Our long named one spills over from the author column into the message column

---

Our long named one spills over from the author column into the message column

A character limit is needed badly to stop that stuff. ;-)

Cheers.

Excuse me, but from the user point of view, where's gone "my account" page ???

walking through all menus, no that page !!!!
May be because of the italian translation??

I think that if this page is not easily, and directly, reacheable, there is a big problem on this new site

The My Account page is in the upper-right hand corner after you log in. Apparently there are link caching issues if you use Firefox. It is there for all other browsers.

Excuse me, but from the user point of view, where's gone "my account" page ???

walking through all menus, no that page !!!!
May be because of the italian translation??

I think that if this page is not easily, and directly, reacheable, there is a big problem on this new site

The My Account page is in the upper-right hand corner after you log in. Apparently there are link caching issues if you use Firefox. It is there for all other browsers.

So if you use Firefox(as MANY do to escape M$ 'hooks' and snooping) you're discriminated against? Come On!
If you're smart enough to create BOINC and then move it to another platform, you can FIX a caching issue..............and the account Tab STILL has not been added to the Server Status page.........................(too busy playing with the pretty colors?)

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Excuse me, but from the user point of view, where's gone "my account" page ???

walking through all menus, no that page !!!!
May be because of the italian translation??

I think that if this page is not easily, and directly, reacheable, there is a big problem on this new site

The My Account page is in the upper-right hand corner after you log in. Apparently there are link caching issues if you use Firefox. It is there for all other browsers.

Not called "My Account" now is your name.

---

Excuse me, but from the user point of view, where's gone "my account" page ???

walking through all menus, no that page !!!!
May be because of the italian translation??

I think that if this page is not easily, and directly, reacheable, there is a big problem on this new site

The My Account page is in the upper-right hand corner after you log in. Apparently there are link caching issues if you use Firefox. It is there for all other browsers.

So if you use Firefox(as MANY do to escape M$ 'hooks' and snooping) you're discriminated against? Come On!
If you're smart enough to create BOINC and then move it to another platform, you can FIX a caching issue..............and the account Tab STILL has not been added to the Server Status page.........................(too busy playing with the pretty colors?)

The caching "issue" is a design of Firefox. It is not a function of the site. Firefox calls it a feature for faster loading of links and pages.

If you want to use a non-MS browser that doesn't have the link caching issue, you can use Chrome.

Or just use "page reload" or ctl-shift-R ...

Easy!


Or... The website itself could specify a short timeout or that the one page must not be cached...


Keep searchin,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Sure, let's put in special code just to deal with Firefox's everyday behavior, but the moment I mention a caching issue someone flies off the handle and claims discrimination, but we'll put in code just for Firefox.

Could we please have more contrast between colours denoting wether a thread has new entries and threads that don't? Being short sighted, I'm having great difficulty differentiating between the two types of thread.

thank you

P.

---

This next bit is so trivial, so please feel free to ignore it. It's just I was wondering if there were any plans to address the font color choices available in the drop down box. By not being set against the new background colour, it is not reflecting what the finished effect will be once the message is posted, which then require hasty editing. Also, some of the colours themselves, may no longer be suitable choices to include in the list. I tried a few in quick combination and got the legibility of a nasty bruise in places. I was going to demonstrate the effect for you here, but forgot.

As anniet has pointed out, another one of the side-effects of this ill-conceived and poorly implemented "upgrade" is the text coloring chaos that has been created. That's not only a problem for new posts but for old posts, as well. (Some of us actually do go back and read through old posts on a topic before crying for help in new ones, ya know! ;^))

Having thrown in the towel waiting for the dust to settle on this fiasco, I've finally started using "Color That Site!". Just the simplest of tweaks helps enormously. So, I decided to go back and look at a few of my old posts that made liberal use of text colors, comparing the effects as seen through the glass "Darkly" and with my altered "Color That Site" reality (which, or course, isn't exactly the old S@h color scheme, but close enough). Here's just one example.:

Darkly:
CTS:
So, the text color choices that have been used in every post going back to the beginning of time (or close enough), now look horrendous in this new scheme. On the other hand, as I noticed this morning, the more limited choices that are useful in new posts with this awful dark background don't work particularly well for anyone choosing to change it. Here's an example of a post from Richard:

Darkly:
CTS:

And one from awhile back by AMDave:
Darkly:
CTS:

I doubt if, under the old site color scheme, there were very many, if any, users here who ever disliked the presentation sufficiently to make use of a tool like "Color That Site!". Whatever minor quibbles there were, they were just that, "minor". And what one user posted was exactly what every other user saw. Now, as time goes by, I suspect there are going to be more and more users sufficiently disgusted with what they're expected to put up with that site viewing is going to diverge in unpredictable directions. How do you make text color choices, likely from a much more limited palette, that are both sufficiently distinctive to make whatever point you were aiming for, yet still legible for most viewers?

I still strongly believe that the default view for this site needs to return to the old color scheme. Bootstrap "Darkly" can then be offered as an optional skin for those who like it, and clearly there are many who do. I don't dispute that. But the current situation is just utter chaos!

