 9.

[Suzy Santana]

I'm convinced on the url

Are the various options and filters on the demo log page meant to work? If so, they are not working on IE 9.

Yes, I found that IE 9 was being stupid. I found that my local copy worked once I'd told IE 9 to stop being stupid and let my Javascript run, though I had to refresh the page before the box saying that JS had been blocked would display. I don't know why the formatting of the web version is messed up, or why the JS won't work for it. Try downloading the page and launching the downloaded version.

A pity, because I had thought that IE 9 was a big improvement over earlier versions. The page works fine on Firefox, Chrome and Opera.

[Charles Mckinna]

Yes, I found that IE 9 was being stupid. I found that my local copy worked once I'd told IE 9 to stop being stupid and let my Javascript run, though I had to refresh the page before the box saying that JS had been blocked would display. I don't know why the formatting of the web version is messed up, or why the JS won't work for it. Try downloading the page and launching the downloaded version.

A pity, because I had thought that IE 9 was a big improvement over earlier versions. The page works fine on Firefox, Chrome and Opera.

Dowloading and running from my local disk did not make any difference. I also tried changing the security zone, but still does not work

I am pretty sure that some of your earlier versions did work on IE 9 - so something has changed that prevents it from working as designed. I have not had any messages saying that JS is blocked. The formatting looks fine, it is just that the checkbox options no longer work. For example the Expand-Collapse and most of the filters were working - must be some new feature that has broken IE 9 compatibility

[Mandi Norton]

Dowloading and running from my local disk did not make any difference. I also tried changing the security zone, but still does not work

I am pretty sure that some of your earlier versions did work on IE 9 - so something has changed that prevents it from working as designed. I have not had any messages saying that JS is blocked. The formatting looks fine, it is just that the checkbox options no longer work. For example the Expand-Collapse and most of the filters were working - must be some new feature that has broken IE 9 compatibility

I changed the Javascript from altering each individual element's style to editing the style in the stylesheet itself, saving a lot of iteration. "Hide message-less mods" and "Hide ghosted mods" still work, but all the other checkbox options use the same CSS-altering function with different parameters. I had tried to include compatibility for IE as I knew it used a different name for the stylesheet rules, but apparently that hasn't worked.

Interestingly, the collapsible sections don't work either, event though they're the simplest functions. Maybe IE handles events differently, as that's how I'm telling what has been clicked... I hate this non-standard crap, why does Microsoft even get a place on the W3C committees if it doesn't care about standards? I know no browser vendor has 100% support (I think Opera is closest?), but MS have a legendary reputation of being asshats in this field.

EDIT: Yup, IE handles events differently. Joy. Weird that my local copy works though. Also weird that the online copy has the options box as a long list and indents stuff that my CSS specifically says not to. I also found that IE's "Save As..." is utterly useless, it doesn't save anything like the original page's source, instead providing its own bastardised version. That's probably why your locally saved copy is working no better. I don't know how you had the expand-collapse stuff working before, because I haven't changed that code since it first went in. Then again, my local copy works...

I don't usually say this so bluntly, but if anyone is using IE, get a better browser. I'll try to fix the incompatibilities, but this is a total PITA that should not even be necessary. Damn it, Microsoft...

[Lalla Vu]

First, I like the new format of the version and checksum - much better. Now they still stand out a bit, but don't yell at me

As for "buttonize", it's been a bit since I've done CSS, but I thought you could declare as element as a button even if it wasn't one and it would basically put a box around it with a border that made it look like a button. If not, then could you set the border around the minus sign to suggest a little more strongly that it can be clicked on? Or perhaps just change the background colour to a light grey - something like that.

Re: IE - it's nice to see some things never change *sigh* Sounds like you still need to stick the if statement crap at the top of your page to detect IE and give it a different stylesheet. That's what we used to have to do. If you want a hand with that, let me know.

[Trevor Bostwick]

First, I like the new format of the version and checksum - much better. Now they still stand out a bit, but don't yell at me

As for "buttonize", it's been a bit since I've done CSS, but I thought you could declare as element as a button even if it wasn't one and it would basically put a box around it with a border that made it look like a button. If not, then could you set the border around the minus sign to suggest a little more strongly that it can be clicked on? Or perhaps just change the background colour to a light grey - something like that.

Re: IE - it's nice to see some things never change *sigh* Sounds like you still need to stick the if statement crap at the top of your page to detect IE and give it a different stylesheet. That's what we used to have to do. If you want a hand with that, let me know.

