Did you note what the notice said?

I know Boinc doesn't. I asked if Seti software can note them as it notes what gpu one uses.

Notice: Undefined index: 7 in /disks/carolyn/b/home/boincadm/projects/sah/html/seti_boinc_html/user_donation.php on line 79 

---

We changed the SETI@home web site to use Twitter Bootstrap, a CSS toolkit. This makes the site usable on small displays, and lets us use color schemes developed by other people (this one is called Darkly).

Seti has unilaterally decided that the whole world now uses smartphones, and the rest of us in the minority using desktop PC's are irrelevant.

I only come to the web site on my desktop, and I don't have any major issues with the present layout & colour scheme (I prefer the old one, but then i'm old and don't like change, but the present one is OK).
*shrug*

---

Grant
Darwin NT

We changed the SETI@home web site to use Twitter Bootstrap, a CSS toolkit. This makes the site usable on small displays, and lets us use color schemes developed by other people (this one is called Darkly).

Seti has unilaterally decided that the whole world now uses smartphones, and the rest of us in the minority using desktop PC's are irrelevant.

I only come to the web site on my desktop, and I don't have any major issues with the present layout & colour scheme (I prefer the old one, but then i'm old and don't like change, but the present one is OK).
*shrug*

Personally, I hate it but like anything else you can cope. What is crystal clear, however, is that the folks that did this don't give a rip about the opinions of their user community. Wonder what it is about that side of the bay that breeds such arrogance?

---

We changed the SETI@home web site to use Twitter Bootstrap, a CSS toolkit. This makes the site usable on small displays, and lets us use color schemes developed by other people (this one is called Darkly).

Seti has unilaterally decided that the whole world now uses smartphones, and the rest of us in the minority using desktop PC's are irrelevant.

I only come to the web site on my desktop, and I don't have any major issues with the present layout & colour scheme (I prefer the old one, but then i'm old and don't like change, but the present one is OK).
*shrug*

Personally, I hate it but like anything else you can cope. What is crystal clear, however, is that the folks that did this don't give a rip about the opinions of their user community. Wonder what it is about that side of the bay that breeds such arrogance?

Is there any hard data that suggests the majority hate the scheme? Even the small number of commenters here that dislike it are not the majority. Or do we all assume our opinions are always in the majority? (Rhetorical. I see the same assumption all over the place.)

We changed the SETI@home web site to use Twitter Bootstrap, a CSS toolkit. This makes the site usable on small displays, and lets us use color schemes developed by other people (this one is called Darkly).

Seti has unilaterally decided that the whole world now uses smartphones, and the rest of us in the minority using desktop PC's are irrelevant.

I only come to the web site on my desktop, and I don't have any major issues with the present layout & colour scheme (I prefer the old one, but then i'm old and don't like change, but the present one is OK).
*shrug*

Personally, I hate it but like anything else you can cope. What is crystal clear, however, is that the folks that did this don't give a rip about the opinions of their user community. Wonder what it is about that side of the bay that breeds such arrogance?

Is there any hard data that suggests the majority hate the scheme? Even the small number of commenters here that dislike it are not the majority. Or do we all assume our opinions are always in the majority? (Rhetorical. I see the same assumption all over the place.)

Fair point. However, preferences aside, there is significant research that indicates that white text on dark background is far less readable than dark text on light backgrounds.
In example,
The kind of text that users read is paragraph text. You should avoid using white text on a dark background when displaying paragraph text to make it easier for them to read. Forcing users to fixate on the white text for a long time can strain the user’s eyes. This is because white stimulates all three types of color sensitive visual receptors in the human eye in nearly equal amounts [source]. This makes reading white paragraph text on dark backgrounds stressful on the eyes.

White also reflects all wavelengths of light. Because the words and letters in paragraph text are compact and close together, when white text reflects light, the reflected light scatters and runs into neighboring words and letters. This makes the shape of the words and letters harder to perceive, which affects readability. Compare that with black text, where the black absorbs the light around each word and letter, making them easy to distinguish.

---

We changed the SETI@home web site to use Twitter Bootstrap, a CSS toolkit. This makes the site usable on small displays, and lets us use color schemes developed by other people (this one is called Darkly).

Seti has unilaterally decided that the whole world now uses smartphones, and the rest of us in the minority using desktop PC's are irrelevant.

I only come to the web site on my desktop, and I don't have any major issues with the present layout & colour scheme (I prefer the old one, but then i'm old and don't like change, but the present one is OK).
*shrug*

Personally, I hate it but like anything else you can cope. What is crystal clear, however, is that the folks that did this don't give a rip about the opinions of their user community. Wonder what it is about that side of the bay that breeds such arrogance?

Is there any hard data that suggests the majority hate the scheme? Even the small number of commenters here that dislike it are not the majority. Or do we all assume our opinions are always in the majority? (Rhetorical. I see the same assumption all over the place.)

