Edit Forum Settings: Disable Smiles Pane & Widen Edit Box

[JDługosz]

The box I'm typing in now is too narrow and has a palette of animated "smiles" to the right.

Is there an option to get rid of the Smiles pane, and allow this edit box to be that much wider? I've seen it disable in other forums, with a toggle on the toolbar.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is currently no way of members increasing the message box width. Try increasing your screen resolution and then look in the upper right corner of the posting interface. You'll see an up arrow and down arrow. Next to the ABC spell check icon. It will increase the message box length.

 

[-Job-]

If you're really desperate you can type this into the address bar and press enter:

javascript:document.getElementById('vB_Editor_001_textarea').style.width = '800px';alert('Message Box Extended');

 

[JDługosz]

There is currently no way of members increasing the message box width. Try increasing your screen resolution and then look in the upper right corner of the posting interface. You'll see an up arrow and down arrow. Next to the ABC spell check icon. It will increase the message box length.

LOL! My screen resolution is 1800×1440 now. I had seen the arrows you refer to, since the whole Message area is about half the width of the window. I don't need them though, since I can drag the bottom just fine. I can drag the right too, but it doesn't get rid of the 2-inch margin on the left.

-Job-: that moves the right edge but doesn't keep it centered.

It looks like the size is controlled by the first DIV inside id="panel". It has a hard-coded style attribute of "width:640px;". So you see it is the high-resolution screen that makes this unacceptable (that includes margins and the smiles area). The big gap at the left, that is, the centering of the Message panel, is caused by the TD element having id="panelsurround" centering its contents, which does so because the TABLE element having id="tborder" having the attribute align="center". It seems that the original computed left position sticks even if the element is resized.

 

[cristo]

I don't see that this is a problem, and I've never heard of anyone else complaining about it. One must just get used to it, I suppose.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see that this is a problem, and I've never heard of anyone else complaining about it. One must just get used to it, I suppose.

Well, it wouldn't be the first request for a larger edit window.

 

[JDługosz]

I created a Greasemonkey script to make the "Reply to Thread" form more friendly.
It will delete the smiles (this is a serious board, not a teen hang-out, so I would hope they don't get much use anyway) and expand the Message editor to full width based on the window size. It will resize on the fly when you change your window width, too. This stuff is not hard! Why would the authors go out of their way to make it constricted?

(if you really want smiles, just comment out the removeChild call)

You can find the script << link to script removed by berkeman >>

—John

 

[Moonbear]

It will delete the smiles (this is a serious board, not a teen hang-out, so I would hope they don't get much use anyway) and expand the Message editor to full width based on the window size.

We do have teens here, and smilies do help convey when you're joking vs being serious. But, if you don't want to use the smilies, why are you even bothering to go to that screen? Just use the "quick reply" box at the bottom of the messages window, which is a bit bigger. I'm not sure why the window needs to be wider anyway. It's not like the text scrolls off the sides.

 

[berkeman]

You can find the script << link to script removed by berkeman >>

Sorry, John. I'm not comfortable with our PF users accessing a custom script like that. It would be too easy to infect their machines with a custom script that they execute. I'm not saying that you had any bad intentions, but it would set a bad precedent where other (less well intentioned) posters might post links to problematic scripts. Thanks anyway.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, if you don't want to use the smilies, why are you even bothering to go to that screen?

Text formatting, quoting, links, images, etc.

 

[JDługosz]

We do have teens here, and smilies do help convey when you're joking vs being serious. But, if you don't want to use the smilies, why are you even bothering to go to that screen? Just use the "quick reply" box at the bottom of the messages window, which is a bit bigger. I'm not sure why the window needs to be wider anyway. It's not like the text scrolls off the sides.

The smiles are available on the drop-down icon in the menu, even without that palette by the side. I was thinking that a more mature version of my script would be configurable and/or key off the "disable smiles in this post" checkbox. I've not noticed any use of "smilies" in the threads I've read in the QM and SR sections.

I think a more useful use of that feature would be to insert things like Ψ and Π that are not easily typed.