OK, I'll test out some borders and backgrounds for the +/- buttons. Although you can select any part of the headings, not just that bit, to collapse/expand, so that might be a bit misleading. That's why I have the cursor icon change from the normal one to the 'hand' pointer when you mouse over the headings, as a visual cue that you can click on them. I should note that info on all this stuff will be in the readme too, so I'm not leaving you completely in the dark.

As for browser problems, I've decided to rewrite how I'm doing things to use more robust event handling and make greater use of the DOM anyway, and I'll just make sure to do things in a cross-browser way.

[Ashley Hill]

Regarding the new version:

The unformatted mod titles are fine - they're spaced out far enough that they're distinctive and easy to note on their own.

The colors for version number and checksum could be a bit darker, though. I copied the code to Notepad and played around with colors values; I found that #008B8B and

Likewise, "bash tag suggestions" and "ghosted" are hard to read (though gray works well for the latter); I tried #CD5555 and #696969, respectively. As far as the tags themselves, BOSS doesn't seem to add them automatically for me (maybe because I'm using WB 2.87?), and I prefer to add them manually anyway. You might think about making "bash tag suggestions" black and the tags themselves a different color, like I did with the HTML list (which is especially useful if you have additional notes). Just an idea.

[Javaun Thompson]

OK, I'll test out some borders and backgrounds for the +/- buttons. Although you can select any part of the headings, not just that bit, to collapse/expand, so that might be a bit misleading. That's why I have the cursor icon change from the normal one to the 'hand' pointer when you mouse over the headings, as a visual cue that you can click on them. I should note that info on all this stuff will be in the readme too, so I'm not leaving you completely in the dark.

As for browser problems, I've decided to rewrite how I'm doing things to use more robust event handling and make greater use of the DOM anyway, and I'll just make sure to do things in a cross-browser way.

Yeah, I noticed that it as the whole heading. It was just that the first time I looked, I wasn't inclined to mouse over the headings because I didn't realize they were interactive. Who reads readme's? Anyway don't kill yourself over it. It's a handy feature that will be available to those who do read the readme

Sounds good. Making stuff cross-browser is always the most tedious part of web dev.

[Jani Eayon]

Looking much better, I think. A few suggestions/bug reports:
1) It would be nice if when a header is collapsed ("Masterlist Update", for example), the spacing until the next header also disappears. This would allow the "compressed" view to show more information.
2) Checking both "Hide message-less mods" and "Hide Bash Tag suggestions" will still show the mods that used to have bash tag suggestions but are now message-less.

p.s. the dark color scheme looks awesome!

[Vicky Keeler]

Right, I think everything works in IE now apart from the CSS being ignored for some things. Can IE (6 - if there are any of you,7,8,9) users report in with their experiences with the filters and collapsible sections?

Regarding the new version:

The unformatted mod titles are fine - they're spaced out far enough that they're distinctive and easy to note on their own.

The colors for version number and checksum could be a bit darker, though. I copied the code to Notepad and played around with colors values; I found that #008B8B and

Likewise, "bash tag suggestions" and "ghosted" are hard to read (though gray works well for the latter); I tried #CD5555 and #696969, respectively. As far as the tags themselves, BOSS doesn't seem to add them automatically for me (maybe because I'm using WB 2.87?), and I prefer to add them manually anyway. You might think about making "bash tag suggestions" black and the tags themselves a different color, like I did with the HTML list (which is especially useful if you have additional notes). Just an idea.

You look like you forgot to copy/paste a hex code there. I'll try out those mentioned. The Bash Tag suggestions are only non-black because someone asked for them to be like that ages ago. And yes, you need a more recent version of WB than what you've got to have it auto-applying them.

Yeah, I noticed that it as the whole heading. It was just that the first time I looked, I wasn't inclined to mouse over the headings because I didn't realize they were interactive. Who reads readme's? Anyway don't kill yourself over it. It's a handy feature that will be available to those who do read the readme

Sounds good. Making stuff cross-browser is always the most tedious part of web dev.

I tried out some stuff, it all looked rubbish. It'll have to be a treat for the observant/readers.

Looking much better, I think. A few suggestions/bug reports:
1) It would be nice if when a header is collapsed ("Masterlist Update", for example), the spacing until the next header also disappears. This would allow the "compressed" view to show more information.
2) Checking both "Hide message-less mods" and "Hide Bash Tag suggestions" will still show the mods that used to have bash tag suggestions but are now message-less.

p.s. the dark color scheme looks awesome!