Fair point. However, preferences aside, there is significant research that indicates that white text on dark background is far less readable than dark text on light backgrounds.
In example,
The kind of text that users read is paragraph text. You should avoid using white text on a dark background when displaying paragraph text to make it easier for them to read. Forcing users to fixate on the white text for a long time can strain the user’s eyes. This is because white stimulates all three types of color sensitive visual receptors in the human eye in nearly equal amounts [source]. This makes reading white paragraph text on dark backgrounds stressful on the eyes.

White also reflects all wavelengths of light. Because the words and letters in paragraph text are compact and close together, when white text reflects light, the reflected light scatters and runs into neighboring words and letters. This makes the shape of the words and letters harder to perceive, which affects readability. Compare that with black text, where the black absorbs the light around each word and letter, making them easy to distinguish.

That doesn't read like "significant research". I don't even see any cited studies, surveys, or testing methodology. It was written by a single author so I'm inclined to believe it's his opinion, and I think it may be confirmation bias of those that agree. Even the commenters are arguing with the author and telling him he's wrong.

Even the small number of commenters here that dislike it are not the majority.

That's a pretty arrogant comment in itself. Where's your data to back that up? I certainly haven't tried to count pro and con posts in this thread, have you? My general impression, however, has been that the cons outweighed the pros. Of course, relative to the entire Seti@home community, forum posters of any kind are a minority.

I happen to despise the poor readability of the current design. I've gotten around it with the "Color That Site!" add-on here on my daily driver and have mostly forgotten about it. However, over the last few weeks, I've had to access the forums in their native state on a couple of other boxes where I've been experimenting with Linux, which has reminded me anew of just how difficult they are to read.

As far as the popularity of light-on-dark text goes, I would refer back to an article I quoted 6 months ago, The Dos and Don’ts of Dark Web Design.

A recent poll suggests that light designs are preferred by the general web-going audience by a whopping 47%. The main reason is readability. Most people don’t like viewing light text against a dark background on websites because it strains their eyes, making for a much less enjoyable experience.

By contrast, 10% of those surveyed said that they always preferred dark backgrounds for websites, while another 36% said that the best choice would depend on the type of website.

I'm pretty sure that 47% is greater than 10%, or has math changed that much in recent years?

Even the small number of commenters here that dislike it are not the majority.

That's a pretty arrogant comment in itself. Where's your data to back that up?

There's roughly 150,000 active SETI@home participants. Additionally, anyone is able to view the web pages whether they're a member or not. How many have posted here saying they dislike it? Without hard data, there's no way to tell if they're in the majority. The statement is far from arrogant. It points out how people ilke to assume their opinions are in the majority.

I certainly haven't tried to count pro and con posts in this thread, have you?

No, but given that there isn't 150,000 posts, I don't think it's fair to generalize or extropolate the small number of feedback here as being indictative of the community as a whole.

My general impression, however, has been that the cons outweighed the pros. Of course, relative to the entire Seti@home community, forum posters of any kind are a minority.

I would agree that the negative feedback has been great, but once again it would be a mistake to extropolate just from the posts here. Also, having been an active community member for over a decade, I've seen how people greatly dislike change on this forum. Everyting from the conversion to BOINC to Operating System Updates to website changes to credit changes, everyone gets in an uproar about everything. They're allowed to voice their opinions but my general perception is they will complain about any change. I can't give much weight to their opinions if they never want change to happen.

I happen to despise the poor readability of the current design. I've gotten around it with the "Color That Site!" add-on here on my daily driver and have mostly forgotten about it. However, over the last few weeks, I've had to access the forums in their native state on a couple of other boxes where I've been experimenting with Linux, which has reminded me anew of just how difficult they are to read.

And that's a valid opinion. My point is that it isn't safe to assume that your opinion (or my opinion) is in the majority without hard data to go off of.

As far as the popularity of light-on-dark text goes, I would refer back to an article I quoted 6 months ago, The Dos and Don’ts of Dark Web Design.

A recent poll suggests that light designs are preferred by the general web-going audience by a whopping 47%. The main reason is readability. Most people don’t like viewing light text against a dark background on websites because it strains their eyes, making for a much less enjoyable experience.

By contrast, 10% of those surveyed said that they always preferred dark backgrounds for websites, while another 36% said that the best choice would depend on the type of website.

I'm pretty sure that 47% is greater than 10%, or has math changed that much in recent years?

I wouldn't rest your argument on a simple web poll. Firstly, that 47% is only of the readers of ProBlogger.com and not the entire web browsing public. Secondly, they didn't state their methodology for testing or polling. Were people able to vote more than once? From a different computer? How many people voted? 47% of 1,000 people is ony 470 people. Were people able to compare websites before giving an answer or did they just go off instictual reaction? The website that ran the poll was of a light-on-dark design, which can create a sample bias in the people who respond, thus skewing the results of the poll. People who prefer dark-on-light probably don't visit that site much, if at all, and therefore didn't have a chance or didn't bother to vote.

Webdesignerdepot.com then writes an entire article off this flawed poll with the assumption that the poll was correct. Once again it seems people offer up websites under simple web searches based upon confirmation bias. I wouldn't be surprised if your search terms affected your search results when offering this anecdotal evidence as data.

