So you find it unfair that I know myself well enough to know that I am never going to change my preferences that I have built up from over 20 years of browsing the web?

 

Well I've got more unfair statements for you then. My opinion on this will never change.

 

Apologies, but I have to concur with Brit here, scrolling is for browsers.

I am against these internal scroll bars also. I think it is going to have to be based on window size and not screen size if it is going to work. It currently isn't working for me on my laptop or my htpc. It does work on my desktop but only if I maximize the browser, which I usually do but would rather not have it anyway since I don't see much benefit in it. Have only tested in Chrome so far.

 

Just want to say we really appreciate all you have done, but feedback is the purpose of this thread.

Another update is available, see plugin manager.

 

I have added a new display setting Listing height which by default is set to automatic, this forces the old style of working, so people actually have to opt-in to get the new style (I believe this is a better approach than an opt-out feature).

 

Futhermore I am using now the javascript window.innerHeight function to calculate the table height, tested it with different screen resolutions and browsers, it seems to work well. This brings me back to the original approach which allows for windowing.

 

Sure your feedback is welcome!

 

I might try to find time to test this out so I understand it. And maybe after your latest update it's a moot point, but I would also not want a scroll bar forced upon me and potentially have a scroll within a scroll.

I might try to find time to test this out so I understand it. And maybe after your latest update it's a moot point, but I would also not want a scroll bar forced upon me and potentially have a scroll within a scroll.

 

Give it a go and see how things work, you have the option to use either approach.

 

I have issued a new version 2015.12.23g 2015.12.24a which adds dynamic table resizing when the window is resized, this is another step towards avoiding a second scrollbar.

 

Just thought I would give some more feedback. Still not working for me. There are probably some additional factors that are out of your control and maybe too diverse to bother with. My ultrabook has 1800 vertical but the recommended setting for text is 250% for good reason. Even though it has great resolution for movies, etc. if you just had everything 100% it would be too small to read. Don't know if this is why it isn't working or not. Probably will be OK for many others. I don't really need it so it's OK.

 

I like the unRAID interface but all the suggestions and "complaints" I'm reading could be better handled if unRAID adopted a responsive design and some forethought, which would really be about time considered we are in 2015.

 

No need to reinvent the wheel. Why not take up bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com) as foundation and start working from there? That is a question I've been asking myself for quite some time now.

Just thought I would give some more feedback. Still not working for me. There are probably some additional factors that are out of your control and maybe too diverse to bother with. My ultrabook has 1800 vertical but the recommended setting for text is 250% for good reason. Even though it has great resolution for movies, etc. if you just had everything 100% it would be too small to read. Don't know if this is why it isn't working or not. Probably will be OK for many others. I don't really need it so it's OK.

 

I tried zooming on my system and indeed at a very large zoom factor it doesn't play nice anymore, so in your case you need to stick to the original approach.

 

Thanks for testing.

 

I like the unRAID interface but all the suggestions and "complaints" I'm reading could be better handled if unRAID adopted a responsive design and some forethought, which would really be about time considered we are in 2015.

 

No need to reinvent the wheel. Why not take up bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com) as foundation and start working from there? That is a question I've been asking myself for quite some time now.

 

Thanks for referring to the getbootstrap site.

 

I do development in my free time and not employed by Limetech. Moving to a new concept even without reinventing the wheel will cost me considerable time. I am interested in this as a step forwards, but don't expect anything in short notice.

 

Dynamix is set up as an open project and everybody can contribute (see Limetech's github), I encourage other developers to have a look and perhaps joint effort to go to the next level.

 

The new listing height setting works great bonienl.  Thanks for considering the feedback. 

 

Now at least BRiT's blood pressure should be back to safe levels.... 

 

Your hard work as ever is appreciated...

I like the unRAID interface but all the suggestions and "complaints" I'm reading could be better handled if unRAID adopted a responsive design and some forethought, which would really be about time considered we are in 2015.

 

No need to reinvent the wheel. Why not take up bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com) as foundation and start working from there? That is a question I've been asking myself for quite some time now.

 

Thanks for referring to the getbootstrap site.

 

I do development in my free time and not employed by Limetech. Moving to a new concept even without reinventing the wheel will cost me considerable time. I am interested in this as a step forwards, but don't expect anything in short notice.

 

Dynamix is set up as an open project and everybody can contribute (see Limetech's github), I encourage other developers to have a look and perhaps joint effort to go to the next level.

 

Whilst we're on the topic, linuxserver.io, in particular KodeStar, is working on an alternative interface called Aesir, bonienl, if you're interested...  https://github.com/linuxserver/Aesir

Whilst we're on the topic, linuxserver.io, in particular KodeStar, is working on an alternative interface called Aesir, bonienl, if you're interested...  https://github.com/linuxserver/Aesir

 

Why not the other way around, and join the Dynamix development? It is officially supported by Limetech and any improvements get their approval.

Whilst we're on the topic, linuxserver.io, in particular KodeStar, is working on an alternative interface called Aesir, bonienl, if you're interested...  https://github.com/linuxserver/Aesir

 

Why not the other way around, and join the Dynamix development? It is officially supported by Limetech and any improvements get their approval.

 

I dunno, I know fudge all about dev tbh, but I'll certainly point KodeStar to this thread...

The new listing height setting works great bonienl.  Thanks for considering the feedback. 

 

Now at least BRiT's blood pressure should be back to safe levels.... 

 

Your hard work as ever is appreciated...

 

Thanks for giving some positive feedback. 

 

I like the unRAID interface but all the suggestions and "complaints" I'm reading could be better handled if unRAID adopted a responsive design and some forethought, which would really be about time considered we are in 2015.