—John

 

[JDługosz]

The vBulletin support says that this is an Admin setting:

All of these are variables that the Administrator sets for their style. If you switch to one of the "Fluid Styles" then this site will be presented better in your browser.

Since the message presentation is already "fluid", I don't know if that is correct, of if you got some mis-matched settings. But it reinforces my feeling that something is wrong because the Reply panel behaves differently from the rest of the system.

Could somebody check into that?

—John

 

[cristo]

I think a more useful use of that feature would be to insert things like Ψ and Π that are not easily typed.

—John

If you click on the sigma icon then you'll see a menu appear from which you can select all the commonly used mathematical symbols.

 

[Evo]

I don't get it, what's the need for the freeking huge typing box? I'm not blind. I preferred to see the smilies at the right.

 

[jostpuur]

Now the smilies have disappeared from the right. Is something being done with this stuff?

hmhm.. I just realized I can still get them from the button above the message box. But is this done with purpose?

 

[Gokul43201]

I too just realized that I don't have smilies on the right side anymore...guess I never used them enough to miss them when they were gone!

 

[cristo]

I, for one, liked the list of smilies on the right hand side of the text box. I guess there is not enough popular demand for them, though.

 

[JDługosz]

If you click on the sigma icon then you'll see a menu appear from which you can select all the commonly used mathematical symbols.

I don't see a sigma now! But the other day, the "LaTeX help" inserted a TEX BBcode tag. That looked terrible in the preview because it was half the size of the surrounding text and floating like a superscript. So I changed the symbols to real characters.

Again, fixed pixel sizes assumed in the bitmap generated by the TEX tag. The math on Wikipedia will (optionally) use regular HTML for simple things (and a single character is simple).

I don't get it, what's the need for the freeking huge typing box? I'm not blind.

I don't need it "huge". The same width as the messages are presented will be fine! It should be the same width on input as it is on output, shouldn't it? That way it looks about the same. Presumably you sized your window so the text width is nice for you in messages. The input box should be the same, and will thus be nice for you too. Setting it to 632 pixels is just plain wrong, as it will be larger or smaller depending on how many pixels you have to the inch!

So I would counter, "I have more than 6 words to say and I don't want to edit through a keyhole!"

I contend that the board is set up with "fluid" style (to use the vBulletin nomenclature), but just the editor panel is not working that way, so the settings are inconsistent there, or it is a bug in the "fluid" style code. The reply from vBulletin indicates the former.

 

[Moonbear]

I, for one, liked the list of smilies on the right hand side of the text box. I guess there is not enough popular demand for them, though.

I rarely need to use those unless I want to insert one that I infrequently use and can't remember the code for. But, when I do want them, it's nice to have them right there on the right. If you don't want them, and are so proficient with programming you can write scripts to change the code, I don't see why it's so hard to just remember a few formatting commands to use as you need them, and then just use the quick reply box if the size of the regular box bugs you. I'm not even sure what the problem is with the size of it anyway. I'm sitting here typing on a 12" laptop screen at the moment, and see no need for it to be any bigger. Maybe someone just needs a larger monitor if they have such problems with the text box size. I don't see anyone other than one single person here griping about it, and yes, it sounds like griping to me.

It seems quite the exaggeration to call it "typing through a keyhole." And to be griping about that after only a few posts...sheesh. Even if the reply box was identical in size to the thread display box, it's not going to line up with how everything will display in your post if you're using a lot of tags and LaTex.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, you didn't find yourself continually scrolling as you type and then reviewed your post just then?

I type my all posts and then automatically save them without review, then read them as the final post, and then go back and edit them. I know this is a burden on system resources, and I know that there's a Preview button for just such a need, but I don't trust that the system won't hiccup and lose my entire post (even though I always Ctrl-C before saving), and I can't easliy read my posts looking for typos and formatting problems in the window - I feel claustrophobic!

So, in may case, if not in anybody else's, I'm directly contributing to system resource wastage because of the small text window. I don't mind, but you guys might...

 

[Evo]

So, you didn't find yourself continually scrolling as you type and then reviewed your post just then?