How about as not only crunchers for Seti, but also participants on the forum, we were able to have a choice, black text on white background or white text on black background in the preferences. It'll stop ozzy from telling people they're wrong and folks can view the forum as they like without having to install possible malware filled add-ons in their browser in order to see things as they'd like.

It's win-win.

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

How about as not only crunchers for Seti, but also participants on the forum, we were able to have a choice, black text on white background or white text on black background in the preferences. It'll stop ozzy from telling people they're wrong and folks can view the forum as they like without having to install possible malware filled add-ons in their browser in order to see things as they'd like.

It's win-win.

Naw, it's much more fun to know you're right and take shots at those are too stupid to understand that :)

Yes, I would love for there to be an ability to select a different theme, as is becoming more common web-wide.
I'm not complaining just to complain, I'm sick of seeing white horizontal lines in my vision for 30 minutes after visiting this site for 10.
Perils of older eyes, I guess.

---

How about as not only crunchers for Seti, but also participants on the forum, we were able to have a choice, black text on white background or white text on black background in the preferences. It'll stop ozzy from telling people they're wrong and folks can view the forum as they like without having to install possible malware filled add-ons in their browser in order to see things as they'd like.

It's win-win.

If you look back through the posts, I've said that having an option to choose the style you want would be the best solution.

How about as not only crunchers for Seti, but also participants on the forum, we were able to have a choice, black text on white background or white text on black background in the preferences. It'll stop ozzy from telling people they're wrong and folks can view the forum as they like without having to install possible malware filled add-ons in their browser in order to see things as they'd like.

It's win-win.

Naw, it's much more fun to know you're right and take shots at those are too stupid to understand that :)

Well, at least you admit you attack the poster and not the content of the posts.

Since no one else does it: #1927
BOINC is a user developed project these days, that includes things like this. I don't know how long it'll take before someone picks this up, maybe never. But at least now you have a place to point at.

---

Since no one else does it: #1927
BOINC is a user developed project these days, that includes things like this. I don't know how long it'll take before someone picks this up, maybe never. But at least now you have a place to point at.

Nice. Thanks.

---

That doesn't read like "significant research". I don't even see any cited studies, surveys, or testing methodology. It was written by a single author so I'm inclined to believe it's his opinion, and I think it may be confirmation bias of those that agree. Even the commenters are arguing with the author and telling him he's wrong.

Try Ogilvy on Advertising ISBN 0-394-72903-X pages 96 to 101. The caption on page 101, David Ogilvy wrote:

This charity raised money for starving children by running advertisements set in reverse - white type on a black background. When I suggested that they test black type on a white background, they raised twice as much money.

I think the head of one of the most successful direct response advertising agencies might know a thing or two about typography.

---

That doesn't read like "significant research". I don't even see any cited studies, surveys, or testing methodology. It was written by a single author so I'm inclined to believe it's his opinion, and I think it may be confirmation bias of those that agree. Even the commenters are arguing with the author and telling him he's wrong.

Try Ogilvy on Advertising ISBN 0-394-72903-X pages 96 to 101. The caption on page 101, David Ogilvy wrote:

This charity raised money for starving children by running advertisements set in reverse - white type on a black background. When I suggested that they test black type on a white background, they raised twice as much money.

I think the head of one of the most successful direct response advertising agencies might know a thing or two about typography.

What does advertising got to do with website design?

Once again it seems people offer up websites under simple web searches based upon confirmation bias. I wouldn't be surprised if your search terms affected your search results when offering this anecdotal evidence as data.

In that case, it should be a piece of cake for you to turn up a bunch of studies, polls, or focus groups that support your opinion, rather than simply dismissing and disparaging the supporting evidence offered by those with whom you disagree. At least some of us are making a reasonable effort in that regard.

Once again it seems people offer up websites under simple web searches based upon confirmation bias. I wouldn't be surprised if your search terms affected your search results when offering this anecdotal evidence as data.

In that case, it should be a piece of cake for you to turn up a bunch of studies, polls, or focus groups that support your opinion, rather than simply dismissing and disparaging the supporting evidence offered by those with whom you disagree. At least some of us are making a reasonable effort in that regard.

I'm not asserting my opinion as majority, so I needn't provide evidence to support a position I don't hold. Nor am I disparaging anyone else's since I even acknowledged your opinion was valid for disliking it, despite disagreeing with you. I am indeed dismissing other's opinions when they assert their opinion is in the majority without evidence.

That doesn't read like "significant research". I don't even see any cited studies, surveys, or testing methodology. It was written by a single author so I'm inclined to believe it's his opinion, and I think it may be confirmation bias of those that agree. Even the commenters are arguing with the author and telling him he's wrong.

Try Ogilvy on Advertising ISBN 0-394-72903-X pages 96 to 101. The caption on page 101, David Ogilvy wrote:

This charity raised money for starving children by running advertisements set in reverse - white type on a black background. When I suggested that they test black type on a white background, they raised twice as much money.

I think the head of one of the most successful direct response advertising agencies might know a thing or two about typography.

What does advertising got to do with website design?

What does typography have to do with website design? Did you actually say that?

---