[ANN] ZipList 1.2, Now with permalinks!

seyDoggy · February 2012

Same great stack, all new insides. ZipList 1.2.0 has been re-architected from the ground up, with new features, better performance, greater stability and support for Stacks 2.

[NEW]: Future updates now handled with Sparkle Updates.
[NEW]: Items and the lists themselves now have permalinks.
[NEW]: All new user interface.
[NEW]: Show/hide stack in edit mode to keep your workspace clean.
[NEW]: Added support for Stacks 2 grouping.
[IMPROVED]: Performance greatly enhanced.
[FIXED]: Focus is now placed on the clicked item.

More information: http://seydesign.com/ziplist

RonGraham · February 2012

Is this update free to those who have already purchased the stack?

seyDoggy · February 2012

on 1328270570:

Is this update free to those who have already purchased the stack?

Yep. http://seydesign.com/lookup

Rusty Wood · February 2012

Great update.. It's a whole new ball game with the permalinks ..!

Thanks

Rusty

Colorwave · February 2012

How do the permalinks help, in practice? Does it mean that we can have inbound links to a Ziplist item, or are they useful in some other way?

pl_svn · February 2012

... may I say that I totally disagree with your "Stacks grouping" choice? a "Lists" category? it completely defeats the purpouse of "grouping"! :-0
how many "lists stack" are out there? and what for those (am I alone here?) who carefully choose *one* stack for each "category"?

please, developers, *please*, group your stack by developer name: that's a group!
or, at least, get together (better if with Isaiah too) and establish 10-15 categories for *everyone* to stick with. *please*!!!

sorry for the rant, but... ;-p

EDIT: oh, "btw": categories are not even sorted alphabetically in Stacks! =:-0

BioGuy · February 2012

on 1328310507:

Does it mean that we can have inbound links to a Ziplist item, or are they useful in some other way?

Yes, exactly. I've used Ziplist to make an FAQ and this allows you to link to a specific question/answer elsewhere.

seyDoggy · February 2012

on 1328310507:

How do the permalinks help, in practice? Does it mean that we can have inbound links to a Ziplist item, or are they useful in some other way?

Yes, inbound links can go straight to a ZipList item and cause it to open and focus on that item.

seyDoggy · February 2012

on 1328324700:

please, developers, *please*, group your stack by developer name: that's a group!

That's just what Joe decided to do, despite the actual intent of the feature. It was a contested subject before Stacks 2 was released but nothing official was ever decided. Most parties agreed to disagree.

I could have left my stacks ungrouped and left "seyDoggy" prepended to their names and you'd have exactly the same result--all my stacks would be "grouped" together. New features typically offer functionality not attainable already without said feature. The don't normally add redundancy.

Instead, I'm following the most requested grouping scheme, I'm following the category listings found on RapidWeaverCentral. http://www.rapidweavercentral.net/rapidweaver/stacks/all_rapidweaver_stacks_on_one_page.php

Anyhow, this is a discussion that has been beaten to death in countless other threads, so let's not bring it all back up here.

pl_svn · February 2012

... hope you (and everyone requesting this... "grouping" scheme) realizes that a website aimed at presenting *everything* available for RW is "quite different" from a user's library!

ok, but *please* *at least* ask Isaiah (unless it only depends from developers) to make *everything* (categories and developer names) sort alphabetically: the present situation is a mess worse than it was before "grouping"!!

thanks ;-)

mitchellm · February 2012

Paolo,

Have to disagree with you. I think Adam is taking the right approach.

Yes, things organized in Stacks 2 is a mess right now (especially depending on how many stacks you have). But it makes a LOT more sense to group by functionality, and using the approach used at RapidWeaverCentral is the best organizing schema provided so far. I applaud Adam for taking this approach.

If there's the ability for people to sort both by function or author in the future, I guess that's fine. All we're seeing is the result of making no decision on Isaiah's part (agreeing to disagree). I'm sure a better approach will be developed in the future, but we'll all have to live with this unresolved mess for awhile. Another approach, of course, is to curb one's enthusiasm and just use a more refined (smaller) collection of stacks. That way it becomes much easier to find things regardless of the ambivalent/ambiguous/schizo organizing system now in place.

pl_svn · February 2012

ok, but... you agree that at present is a complete mess, much worse than before ;-(

mitchellm · February 2012

Yes, currently probably worse than before: stacks disorganized.

But, ZipList much better and cooler than before. Great work by Adam.

Magnum R.W. · February 2012

Adam -

I think the new permalink feature just sent me over the edge - brilliant!

