infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

DerpyHead0 wrote:

would you cook christmas dinner with a match?

I have 2 identical generic winter holiday turkeys for dinner. I put one in oven A and one in oven B. Oven A bakes the turkey fine. Oven B catches fire and burns the whole house down.

Is it the turkey's fault or oven B?

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

So?
I even use 3.0 offline.

infinitytec wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

So?
I even use 3.0 offline.

3.0 crashes on all pages except the forums.

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

So?
I even use 3.0 offline.

3.0 crashes on all pages except the forums.

Well, at least all essential functions are working.
Not for me… What are your computer's specs?

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

So?
I even use 3.0 offline.

3.0 crashes on all pages except the forums.

Actually it only crashes on larger projects for the most part, and by that I mean the kind of crashing where the entire webpage reloads because of a problem (usually on mobile devices), not Scratch displaying an error on the project window itself.

BFDISuperFan wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

So?
I even use 3.0 offline.

3.0 crashes on all pages except the forums.

Actually it only crashes on larger projects for the most part, and by that I mean the kind of crashing where the entire webpage reloads because of a problem (usually on mobile devices), not Scratch displaying an error on the project window itself.

That's your browser and/or hardware…
Not Scratch's problem.

Message I sent to the Scratch team about 3.0:

The way you updated Scratch makes it seem awkward to use. It also makes it seem trendy or kid-ish, so in the long run your scratchers won't stay quite as long. Website structure should be similar to that of a good logo: simple and effective. I'd also like to add that websites should be user friendly and easy to use. But when you keep updating the CSS of the website, it makes people feel like they no longer know how to use it or that they're either too young or old for it. I suggest that if/when you update again, you take account for the following:
1: make the website user friendly for all ages, it makes it easier to keep your scratchers active if they like what they see.
2: make the website look timeless, not trendy, so you can update other things on the next updates. This way, people don't have to refamiliarize themselves with Scratch every six months.

Scratch 1.0 and 2.0 are great examples of this. It seems that for 3.0 you refocused and decided Scratch is only used for kids. But you forgot that even high schools use this material, even your designers in college that made the website. If you didn't make Scratch just for a project, would you really want to use it?

Please consider,
cs2003389

infinitytec wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

space_elephant wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

PrincessFlowerTV wrote:

CalvanoDeGreat wrote:

I hate scratch 3.0 ):

Hi there, can you please elaborate what you mean it a respectful way?
Just saying “I hate scratch 3.0” is un-constructive and not helpful.

yea, i don't mean to be disrespectful, but 2.0 was just perfect, it had anything a beginner needed for coding, and really siple and easy to use, but 3.0 is the opposite.

Meh, I beg to differ.
1.4 was significantly more stable than 2.0.

But 2.0 was online, 1.4 was not.

So?
I even use 3.0 offline.

3.0 crashes on all pages except the forums.

Well, at least all essential functions are working.
Not for me… What are your computer's specs?

Actually it only crashes on larger projects for the most part, and by that I mean the kind of crashing where the entire webpage reloads because of a problem (usually on mobile devices), not Scratch displaying an error on the project window itself.

My browser / operating system: Ubuntu Linux, Firefox 65.0, Flash 30.0 (release 0)
I mean the kind of crashing where firefox, and sometimes linux stop doing anything, and I sometimes get a “Do you want to kill firefox?” prompt.

infinitytec wrote:

That's your browser and/or hardware…
Not Scratch's problem.

I need to carry a feather across a river.
So I'm loading up a convoy of 18-wheelers with cinderblocks and I'll put the feather on the middle one, then send them all across the bridge together. Clearly this is a functional solution.

What's that you say? The bridge collapsed?? Why then we need a stronger bridge for carrying this feather!
(What do you mean I shouldn't put “useless” cinderblocks on “a useless amount” of trucks? They're completely necessary. Any modern bridge would be able to support them…)

cs2003389 wrote:

Message I sent to the Scratch team about 3.0:

The way you updated Scratch makes it seem awkward to use. It also makes it seem trendy or kid-ish, so in the long run your scratchers won't stay quite as long. Website structure should be similar to that of a good logo: simple and effective. I'd also like to add that websites should be user friendly and easy to use. But when you keep updating the CSS of the website, it makes people feel like they no longer know how to use it or that they're either too young or old for it. I suggest that if/when you update again, you take account for the following:
1: make the website user friendly for all ages, it makes it easier to keep your scratchers active if they like what they see.
2: make the website look timeless, not trendy, so you can update other things on the next updates. This way, people don't have to refamiliarize themselves with Scratch every six months.