I'll reduce the collapsed spacing. As for your second point, that's working correctly. Notice how the text doesn't say "Remove bash tag suggestions", the mod still has messages, even if you've hidden them, so it doesn't qualify for hiding. Any other behaviour would just be misleading.

[emma sweeney]

Looking at the output again, and remembering what you said in reply (post #30) to Surazal about dirty mod messages, would an alternative of replacing
Note: Needs TES4Edit cleaning: http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/TES4Edit_Cleaning_Guide
with
Note: Needs http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/TES4Edit_Cleaning_Guide
be feasible?

[Prohibited]

Looking at the output again, and remembering what you said in reply (post #30) to Surazal about dirty mod messages, would an alternative of replacing
Note: Needs TES4Edit cleaning: http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/TES4Edit_Cleaning_Guide
with
Note: Needs http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index.php/TES4Edit_Cleaning_Guide
be feasible?

There's no syntax to support hyperlinks with text different from their link. I could (and did, then undid it) add a syntax in, but that would break compatibility with older versions of BOSS, users of which would just get a string of characters they would have to copy/paste the address from the middle of, which makes things worse for them.

[Matthew Warren]

Right, I think everything works in IE now apart from the CSS being ignored for some things. Can IE (6 - if there are any of you,7,8,9) users report in with their experiences with the filters and collapsible sections?

Many thanks for taking the time, trouble and effort to support IE 9 - very much appreciated.

I just tried all the features and everything seems to work perfectly under IE 9 - did not notice anything that did not work

I wanted to try and list only mods that had notes. However when you check "Hide message-less mods" and "Hide Bash Tag suggestions", the mods that only have Tag suggestions are still listed. Would be great if it were possible to filer those mods out as well so I would only see mods with Notes, Requirements, etc (but not mods that only have tags).

I notice that some mods do not have a version listed (probably because the information is not available). Would it make sense to say Version N/A or None for these mods?

[Dalley hussain]

There's no syntax to support hyperlinks with text different from their link. I could (and did, then undid it) add a syntax in, but that would break compatibility with older versions of BOSS, users of which would just get a string of characters they would have to copy/paste the address from the middle of, which makes things worse for them.

Fair enough. No point making things worse.

[Sophie Payne]

Editing because I was apparently testing while Surazal was also.

The dark scheme makes the light text much much easier to read, because the contrast is much better. Thank you for that option. It's working like a charm for me. White on black high contrast themes are popular for people with some types of visual impairments. Also, many people with normal vision prefer dark themes, as this site demonstrates. It looks really beautiful with the dark scheme.

[Heather M]

Another question: should BOSS display version numbers for unrecognised mods? There's no reason why it can't.

Many thanks for taking the time, trouble and effort to support IE 9 - very much appreciated.

I just tried all the features and everything seems to work perfectly under IE 9 - did not notice anything that did not work

I wanted to try and list only mods that had notes. However when you check "Hide message-less mods" and "Hide Bash Tag suggestions", the mods that only have Tag suggestions are still listed. Would be great if it were possible to filer those mods out as well so I would only see mods with Notes, Requirements, etc (but not mods that only have tags).

I notice that some mods do not have a version listed (probably because the information is not available). Would it make sense to say Version N/A or None for these mods?

To your first point: Notice how the text doesn't say "Remove bash tag suggestions", the mod still has messages, even if you've hidden them, so it doesn't qualify for hiding the mod. Any other behaviour would just be misleading as to whether a mod had any messages or not. Going by your proposed logic, hiding all mod messages and then hiding message-less mods would result in there being no mods listed, which seems a bit silly.

I don't think putting anything in for mods without a given version is a good idea, a lot of people confuse plugins with mods (I use them interchangeably, which doesn't help. ) and so they often take the given version of a plugin to be the given version of the rest of the mod too, which is wrong sometimes. So the plugin version generally means the version of the parent mod, which will almost always have a version, it's just not been put in the plugin's description field.

I have put a bit of clarification about the version numbers displayed in the readme.

[jess hughes]

Another question: should BOSS display version numbers for unrecognised mods? There's no reason why it can't.

To your first point: Notice how the text doesn't say "Remove bash tag suggestions", the mod still has messages, even if you've hidden them, so it doesn't qualify for hiding the mod. Any other behaviour would just be misleading as to whether a mod had any messages or not. Going by your proposed logic, hiding all mod messages and then hiding message-less mods would result in there being no mods listed, which seems a bit silly.