Thanks!

icecarvingsecrets · February 2012

I just tried out the new version of ZipList. While I like the permalink concept a lot, I'm somewhat troubled by the way my lists now move. I'm assuming this is part of the new focus on the clicked item, where it quickly shifts the whole page. I preferred the way that only part of the list moved before. I checked all the settings and couldn't find a way to make it act in the way that it used to. Am I missing something or not understanding something? Or, if there's not a way to do it now, will that list behavior be in option in a later version? Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have to use the earlier version until I can come up with another solution. That's definitely not a desirable solution though; I needed to upgrade because I was having problems with ZipList on publish occasionally. And anyway, I'd much prefer to use the new version because I really think I could find a lot of uses for the permalink feature. Thanks!

Tappo · February 2012

on 1328604090:

..... I preferred the way that only part of the list moved before.....

I agree.

·[RapidBase]· · February 2012

on 1328616811:

on 1328604090:

..... I preferred the way that only part of the list moved before.....

I agree.

+1

The jumping to the top of the screen when clicking on a ZipList item in the current version is really annoying ... Will not use this version therefore ...

seyDoggy · February 2012

on 1328604090:

I just tried out the new version of ZipList. While I like the permalink concept a lot, I'm somewhat troubled by the way my lists now move. I'm assuming this is part of the new focus on the clicked item, where it quickly shifts the whole page. I preferred the way that only part of the list moved before. I checked all the settings and couldn't find a way to make it act in the way that it used to. Am I missing something or not understanding something? Or, if there's not a way to do it now, will that list behavior be in option in a later version? Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have to use the earlier version until I can come up with another solution. That's definitely not a desirable solution though; I needed to upgrade because I was having problems with ZipList on publish occasionally. And anyway, I'd much prefer to use the new version because I really think I could find a lot of uses for the permalink feature. Thanks!

You don't need to upgrade, there is nothing wrong with 1.1.4 since there is nothing in a stack (especially this stack) which can cause publishing issues (we don't yield that much power, lol). The old version and new version work together so you can use one when you need permalinks and focus and the other when you don't.

I can understand people not getting used to the new animation which is why I leftt both versions intact. But let me tell you what the #1 feature request was and the #1 support concern... Permalinks and focus.

Permalinks is an obvious one, of course people want permalinks and their great right? But what good is a permalink if it doesn't focus on the item you wanted your visitor to see? Very confusing and poor user experience.

And focusing own was the #1 support concern. It was never obvious to me because I had never filled a ZipList item with with lots of content, but as soon as you do you will instantly see why focus was the #1 issue. Without focus, people were left scrolling back up to see the item they just opened. Then the scroll down through the item, get to the next item, click on that, then scroll up to see the top of that item and so on... It was a terrible user experience for those with lots of content in each item.

So why not make the permalinks/focus optional then? Well permalinks and focus go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other so you'd have to do away with both. What are you left with then? ZipList 1.1.4.

Now with all this said does that mean we intend to ignore everyone? No, that's why we have ZipList 1.2 because we listen understand peoples needs and concerns. While we likely won't be making an option to turn off permalinks/focus (since you can use 1.1.4 for that) we will be looking at improving the animation to make it feel smoother and more like 1.1.4 used to be.

flowerm · February 2012

Without focus, people were left scrolling back up to see the item they just opened. Then the scroll down through the item, get to the next item, click on that, then scroll up to see the top of that item and so on... It was a terrible user experience for those with lots of content in each item.

I agree with Adam on this one. I'm in the midst of converting a couple of old-version ZipLists to the new version for precisely the reason Adam identifies. My sites tend to be text-heavy because they serve to supplement the courses I teach (and, as I have noted before, we tend to deal in words...lots of words). What is important is that students get to the information quickly and with visual emphasis. With the new ZipList this is precisely what happens; click and there it is, front and center—and at the top.

I do not find the shifting of text blocks jarring, one reason being perhaps that I always run sites with dark text against white backgrounds and with a minimum of border elements. Thus, there is less for the eye to see moving...except for the blocks of text.

Michael

BioGuy · February 2012

on 1328635389:

Now with all this said does that mean we intend to ignore everyone? No, that's why we have ZipList 1.2 because we listen understand peoples needs and concerns. While we likely won't be making an option to turn off permalinks/focus (since you can use 1.1.4 for that) we will be looking at improving the animation to make it feel smoother and more like 1.1.4 used to be.

That would be welcome. And I'm very glad it didn't overwrite 1.1.4.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, its less the jarring movement or the actual focus, but rather that the movement is to the very top of the screen. You click something in the center or lower third of the screen and suddenly you have to look at the very top edge of your screen by the menubar.

