Mobile friendly and/or responsive

[BKDotCom]

I avoid pulling up the forum on my phone.  It makes me sad.
Need some volunteers hours to get a mobile friendly forum?

[sgrizzle]

I avoid pulling up the forum on my phone.  It makes me sad.
Need some volunteers hours to get a mobile friendly forum?

We added the Tapatalk plugin which is supposed to provide that via an app, but it crapped out. Can't even seem to delete and reinstall at this point.

We need to convert SMF to a new major version, the current version and theme are very... anti-responsive. Too many fixed pixel sizes.

It's already an agenda topic in the vast TulsaNow management conglomerate. That and finding a new mailing address.

[Hoss]

We added the Tapatalk plugin which is supposed to provide that via an app, but it crapped out. Can't even seem to delete and reinstall at this point.

We need to convert SMF to a new major version, the current version and theme are very... anti-responsive. Too many fixed pixel sizes.

It's already an agenda topic in the vast TulsaNow management conglomerate. That and finding a new mailing address.

Tapatalk probably crapped out because you guys are running SMF 1.1 which is pretty old and I'm not sure they support it anymore.  Current SMF version is 2.0.14, but is not "responsive" as all good websites should be now for mobile devices.  The current beta on SMF (2.1.x) is responsive and is pretty robust and has been in beta for quite some time and IMO should really be considered a RC (release candidate).  I've been running a beta SMF on a site I manage for some time now.  If you have customizations though it could be problematic.

[sgrizzle]

Tapatalk probably crapped out because you guys are running SMF 1.1 which is pretty old and I'm not sure they support it anymore.  Current SMF version is 2.0.14, but is not "responsive" as all good websites should be now for mobile devices.  The current beta on SMF (2.1.x) is responsive and is pretty robust and has been in beta for quite some time and IMO should really be considered a RC (release candidate).  I've been running a beta SMF on a site I manage for some time now.  If you have customizations though it could be problematic.

The CSS is a dumpster fire and likely would get ditched. The only real customization other than that is a registration plugin to block spammers. That and the fact this site runs on windows.

[Admin]

Tapatalk probably crapped out because you guys are running SMF 1.1 which is pretty old and I'm not sure they support it anymore.  Current SMF version is 2.0.14, but is not "responsive" as all good websites should be now for mobile devices.  The current beta on SMF (2.1.x) is responsive and is pretty robust and has been in beta for quite some time and IMO should really be considered a RC (release candidate).  I've been running a beta SMF on a site I manage for some time now.  If you have customizations though it could be problematic.

Hey, we're on SMF 2.1 now. 7 years late.

[Hoss]

Hey, we're on SMF 2.1 now. 7 years late.

Yeah, it was a bit jarring to try and log in and get what appeared to be a basic page, then refresh and get to a new version of SMF.  Looks better and looks great on mobile as well.  Also, getting secure http keeps my browser from complaining.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hey, we're on SMF 2.1 now. 7 years late.

Is the ban intentional?