Right arrow missing from "outgoing" post links


(Bill Ayakatubby) #1

See screenshot below:


How does the Discourse project work?
(Sam Saffron) #2

I think @codinghorror removed this on purpose to reduce visual clutter.


(Jeff Atwood) #3

Yes, outgoing is typical / standard, so it doesn’t need an indication.

Maybe I should remove both arrows, actually, for consistency. It seems a bit like TMI.


(Bill Ayakatubby) #4

Either both types of links should have glyphs, or neither should. Otherwise it just looks inconsistent and buggy.


(Tobias Eigen) #5

FWIW I really like the arrows and would like to keep them both. But if you remove one, I would also remove both.


(David Maxwell) #6

So how would you tell the difference between the two post links? Personally, I’d prefer to have them bost (I’m not quite sure why it would be considered standard - typical/standard to what?)


(cpradio) #7

I’m in the same boat. I personally like the additional information they provide. It made it easy at a glance to tell what was incoming and what was outgoing. If you remove both, then I have to actually investigate it. I’ll have to parse the post to see which links were incoming versus which were outgoing :frowning:

As an aside, this is the sort of stuff I had hoped would quit happening after hitting 1.0. You are stable now, making UI changes out of the blue seems dangerous, especially when unannounced, no discussion, what-so-ever. It would be nice that stable would imply: Things will remain as they are, unless they are proven broken.


How does the Discourse project work?
(Travis) #8

Perhaps they can be grouped if there’s a longer list. Similar to putting a dollar sign only on the top cell in a finance column. The rest are implied until the implication is challenged.

  • <- First incoming post
  • Second
  • Third
  • -> First outgoing
  • Second

(Rikki Tooley) #9

What’s with your obsession with removing “noise”? It’s not clutter if it means something… I’ve posted it before: the solution to “noise” isn’t to just remove information, it’s to think of a different way of presenting it.

Perhaps I just don’t understand the design process in #TeamDiscourse. Is there any such thing as a Discourse design philosophy? From the outside it appears to be a bunch of arbitrary changes applied one day on a whim. And then there’s the talk about complaints driven development… who complained about this arrow?

Yeah, this is a totally minor change… but how many totally minor changes have been done with no insight from the author, or even the chance of community feedback?

For the record I think both arrows should stay. If you remove them you might as well remove the whole gutter… it gets pretty noisy there sometimes.


(Dave McClure) #10

I personally favor keeping both arrows, but I don’t think this its necessary for post-v1.0 to ‘stop breaking stuff’. The different channels should protect against this somewhat. These objectionable changes can get complained about by those on the test-passed or beta channels before they are released (or not) into the next stable version.


(Sol) #11

I would also not stop making changes but I like the arrows :slight_smile:


(Bill Ayakatubby) #12

I don’t think the team need to stop making changes by any means, but the changes that are made should be well-considered and deliberate and purposeful.


How does the Discourse project work?
(Rikki Tooley) #14

Yeah. I may have come on too strong with my post up there.

My point is, it’s fine if the Discourse team want to do things in complete isolation but many of their actions, and by simply having this forum, it signals that they don’t. So, people can show that they really obviously like this project and want to help out, submitting bug reports and pull requests, but the process is harder and more frustrating than it needs to be due to no clear demarcation between “Team stuff” and “everyone else stuff”. Without this, it’s really common for people to feel like their time is being wasted whenever they try to contribute something.

To be clear, when changes are made without community feedback that’s OK by me, but given we are the ones running this software, we are the ones building our businesses around it, at the very least we should be told why they need to be done, information you don’t necessarily find in commit logs.


How does the Discourse project work?
(Dave McClure) #15

I think this side conversation should move to the topic How does the Discourse project work?.

Let’s stay focused here on whether we really like arrows.


(Bill Ayakatubby) #16

Here’s another example where arrows on only one type of link look confusing and buggy, from this very topic. Why does “How does the Discourse project work?” have arrows next to it in two cases but not the third? (Yes, I obviously know the answer. That’s not the point. Straw men will be burned.)


(Jeff Atwood) #17

Well, the outgoing same-site link is kind of obvious and arguably redundant in the final post there.

Maybe the real fix is not to show outgoing same-site links in the right gutter at all? Only show incoming links, as the outgoing links are by definition repeated in the body text of the post?

The only minor advantage in repeating outgoing links in the gutter is that it highlights these outgoing links a bit more.


(Dave McClure) #18

I like the fact that it expands the name of the topic as well. I’ve always found that very helpful… And I remember being impressed with it the first time I started poking around here.


(cpradio) #19

I’m still confused on what problem we are attempting to solve? You say clutter, but without anything in the gutter, you simply have “dead space”.

Can we get a better understanding of why this needs fixed? As I still don’t see anything broken…


(Bill Ayakatubby) #20

I simply do not understand what you have against outgoing links and their arrows. It seems to me like you’re digging your heels in just because you can and not for any good, well-considered reason. The link is “kind of obvious and arguably redundant” only because @mcwumbly was diligent enough to include the target topic’s title. He could just as easily have written

I think this side conversation should move to a more appropriate topic.

…and then it wouldn’t have been obvious at all. Or if you completely removed outgoing links from the gutter and he’d said

I think this side conversation should move to somewhere else.

…which could imply not just another topic here on meta but an entirely different website, we’d be completely clueless whether it’s an internal link or an external link.


(Dave McClure) #21

If reducing visual clutter is the goal, then I think @Vocino’s idea is worth taking a closer look at. In particular because on posts with a lot of links, the number of incoming links often (greatly) outweighs the number of outgoing links.

Here are a few mocks of what he proposed earlier in this topic:

How it used to be

How it is now (outgoing glyph removed)

How it could be (redundant glyphs removed)

And another one, just to show what it’d look like if there were more outgoing links

I think this helps keep things visually anchored, while removing even more clutter than the change made recently.


The right side link column is confusing