New colours - others having reading problems?

[Nemesis]

Does that matter?

Maybe some had no idea of the changes. I thought it was simply a redesign of some parts of the site, as Rob said! But basic readability issues are something worth considering with any site.

(There's a reason why many sites have blue and white, it's easy on the eye...)

 

[skier-hughes]

I should imagine all the regulars saw the opportunity to take part in the testing, which you decided not to do.

I was interested in whether the views they'd put forward for readability were looked at, or whether they were dismissed.

Or whether these were all new concerns as none of the people who find it hard to read the new site layout/colour scheme had taken part in the testing.

 

[Moo]

How many people who find it hard to use the new colour combinations took part in the testing?

That's exactly what I've been wondering. I volunteered to take part, found nothing to take exception to, and therefore didn't comment.

If all the people who are now complaining about fundamental things like colours and contrast are merely repeating the comments and suggestions they made to Simon at the testing stage, then I think they have every right to feel aggrieved.

If they couldn't be bothered to take part, of course it doesn't really matter. Modifications will be made and everybody will be happy in the end.

But next time there is to be some overhaul of the site, I suggest that Simon saves himself the bother (and expense?) of providing a trial sample, but instead just goes ahead with the changes and then braces himself for the inevitable brickbats.

 

[skier-hughes]

I made lots of comments when I had the time to go through the site.
Simon came back to me and answered all of my points on an individual basis.
He took some of my points on board and adjusted some things.

Graham

 

[Nemesis]

I don't actually care what happens on the rest of the site as I rarely read it, but in fact I have said to Simon that I think the home page a good change.

He has altered a few things on the forum since this went live yesterday also, some of which I suggested, for which many thanks. Seems that I am not alone in having some problems with it, however.

I did ask and was told by Rob the forum wouldn't change so maybe others thought as I did - that the forum wouldn't change. Maybe also they didn't spot the post asking for volunteers? When I eventually spotted it, it already said there were enough.

Jane has made a very valid point about colours those with 'colour blindness' find difficult. I make the point that too many contrasts on a page (and the orange background for quotes) can cause problems for some also. I think possibly, where text based screens are concerned, readability is the first consideration.

But oh please do us all a favour and quit the sanctimony.

 

[skier-hughes]

But oh please do us all a favour and quit the sanctimony.

What exactly does this mean?

I asked a simple question, as I was wondering how much notice Simon/Rob had taken of peoples comments, or whether no comments had been made about the forum during testing?

That's all.

So, we know you didn't take part, I wonder who else did take part who has found it problematical since it changed.




I seem to remember this, which is at odds with your comment
"When I eventually spotted it, it already said there were enough"

Evelyn,

Ian is correct. We are talking about a site re-design not any additional improvements to the forum.

snip

Why not join in and sign-up to provide some feedback.

regards

Rob

Your reply

Nah - snip

There then followed a discussion on whether people who don't vote should be allowed to complain about the outcome.

Graham

 

[Nemesis]

I meant Moo, who was coming over all holier than thou... go and calm down Graham.

After I read Rob's comment a note went on site on Simon's post saying something along the lines that there were enough volunteers, as I recall.

Simon and I have had some e-mail exchange and he has altered things since yesterday. I have no particular interest in regularly reading the rest of the site and no interest in taking part in any trials regarding the rest of the site - enough to do in the past few weeks thank you. The new home page looks attractive and I have said so.

It seems others were having problems, better to find out now and a bit of trial and error to improve things. Some useful discussion happened here and maybe other things can be altered also. The yellow background for the box to type in I find hard work, the orange quote boxes...

Also, how hard things are to read for many depends on the light - artificial or natural. Colour perception can alter in that case. I find the pinky background very hard in artificial light.

Seems to me the primary purpose of a site where text readability is the main issue should do its utmost to make it available for all users, functionality maybe being more important than other features.

I hope Simon has found the posts and e-mails from site users informative, and can do some further tweaking.

 

[skier-hughes]

I'd hate people not to be able to use the site due to errors made in it's construction, so let's hope, as you say, they take heed of the points raised here and those sent direct.

 

[Flyfisher]

Perhaps websites should be listed so they can't be altered, even by their legal owners, without 'Listed Website Consent', which would only be granted after due consideration by some bureaucratic quango, taking into account the views and recommendations of the appropriate 'Website Conservation Officer' of course. Furthermore, all new websites should be required, by law, to conform to the latest 'Website Building Regulations'. Perhaps a 'Website Design & Access Statement' should also be a necessary part of the application process for domain names? The imposition of a whole raft of such legislation would ensure that our 'heritage online environment' would be protected for future generations. After all, it's about time that the government took full control of the world wide web in order to prevent the sort of anarchic freedoms that leads to people doing whatever they want instead of being constrained to follow bureaucratic dictat.
:roll:

 

[Nemesis]

I am sure Simon has been gratetful for the constructive discussion regarding readability issues. There's quite a body of research work available, some of which I have sitting on the shelves behind me.

He's clearly worked hard since yesterday to improve further the initial forum site, for which I think all must be grateful, as, like Graham, I think and hope that all who enter here may at least be able to read the text without design issues getting in the way,and be able to write in the posting boxes easily.

It's the whole purpose of the forum, after all.

Still some issues which maybe could be resolved, but maybe Simon has a life away from the computer and those will come later, if indeed they can be altered.

 

[Moo]

I meant Moo, who was coming over all holier than thou... go and calm down Graham.

Two birds with one stone. Well done Nemesis!

 

[Nemesis]

Not fatal enough it seems... :sigh:

 

[biffvernon]

I know that was a joke but please no!

Actually, I use one on other phb sites where allowed. I find it useful to tell who's message it is at a glance. Saves reading. Yeah, I know, that doesn't sound like a convincing arguement, but...there it is.

 

[Nemesis]

Then you get the winking and moving ones... all adds to the visual clutter.

I can tell who is posting at a glance cos it says their name...

 

[Moo]

Are avatars those little joky cartoon pictures that provide posters with a sort of personal trade-mark?

If they are, please, please, can ppuk remain free of them?
Jokes lose their power to amuse after the second telling, and then rapidly become more and more irritating.

Besides which, they need to be accompanied by a signature. Which rather defeats the object, surely?

 

[Nemesis]

Perhaps they should only be allowed if they fit with the Adam interiors colours of the new forum?

An Angelica Kauffman style painting each possibly? Illustrating a suitable theme - Faith triumphant over the Philistine maybe?


http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/british_galls/video/adam_interior/modem.html


Signatures, btw, are things which go on the bottom of each post and say something witty and original about the author. Or not.

See the link I gave above to the Southport site...

 

[Moo]

Sorry - I didn't actually mean the occasional signature at the end of a message. I meant the name on the left, in bold, which is always there.

 

[Nemesis]

'Signatures' are also always there. It is extra clutter!

 

[Moo]

Now I'm getting really confused.

On this forum there is a box to the left of each message giving a standard set of information about the sender, which includes his or her name or nickname.
Although some people end their messages with their real name (signature?), the majority don't.

 

[skier-hughes]

Signatures appear at teh end of every message, though you can turn your own one on or off, but you can't choose not to view everyone elses.