The Compendium is Live

[mindshadow2k]

I would like to and maybe it is me but I tested on 3 computers with Firefox and the news (DDI News) under the "Recent News" header for Firefox (currently 3.0) the posted article there has no scroll bars so you have to use your scroll wheel on the mouse or drag through it to get it to scroll. I have tested this on my MacBook as well as my Windows XP machines. Nothing huge and this isn't a complaint, just a note that the site could have other issues with Firefox, not that I have experienced anything other then that.

(Oh yeah and they don't show up for Safari users either)

 

[James McMurray]

I would like to and maybe it is me but I tested on 3 computers with Firefox and the news (DDI News) under the "Recent News" header for Firefox (currently 3.0) the posted article there has no scroll bars so you have to use your scroll wheel on the mouse or drag through it to get it to scroll. I have tested this on my MacBook as well as my Windows XP machines. Nothing huge and this isn't a complaint, just a note that the site could have other issues with Firefox, not that I have experienced anything other then that.

Same here. If I hadn't seen the top halves of lettering at the bottom of the new box I wouldn't have known to hover over it and roll my mouse wheel.

I also get the last half letter or so on the right of the articles chopped off. I've noticed several similar layout issues. Nothing major, but it definitely points so someone not testing for the entire internet. The functionality of the site has never caused me any problems.

 

[megasycophant]

Check what javascript and cookie settings you have. I'm on 2.0.0.14 and had no issues. (Are you on 3?)

Nope, it's nothing like that (I'm pretty much anything goes), just poorly, unprofessionally implemented/tested code.

 

[megasycophant]

Everything on WotC's page works just fine with both Firefox v2.x, v3.x and IE on the 5-6 computers that I use to access the site. Maybe it is just you. Actually, considering your post, it probably is.

Considering my post, it probably is? What does that mean? Because (given Firefox's market share), I expect a basic form submission on a website to work in Firefox? There was a time when these things were touch and go with browser inconsistencies, but that's no longer the case. I've implemented (and implement) browser-based UIs with a LOT more going on that support both Firefox and IE. The only time I've seen such a thing in years is from products designed specifically to support Microsoft products implemented by folks entrenched in the Microsoft way. (I'm not saying that's the case here.)

Also, I didn't say that WOTC's site didn't work in Firefox. I said the form submission process for registering for DND Insider didn't work. It's obvious this is a separately hosted/implemented service (Gleemax), so references to whether WOTC's site is functional are irrelevant. I'm not active on the site, but sounds like this is the least of their troubles: Gleemax Sorely Lacking Glee

I'm still at a loss as to why you would say that considering my post, it's probably me. I related an experience, and my expectations are not unreasonable. This IS Web Dev 101 stuff, and we should be able to expect more.

 

[James McMurray]

Nope, it's nothing like that (I'm pretty much anything goes), just poorly, unprofessionally implemented/tested code.

It seems to work for everyone else. Are you sure there's no extensions you're running, or settings you've got that could be causing it?

And a more important question: did you let them know you were having problems? A huge percentage of website issues go unnoticed and unrepaired because users (including me) don't take the time to click the contact link and let the devs know what's up. Comprehensive browser testing is an admirable but impossible goal, and developers are more and more forced to rely on their users to help them out when an unforeseen corner case appears.

Then again, maybe the problem you had was found and fixed, which is why it works for people now and didn't for you then.

 

[megasycophant]

It seems to work for everyone else. Are you sure there's no extensions you're running, or settings you've got that could be causing it?

And a more important question: did you let them know you were having problems? A huge percentage of website issues go unnoticed and unrepaired because users (including me) don't take the time to click the contact link and let the devs know what's up. Comprehensive browser testing is an admirable but impossible goal, and developers are more and more forced to rely on their users to help them out when an unforeseen corner case appears.

Then again, maybe the problem you had was found and fixed, which is why it works for people now and didn't for you then.

I'm running a few extensions, but nothing drastic and nothing that's given me grief in the past (although this doesn't eliminate it as a possiblity).

Reporting it would have been the right thing to do (although I didn't, bad user). On the one hand, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that I'm just a glitch due to some browser-specific idiosyncrasy. Also, they make it clear the site is alpha. On the other hand, we're not talking about some fancy AJAX-based, layered DHTML yadda yadda yadda. What I had an issue with was the signup page, which best practices should dictate is clean and standards compliant. This is what made it smell bad for me. A less savvy user may have just thrown up his hands, proclaimed the site as non-functional (probably in a more colorful manner) and given up. (At which point he becomes a non-user and can't give feedback about the site.) I submit that it is entirely possible to create a registration process that will work in every major browser (we can even throw Opera, Safari, etc in there) unless the user's done something really bizarre/stupid on his end. So my concern isn't so much that something "glitched" when I tried to register, but the lack of professionalism that is implied.

OK, that horse is dead. I don't want to give the impression that I think the whole thing just sucks. It's just that after an earlier response to my posting, I wanted to elucidate rather than have everyone thinking I'm some curmudgeon.

 

[James McMurray]

It's just that after an earlier response to my posting, I wanted to elucidate rather than have everyone thinking I'm some curmudgeon.

No worries. Now we know you're a curmudgeon with good diction.

edit: unlike me, who apparently can't spell "now"

 

[Mercutio01]

Come off the horse and read the DDI news. This is an early alpha.

No, he's right. They are specifically leaving out the rules for things like combat. The compendium will be useless for DMs who need to quickly check how much of a bonus cover grants or other things like that. Read the article they put out. There is no mention of rules or monsters, and in the community FAQ there are these answers.

The combat chapter, for example, is not part of the compendium.

AND

It will not provide details about character creation rules or combat rules for example.

 

[James McMurray]

Well, that's just plain silly. Unless the other DDI features are a lot better than they look right now, count me out.

 

[doppelganger]

They list it as an immediate reaction, but it still says

"This bonus is cumulative; if three cursed enemies drop to 0 hit points or fewer before your next turn, you gain a +3 bonus to a d20 roll during your turn."

Which of course makes no sense since you only take one immediate action per round. So clearly Fate of the Void s/b free or no action.

I think you get the benefits no matter how the cursed enemies die. You don't have to be the one to kill them.