 

No need to reinvent the wheel. Why not take up bootstrap (http://getbootstrap.com) as foundation and start working from there? That is a question I've been asking myself for quite some time now.

 

Thanks for referring to the getbootstrap site.

 

I do development in my free time and not employed by Limetech. Moving to a new concept even without reinventing the wheel will cost me considerable time. I am interested in this as a step forwards, but don't expect anything in short notice.

 

I understand. Well, keep up the good work!

 

 

Whilst we're on the topic, linuxserver.io, in particular KodeStar, is working on an alternative interface called Aesir, bonienl, if you're interested...  https://github.com/linuxserver/Aesir

 

Why not the other way around, and join the Dynamix development? It is officially supported by Limetech and any improvements get their approval.

 

The changes are too big to incorporate into Dynamix, I did speak to bonienl and a few other people about a joint venture, but noone was interested.

I have added some more developments to the bleeding edge package:

[*]moved disk temperature and disk utilization settings to the Disk Settings page

[*]allow to set individual temp/usage settings per disk under the device page

[*]allow SMART alert acknowledgement to clear status on dashboard page

By moving the temperature and disk utilization settings, I hope it is more intuitive to find.

Acknowledging the outstanding SMART alerts on the dashboard will mark the disk as 'good' until the SMART values change again. Hope this helps in better tracking of the disk health.

 

Perhaps you want to try these new enhancements and let me know any observations. The plugin can be updated using the plugin manager.

Working great! Many thanks for this and all your work.

Futhermore I am using now the javascript window.innerHeight function to calculate the table height, tested it with different screen resolutions and browsers, it seems to work well.

 

I opted in to this, and when Chrome is running full screen it works great.  Looking at the Docker page... there is no double scrollbar, and important buttons below the table are always visible.  I really like it!

 

However, if my browser isn't maximized the experience isn't great.  I get a double scrollbar and I have to scroll the outer one to see the buttons.  Any chance you might be willing to look at the non-maximized state a little more?

 

I am running version 2015.12.27a

When using a custom banner would it be possible to put the unraid logo in a box over the banner similarly to what is done for the uptime / specs box, with the option to make the boxes both sides more or less transparent ?

 

Futhermore I am using now the javascript window.innerHeight function to calculate the table height, tested it with different screen resolutions and browsers, it seems to work well.

 

I opted in to this, and when Chrome is running full screen it works great.  Looking at the Docker page... there is no double scrollbar, and important buttons below the table are always visible.  I really like it!

 

However, if my browser isn't maximized the experience isn't great.  I get a double scrollbar and I have to scroll the outer one to see the buttons.  Any chance you might be willing to look at the non-maximized state a little more?

 

I am running version 2015.12.27a

 

What is your screen resolution?

 

The height adjustment is done automatically when resizing a window. When the size stays greater than 1280x768 then no inside scrollbar should be visible, but might be with some browsers.

 

Futhermore I am using now the javascript window.innerHeight function to calculate the table height, tested it with different screen resolutions and browsers, it seems to work well.

 

I opted in to this, and when Chrome is running full screen it works great.  Looking at the Docker page... there is no double scrollbar, and important buttons below the table are always visible.  I really like it!

 

However, if my browser isn't maximized the experience isn't great.  I get a double scrollbar and I have to scroll the outer one to see the buttons.  Any chance you might be willing to look at the non-maximized state a little more?

 

I am running version 2015.12.27a

 

What is your screen resolution?

 

The height adjustment is done automatically when resizing a window. When the size stays greater than 1280x768 then no inside scrollbar should be visible, but might be with some browsers.

 

The screen resolution on my laptop is 2880x1620. 

 

It seems like the code wants the browser to be maximized, the closer I make it to full height the less of a double scroll there is.

 

This isn't the end of the world since I can always opt out of the fixed listing height.  But I do like the direction you are taking this

Another update is available, see plugin manager.

 

I have added a new display setting Listing height which by default is set to automatic, this forces the old style of working, so people actually have to opt-in to get the new style (I believe this is a better approach than an opt-out feature).

 

Futhermore I am using now the javascript window.innerHeight function to calculate the table height, tested it with different screen resolutions and browsers, it seems to work well. This brings me back to the original approach which allows for windowing.

 

Sure your feedback is welcome!

Any thought to updating tablesorter to the Mottie fork version. I switched some of my plugins it e.g. my speedtest plugin https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dmacias72/unRAID-plugins/master/plugins/speedtest.plg.  There's been a ton of improvements over the original. It has better sorting especially with units and updated plugins and widgets.

 

The sticky headers is one I think would be of interest to the direction your going with dynamix.

https://mottie.github.io/tablesorter/docs/example-widget-css-sticky-header.html

Another update is available, see plugin manager.

 

I have added a new display setting Listing height which by default is set to automatic, this forces the old style of working, so people actually have to opt-in to get the new style (I believe this is a better approach than an opt-out feature).

 

Futhermore I am using now the javascript window.innerHeight function to calculate the table height, tested it with different screen resolutions and browsers, it seems to work well. This brings me back to the original approach which allows for windowing.

 

Sure your feedback is welcome!

Any thought to updating tablesorter to the Mottie fork version. I switched some of my plugins it e.g. my speedtest plugin https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dmacias72/unRAID-plugins/master/plugins/speedtest.plg.  There's been a ton of improvements over the original. It has better sorting especially with units and updated plugins and widgets.

 

The sticky headers is one I think would be of interest to the direction your going with dynamix.

https://mottie.github.io/tablesorter/docs/example-widget-css-sticky-header.html

 

Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look at it.

 

This will require extensive testing since this function is used quite a lot in the GUI.