I type my all posts and then automatically save them without review, then read them as the final post, and then go back and edit them. I know this is a burden on system resources, and I know that there's a Preview button for just such a need, but I don't trust that the system won't hiccup and lose my entire post (even though I always Ctrl-C before saving), and I can't easliy read my posts looking for typos and formatting problems in the window - I feel claustrophobic!

So, in may case, if not in anybody else's, I'm directly contributing to system resource wastage because of the small text window. I don't mind, but you guys might...

Well, some of us get it right the first time. <kidding>

 

[Moonbear]

So, you didn't find yourself continually scrolling as you type and then reviewed your post just then?

I type my all posts and then automatically save them without review, then read them as the final post, and then go back and edit them. I know this is a burden on system resources, and I know that there's a Preview button for just such a need, but I don't trust that the system won't hiccup and lose my entire post (even though I always Ctrl-C before saving), and I can't easliy read my posts looking for typos and formatting problems in the window - I feel claustrophobic!

So, in may case, if not in anybody else's, I'm directly contributing to system resource wastage because of the small text window. I don't mind, but you guys might...

If you use those up and down arrows described earlier, you can make the box longer if you don't want to scroll as much. I'm not sure that a few characters wider makes that much of a difference there. As it is, I can already make the box longer than my monitor height, so don't see how that's not big enough. But, no, I don't bother scrolling up and down much. I just type as I go. I never use the preview button either, though. But, yes, that's also an option if someone wants to see what their post will look like and edit it before hitting "submit."

Of course, you can also type in any standard text editor on your computer and copy and paste the text when you're satisfied with it. If the size of the text box is too constricting for you, that's always an option as well.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, some of us get it right the first time. <kidding>

By the way, I just replied to this to test that once you adjust the text box size with those arrows, that becomes your default setting every time you use the advanced reply. I had reset the window size in my last reply, and on this one, it came back up huge again. :yuck: I'm going to shrink it back to a tolerable size again.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you use those up and down arrows described earlier, you can make the box longer if you don't want to scroll as much.

Oh. I did not know about that feature. That's a big help.

I usually don't bother exploring the features of the various fora I'm on, they're irritating enough even before the confusing array of different behaviours. That's why I've never stumbled across that feature until now. I will use it liberally forthwith.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know how long things have been this way, but I think I like it better with the smilies available through the drop down option rather than occupying the right side. As for the text window width, I've only found that bothersome when typesetting longish equations in LaTeX.

 

[Evo]

I don't know how long things have been this way,

Since 8-21.

 

[JDługosz]

I'm not even sure what the problem is with the size of it anyway. I'm sitting here typing on a 12" laptop screen at the moment, and see no need for it to be any bigger. Maybe someone just needs a larger monitor if they have such problems with the text box size. I don't see anyone other than one single person here griping about it, and yes, it sounds like griping to me.

It seems quite the exaggeration to call it "typing through a keyhole." And to be griping about that after only a few posts...sheesh. Even if the reply box was identical in size to the thread display box, it's not going to line up with how everything will display in your post if you're using a lot of tags and LaTex.

Well, the extent of the problem was that only six words fit horizontally. The higher the resolution, the worse the problem. That is, there are more pixels used to show one character, but a fixed value for the total. A typical laptop or LCD monitor (1280 wide, sometimes 1024 wide) would have that text box about half the width of the screen.

Maybe people weren't complaining much because this isn't a software developer's forum. But there were 11 downloads in the 10 hours since I posted the script, and 18 before he censored the direct URL. Now it's up to 29, and those people had to find it. So a few people went to the trouble of checking it out once they knew about it!

 

[JDługosz]

I'm not sure that a few characters wider makes that much of a difference there. As it is, I can already make the box longer than my monitor height, so don't see how that's not big enough.

It's not "a few characters". I think you are not understanding that it looks vastly different on different people's screens! Right now (with my mod) it is 1083 pixels wide in the editable region, which is not quite double what it was originally. The browser window is about 2/3 the width of the screen, and is actually 10 inches wide and showing text at 120% "actual" size, so I can sit back and relax.