I don't think putting anything in for mods without a given version is a good idea, a lot of people confuse plugins with mods (I use them interchangeably, which doesn't help. ) and so they often take the given version of a plugin to be the given version of the rest of the mod too, which is wrong sometimes. So the plugin version generally means the version of the parent mod, which will almost always have a version, it's just not been put in the plugin's description field.

I have put a bit of clarification about the version numbers displayed in the readme.

Yes, versions for unrecognised mods would be good (and consistent).

I understand the logic. Doesn't stop me wanting an option that will only display mods that have notes and excluding mods that only have tag suggestions I put this feature in BOMM so that could very easily read the notes about mods without having to scroll over the tag suggestion only mods.

I take your point about the version numbers - it now makes sense to me.

[Katy Hogben]

I understand the logic. Doesn't stop me wanting an option that will only display mods that have notes and excluding mods that only have tag suggestions I put this feature in BOMM so that could very easily read the notes about mods without having to scroll over the tag suggestion only mods.

+1 on this. Except I don't quite understand the logic. If a user has filtered out all the messages for a particular mod, and has explicitly selected "hide message-less mods", why would he/she still want to see the mod in the list? What is the benefit of seeing a mod that only formerly had messages?

edit: also, I'm not sure if this is a bug, but when I select a few checkboxes, they take effect (as expected), but if I then hit F5 to refresh the page, the checkboxes are still checked, but they no longer apply their effect. unchecking and checking them again fixes it.

edit2: thanks for reducing the spacing when the heading is collapsed. I think that looks much better.

[alicia hillier]

Online BOSSlog updated, decreased spacing after collapsed sections, added version number output to unrecognised mods. I'm still investigating different colours for the labels and messages.

I understand the logic. Doesn't stop me wanting an option that will only display mods that have notes and excluding mods that only have tag suggestions I put this feature in BOMM so that could very easily read the notes about mods without having to scroll over the tag suggestion only mods.

I'll keep the idea considered, but for the moment it's going to be one of things I'll meet you half-way on, I've already given the ability to cut out a number of mods with no messages at all and remove extra messages from view. Besides, I can't completely out-do BOMM, after all.

@ myk002: Because the mod still has messages. If you close your eyes, your computer doesn't cease to exist. Choosing to hide your messages doesn't stop them existing. I might add another option or change things a bit, but for now I'm pretty convinced that what's done currently is correct.

The refresh thing is because your browser doesn't do a full refresh by default, so it remembers what was checked. The page, being refreshed, does not, hence why you have to toggle them again. I think an onload event handler might solve this...

[Khamaji Taylor]

Wrinkly the Toggle background "Use Dark colour scheme" seems to have stopped working in the latest version.

I use a Bookmarklett for changing web page backgrounds which are glaringly white to a tan colour so its no biggie.

For anyone interested in the bookmarklett mentioned - Works with Firefox and Chrome, Create a new bookmark (right click your bookmarks toolbar, in chrome its called add page)
Call it something like Zap White or background, and for the url paste this code ...

javascript:(function(){function getRGBColor(node,prop){var rgb=getComputedStyle(node,null).getPropertyValue(prop);var r,g,b;if(/rgb\((\d+),\s(\d+),\s(\d+)\)/.exec(rgb)){r=parseInt(RegExp.$1,10);g=parseInt(RegExp.$2,10);b=parseInt(RegExp.$3,10);return[r/255,g/255,b/255];}return rgb;} R(document.documentElement); function R(n){var i,x,color;if(n.nodeType==Node.ELEMENT_NODE && n.tagName.toLowerCase()!="input" && n.tagName.toLowerCase()!="select" && n.tagName.toLowerCase!="textarea"){for(i=0;x=n.childNodes[i];++i)R(x); color=getRGBColor(n,"background-color");if( (typeof(color)!="string" && color[0] + color[1] + color[2] >= 2.8) || (n==document.documentElement && color=="transparent")) { n.style.backgroundColor = "tan";/*Moz 1.0*/ n.style.setProperty("background-color", "tan", "important");/*Moz 1.4 after zap colors*/ } }}})()

Only works if you have java script enabled for the web page you are looking at, but you just left click the bookmarklett for it to work.

Anyway slightly OT but for Wrinkly - Another bunch of interesting stuff from yesteryear http://dmcritchie.mvps.org/ie/bookmarklets.htm

Edit: The above Zap Background bookmarklett came from here https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html