Scratch 1.0 and 2.0 are great examples of this. It seems that for 3.0 you refocused and decided Scratch is only used for kids. But you forgot that even high schools use this material, even your designers in college that made the website. If you didn't make Scratch just for a project, would you really want to use it?

Please consider,
cs2003389

Fun fact: I like the new style. I never really cared too much for 2.0's design, and 1.4 looks really dated.

infinitytec wrote:

cs2003389 wrote:

Message I sent to the Scratch team about 3.0:

The way you updated Scratch makes it seem awkward to use. It also makes it seem trendy or kid-ish, so in the long run your scratchers won't stay quite as long. Website structure should be similar to that of a good logo: simple and effective. I'd also like to add that websites should be user friendly and easy to use. But when you keep updating the CSS of the website, it makes people feel like they no longer know how to use it or that they're either too young or old for it. I suggest that if/when you update again, you take account for the following:
1: make the website user friendly for all ages, it makes it easier to keep your scratchers active if they like what they see.
2: make the website look timeless, not trendy, so you can update other things on the next updates. This way, people don't have to refamiliarize themselves with Scratch every six months.

Scratch 1.0 and 2.0 are great examples of this. It seems that for 3.0 you refocused and decided Scratch is only used for kids. But you forgot that even high schools use this material, even your designers in college that made the website. If you didn't make Scratch just for a project, would you really want to use it?

Please consider,
cs2003389

Fun fact: I like the new style. I never really cared too much for 2.0's design, and 1.4 looks really dated.

I personally think that most of the people who say that they “like” the 3.0 design or that 3.0 is superior to 2.0 are generally just forum warriors who want to be contrarian.

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

cs2003389 wrote:

Message I sent to the Scratch team about 3.0:

The way you updated Scratch makes it seem awkward to use. It also makes it seem trendy or kid-ish, so in the long run your scratchers won't stay quite as long. Website structure should be similar to that of a good logo: simple and effective. I'd also like to add that websites should be user friendly and easy to use. But when you keep updating the CSS of the website, it makes people feel like they no longer know how to use it or that they're either too young or old for it. I suggest that if/when you update again, you take account for the following:
1: make the website user friendly for all ages, it makes it easier to keep your scratchers active if they like what they see.
2: make the website look timeless, not trendy, so you can update other things on the next updates. This way, people don't have to refamiliarize themselves with Scratch every six months.

Scratch 1.0 and 2.0 are great examples of this. It seems that for 3.0 you refocused and decided Scratch is only used for kids. But you forgot that even high schools use this material, even your designers in college that made the website. If you didn't make Scratch just for a project, would you really want to use it?

Please consider,
cs2003389

Fun fact: I like the new style. I never really cared too much for 2.0's design, and 1.4 looks really dated.

I personally think that most of the people who say that they “like” the 3.0 design or that 3.0 is superior to 2.0 are generally just forum warriors who want to be contrarian.

You can think that, but you would be wrong.
My only issues with the new design are how bright it is, lack of proper responsiveness, and removal of ‘Discuss.’
I have userscripts that fix the first and third problems.

infinitytec wrote:

badatprogrammingibe wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

-snip-

I personally think that most of the people who say that they “like” the 3.0 design or that 3.0 is superior to 2.0 are generally just forum warriors who want to be contrarian.

You can think that, but you would be wrong.
My only issues with the new design are how bright it is, lack of proper responsiveness, and removal of ‘Discuss.’
I have userscripts that fix the first and third problems.

I'm sorry infinitytec, but I'm going to have to politely disagree.