I have no idea if its even possible, but could it focus to the center of the browser window or to the location of the permalink hyperlink (i.e. mouse cursor)? If focusing and permalinks cannot be separated, could something like that be an option?

icecarvingsecrets · February 2012

on 1328635389:

You don't need to upgrade, there is nothing wrong with 1.1.4 since there is nothing in a stack (especially this stack) which can cause publishing issues (we don't yield that much power, lol). The old version and new version work together so you can use one when you need permalinks and focus and the other when you don't.

Perhaps I misspoke when I said there were publishing issues. What I meant to say is that when I do some sort of global publish (for example, a change in the nav bar so that all site pages are partly affected), then I frequently find that the two pages that I have that depend on ZipList are broken: multiple list elements are stuck open and element titles disappear in a way that the text no longer makes sense. (see attached image) When I make slight changes to just those pages and republish, the ZipList function is restored. I was hoping that 1.2 would eliminate this problem. (However, I do understand that it might not be a problem with ZipList, but with something else on the pages.) But now I see that the animation change is a fundamental one. Since my list elements are relatively short, the 1.1.4 animation is much more preferable. I will see if I can get make the problem associated with global publishing go away. Otherwise, I'll hope that any improvements in the animation will make the difference for me. Thanks!

seyDoggy · February 2012

It sounds like your describing a bug in Stacks 2 that was patched somewhere around Stacks 2.0.3 IIRC.

icecarvingsecrets · February 2012

on 1328652154:

It sounds like your describing a bug in Stacks 2 that was patched somewhere around Stacks 2.0.3 IIRC.

Yes, I think you're right. Since I updated Stacks, I've done a few "global" updates, with no apparent problems with my ZipLists. I was pretty diligent about upgrading all my stacks, but failed to check Stacks itself. You've apparently solved my original problem, though not in the way I expected. I'm sure I'll find a use later for version 1.2, once I put together some lists with larger chunks of content, so I'm glad to have it too. Thanks!

FireDude2894 · February 2012

Adam,
I finally figured that I had to replace my older ZipLists. Once that was done, it was not hard to figure out the new Permalink feature. AMAZING! BRILLIANT! THANK YOU!
Wow!

I do understand what folks are saying about the focus feature. And you are right, it does indeed need to be there, but maybe a great solution would be to slow the animation down a bit (or make it variable variable), then it would not seem so abrupt.

Also, in the older version the titles were clickable links, can the new version still do that as well?

Thanks a million.

seyDoggy · February 2012

on 1328762710:

Adam,
I finally figured that I had to replace my older ZipLists. Once that was done, it was not hard to figure out the new Permalink feature. AMAZING! BRILLIANT! THANK YOU!

You're welcome.

on 1328762710:

I do understand what folks are saying about the focus feature. And you are right, it does indeed need to be there, but maybe a great solution would be to slow the animation down a bit (or make it variable variable), then it would not seem so abrupt.

The upcoming ZipList 1.2.1 update has 1. Greatly improved animation. 2. Focus option. 3. Animation speed option.

on 1328762710:

Also, in the older version the titles were clickable links, can the new version still do that as well?

Yes, by turning off the [+/-] link.

BioGuy · February 2012

on 1328807224:

The upcoming ZipList 1.2.1 update has 1. Greatly improved animation. 2. Focus option. 3. Animation speed option.

*Drool!*

seyDoggy · February 2012

ZipList v1.2.1 – February 9, 2012
You have spoken and were heard. Don’t let it be said that we don’t love you, because we do. How much do we love you? Enough to toil the hours away making big improvements to ZipList 1.2. Improvements in all the places you asked for.

[IMPROVED]: The animation has been completely rewritten and is much smoother.
[NEW]: Yes, you can now turn the focus feature off.
[NEW]: You can now change the animation speed

For more information, visit http://seydesign.com/ZipList

pl_svn · February 2012

and do you love us enough to... also make changes in the (in)famous "grouping" part? ;-)

my guess is... no, not that much! :-p

seyDoggy · February 2012

Nope.

mitchellm · February 2012

Adam has already shown plenty of love with regards to grouping. Sometimes people just don't appreciate the love that's been shared (or even recognize it). His grouping schema is simply trying to call you back from the dark side.

pl_svn · February 2012

... the dark side is warm and fuzzy ;-)

Realmac Software

[ANN] ZipList 1.2, Now with permalinks!

Comments

Leave a Comment