On Thursday 09 December 2010 21:03:53 Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > On 12/10/10, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > > What you show seems reasonable (aside from the fact that most of what you > > list > > as functions are types, but I assume that that's because it's a mock up), > > Haha, yeah I made one table and then got lazy and copy-pasted the rest. > Guilty. > > > would be a collapsible tree of some kind, but what you show is definitely > > better > > than what we currently have, and presumably it would be easier to do. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > We should stick with making smaller improvements over time on the site > itself. D is lacking manpower as it is so we shouldn't have to waste a > lot of time on design issues.
I see no problem with that. I do think that we should be striving for the best design that we can, but incremental improvements are just fine. I just thought that I'd point out what people have generally been looking for. Making it like what you suggested would be a definite improvement though, regardless of whether we end up with some sort of collapsible tree later. The fact that we have so little manpower is a big part of why changes haven't been made already, so it's definitely a valid point. - Jonathan M Davis