You see, Scratch 3 is bright, that can be fixed, yes. Scratch 3 has really big blocks, and I do not like this at all due to it using up much more space on an already tedious-to-work-with editor (I've always had a hatred of block based languages, 1.4 and 2 were alright due to the small size)

But there is one part of Scratch 3 I will forever hate, for it is a design choice that handicaps the ease of use of Scratch. Any-direction scrolling.

You see, I have never liked being able to drag to scroll in two directions both horizontally and vertically. I like having scroll bars that have a defined origin, usually the top left. Breaching this standard causes me to not being able organise my code easily, something Scratch 2 already made hard, and now with the blocks using much more room, vertical stacking becomes a pain. I do not wish to scroll to more than 10 seconds to find a piece of code. Text based languages have a much higher density of code to screen real estate, which means that 10 seconds of scrolling in my favourite text based editor has a lot more meaning than 10 seconds of scrolling Scratch 3.

I like my code to start at the origin of my document, aka the top left. It's how all my text based editors do it. Even GNU ed has an origin, the left, maybe not directly at the top, but certainly the left. You wouldn't want to click and drag to GNU ed without an origin would you?

The choice to lack an origin means organising code within Scratch 3 is a pain, it doesn't help that clicking and dragging is both used for moving blocks and for moving the origin-less screen.

Edit: fixed

bybb wrote:

But there is one part of Scratch 3 I will forever hate, for it is a design choice that handicaps the ease of use of Scratch. Any-direction scrolling.

You see, I have never liked being able to drag to scroll in two directions both horizontally and vertically. I like having scroll bars that have a defined origin, usually the top left. Breaching this standard causes me to not being able organise my code easily, something Scratch 2 already made hard, and now with the blocks using much more room, vertical stacking becomes a pain. I do not wish to scroll to more than 10 seconds to find a piece of code. Text based languages have a much higher density of code to screen real estate, which means that 10 seconds of scrolling in my favourite text based editor has a lot more meaning than 10 seconds of scrolling Scratch 3.

I like my code to start at the origin of my document, aka the top left. It's how all my text based editors do it. Even GNU ed has an origin, the left, maybe not directly at the top, but certainly the left. You wouldn't want to click and drag to GNU ed without an origin would you?

This is a really interesting argument to me, because, honestly, any-direction scrolling is one of my absolute favorite features of Scratch 3.0. It makes it far easier for me to organize my code. Frequently, in Scratch 2.0, I found myself wanting to add more code to an in-my-head “section” of the workspace, but there was no more room. So I had to drag scripts over, to a different place from they were before, in order to make space. This led to a bit of a sense of messiness, since I could never be confident my scripts would stay in the same place for long. So, being able to scroll infinitely in any direction is a great help to me – it means I run out of space far less often, and I'm able to scroll in any direction to decide where my new space is, without ever worrying about running into edges of the workspace.

You make reference to text editors, but I think this is a flawed way to think about Scratch. You said it yourself: You hate block-based programming languages. So perhaps you should shift your thinking – why not try to appreciate block-based programming languages for what they are? Since they aren't text-based languages, they have the capability to be different. Scratch doesn't need to be strictly similar to any text editor. Ed, vim, emacs, Sublime, et cetera – these are all standards for what text-based editors ought to be like, and so they're what users are comfortable with. But block-based languages are young! Scratch may as well figure out what works better for it. And I think the only way to do that is to set aside a bias towards matching text editors.

bybb wrote:

It doesn't help that clicking and dragging is both used for moving blocks and for moving the origin-less screen.

I sort of agree with this, though. I find dragging a handy gesture every once in a while but I mostly use my scroll wheel. I think an option to disable drag-to-scroll (on devices not limited to touchscreens, of course) would be useful.

The sprite editor is good, but it still has glitches from 2.0, including the selecting tool glitch. I have yet to see whether or not the pink box glitch remains. And they moved and renamed a bunch of blocks unnecessarily, making it confusing to use.

TailsDoll506 wrote:

The sprite editor is good, but it still has glitches from 2.0, including the selecting tool glitch. I have yet to see whether or not the pink box glitch remains. And they moved and renamed a bunch of blocks unnecessarily, making it confusing to use.

Any of those bugs are actually new to 3.0, as 3.0 is a complete rewrite.

