(no subject)

[ladyiapetus]

What the hell was wrong with the update page the way it was, I ask?


(oh, and the icon has nothing to do with the post; I just uploaded it tonight and wanted to use it)

Comments

[akino-ame.livejournal.com]

I know! Why does LJ insist on tweaking things that work just well enough? Yeah, in the name of progress, but still... This was utterly pointless.

[khandreia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'll second/third/whatever that. It's a lot clunkier and fiddlier now, and all over the place. Give us the old version back, LJ...please?

[t-2k.livejournal.com]

The only differences I can immediately tell offhand is that you choose your userpic at the top of the page (which is actually more convenient for me because while it was at the bottom I forgot about it more often than not) and everything is all rectangular instead of rounded. Honestly, I might not have even noticed had it not been for this entry.

*shrug*

[samothrace-jp.livejournal.com]

Hmm, looks like they wanted to add that 'Rich Text' feature for the HTML-impaired. That's the only major new thing I noticed. Probably to make it more 'user-friendly' as it were. The 'net is no longer the sole domain of computer geeks, so they probably wanted to give non-HTMLers the ability to use HTML without having to actually know HTML. Much like WYSIWYG HTML editors like Microsoft FrontPage and such.

I can't say it makes much of a difference to me. I just type my entry under 'HTML' mode and it works just like the old update page.

Well, except for a few bugs that they seem to working out at the moment.

And if it gets worse I can always use one of the client-side LiveJournal applications to update. I had to use Semagic to work around a bug in the new system yesterday. (Which I think they fixed now. Seems to be working fine today.)

But yeah, that's just me. I usually have a high tolerance for these things unless I have a deadline to meet.

-S@m