_nix wrote:

bybb wrote:

But there is one part of Scratch 3 I will forever hate, for it is a design choice that handicaps the ease of use of Scratch. Any-direction scrolling.

You see, I have never liked being able to drag to scroll in two directions both horizontally and vertically. I like having scroll bars that have a defined origin, usually the top left. Breaching this standard causes me to not being able organise my code easily, something Scratch 2 already made hard, and now with the blocks using much more room, vertical stacking becomes a pain. I do not wish to scroll to more than 10 seconds to find a piece of code. Text based languages have a much higher density of code to screen real estate, which means that 10 seconds of scrolling in my favourite text based editor has a lot more meaning than 10 seconds of scrolling Scratch 3.

I like my code to start at the origin of my document, aka the top left. It's how all my text based editors do it. Even GNU ed has an origin, the left, maybe not directly at the top, but certainly the left. You wouldn't want to click and drag to GNU ed without an origin would you?

This is a really interesting argument to me, because, honestly, any-direction scrolling is one of my absolute favorite features of Scratch 3.0. It makes it far easier for me to organize my code. Frequently, in Scratch 2.0, I found myself wanting to add more code to an in-my-head “section” of the workspace, but there was no more room. So I had to drag scripts over, to a different place from they were before, in order to make space. This led to a bit of a sense of messiness, since I could never be confident my scripts would stay in the same place for long. So, being able to scroll infinitely in any direction is a great help to me – it means I run out of space far less often, and I'm able to scroll in any direction to decide where my new space is, without ever worrying about running into edges of the workspace.

You make reference to text editors, but I think this is a flawed way to think about Scratch. You said it yourself: You hate block-based programming languages. So perhaps you should shift your thinking – why not try to appreciate block-based programming languages for what they are? Since they aren't text-based languages, they have the capability to be different. Scratch doesn't need to be strictly similar to any text editor. Ed, vim, emacs, Sublime, et cetera – these are all standards for what text-based editors ought to be like, and so they're what users are comfortable with. But block-based languages are young! Scratch may as well figure out what works better for it. And I think the only way to do that is to set aside a bias towards matching text editors.

bybb wrote:

It doesn't help that clicking and dragging is both used for moving blocks and for moving the origin-less screen.

I sort of agree with this, though. I find dragging a handy gesture every once in a while but I mostly use my scroll wheel. I think an option to disable drag-to-scroll (on devices not limited to touchscreens, of course) would be useful.

Exactly, blocks =/= text.
I don't really mind the larger block size, but it would be nice if it was toggleable. Part of this may be that I have a large monitor.
Now as for the dragging, I agree that it can be a bit annoying, and kind of wish the mouse would not trigger it, and it was left for touchscreen only. Although, it is a bit convenient at times to just be able to scroll everything.

I do not find Scratch 3.0 to be perfect. It has quite a few bugs, and still needs a lot of work.
I do wish the ST had delayed it 6 months so more bugs could be fixed, and things like the image and sound editors made up-to-par.
That, and still rolling out the 3.0 player onto the site pre-launch, so the compatibility issues could be solved.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

infinitytec wrote:

That's your browser and/or hardware…
Not Scratch's problem.

I need to carry a feather across a river.
So I'm loading up a convoy of 18-wheelers with cinderblocks and I'll put the feather on the middle one, then send them all across the bridge together. Clearly this is a functional solution.

What's that you say? The bridge collapsed?? Why then we need a stronger bridge for carrying this feather!
(What do you mean I shouldn't put “useless” cinderblocks on “a useless amount” of trucks? They're completely necessary. Any modern bridge would be able to support them…)

I really love these bad analogies.

Of course it's reasonable to require a $3000 laptop to run projects without crashing the whole system. Anyone can afford a modern system like that!

And the larger projects? Just use that grant money paid for by our tuition to buy the $1000 in RAM.

comp09 wrote:

Of course it's reasonable to require a $3000 laptop to run projects without crashing the whole system. Anyone can afford a modern system like that!

And the larger projects? Just use that grant money paid for by our tuition to buy the $1000 in RAM.

A small loan of a million dollars will do it xD