Of your examples, I think the dark scheme and colored text is easier to read. I hope they don't change back because the new look is much better.

I wonder why nobody except me seems to miss a mobile mode here. I can't be the only one reading (or trying to read) this board on a phone?!?

Anyway, I already posted a screenshot to demonstrate how it looks on my screen when I write something here. But just reading isn't really much better. In fact, when quotes come into play it's even worse. Here's another screenie to show you how a single post can look on a phone:





Anybody here who thinks that looks good?

It's like
everybody
would
just write
one or
two words
in each
line.

---

That definitely does not look good. Would it help if you turned the phone sideways? That's the way I read the forums on my phone.

Alpha Testing in Production..............great Idea !!

The "darkness" still hurts my eyes as almost every other web site I visit
sticks to something a bit more legible.

And as far as a "special" thing just for FireFox ....wasn't the "justification" for switching
to the new color scheme "This makes the site usable on small displays" ....

That definitely does not look good. Would it help if you turned the phone sideways? That's the way I read the forums on my phone.

It would make sense to do that.
Computer screens used to be 4:3, now are mostly 16:9. Both are landscape orientation.
Looking at anything in portrait orientation on what is a very narrow display is always going to be a chore.

I've always preferred 4:3 displays, and I've gotten used to 16:9. But the screen ratio of mobile phones really is horrendous for anything other than a quick read. Yes, you can use it for so much more than just a phone; but just because you can doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

As anniet has pointed out, another one of the side-effects of this ill-conceived and poorly implemented "upgrade" is the text coloring chaos that has been created.

Not created, just changed.
As your examples show, there were colours that were unsuitable on the old forums.

For me, colours in forum posts are pretty much always unsuitable. Using italics, bolding & lists along with proper sentences & paragraphs help make things readable. Colourising things has always made things more difficult to read- and i'm not colour blind. I' hate to think what some coloured posts would be like for people with colour blindness.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

And as far as a "special" thing just for FireFox ....wasn't the "justification" for switching
to the new color scheme "This makes the site usable on small displays" ....

It wasn't the sole justification for switching. Other reasons were listed. It makes more sense to capture the mobile market, which isn't company specific, than it does to focus on a single web browser's terrible behavior. Anyone remember complaining about all the special coding required for Internet Explorer?

That definitely does not look good. Would it help if you turned the phone sideways? That's the way I read the forums on my phone.

It would make sense to do that.
Computer screens used to be 4:3, now are mostly 16:9. Both are landscape orientation.
Looking at anything in portrait orientation on what is a very narrow display is always going to be a chore.

I've always preferred 4:3 displays, and I've gotten used to 16:9. But the screen ratio of mobile phones really is horrendous for anything other than a quick read. Yes, you can use it for so much more than just a phone; but just because you can doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.

Of course it helps, but it still looks worse then the "old" forum.
And to be honest, I just don't like to do it and luckily I rarely have to these days because most pages I visit do have a mobile optimized skin.
A few years ago, when we used phones like a Samsung Ace 2 (my first smartphone), slow and laggy as hell, with a 3.8 inch display and a whopping resolution of 800*480, I couldn't imagine using a phone as my primary device to browse the web. But now, with phones like the S7 (my current device), with 5+ inch screens, fast processors, nice amount of RAM and great screens, it's really incredible convenient to do your daily browsing and I found myself to use it almost exclusively lately. I rarely grab my tablet and even more rarely feel like booting up my laptop just for surfing.

Sorry, I think I ran of the track a bit;-)

So, back to topic, turning the screen to landscape those days feels as much a solution for me as using
"Color that site" to get the old style back. A bad solution.

So, most ppl don't like the new style, we didn't get better functionality or new features and for mobile users the site looks no much better then the old one, if not worse. So, where are the benefits?

And also, when it comes to renowned faculties like UC Berkeley, I somehow rather expect bleeding edge technology. But maybe that's just me.

But enough now, I said what I had to say, we all did, but the ppl in charge don't join the discussion (as usual), so this may be my last post in this thread. (Unless somebody asks me something because, you know, I usually answer when asked;-))

And so I will end a rather long post with a toast for all those who don't like the new, dark style: Fiat lux!

---

And also, when it comes to renowned faculties like UC Berkeley, I somehow rather expect bleeding edge technology. But maybe that's just me.

qbit, yes it is just you, since this project has no money to speak of development is spotty.

---

Of course it helps, but it still looks worse then the "old" forum.

I would argue this point. Other than the colors, the site looks almost the same on mobile phones in landscape mode. However, dark colors consume less energy than white, making darker colors better for mobile from a battery conservation perspective.

So, back to topic, turning the screen to landscape those days feels as much a solution for me as using
"Color that site" to get the old style back. A bad solution.

I don't understand how switching to landscape is a bad solution. That's how most mobile users browse.

So, most ppl don't like the new style, we didn't get better functionality or new features and for mobile users the site looks no much better then the old one, if not worse. So, where are the benefits?

A refreshing and much needed change. Better battery use on mobile devices. A more modern look.

The truth is most people just don't like to have their cheese moved. Of course people are going to complain because people don't like change. There was a huge uproar in the café when the number of posts were limited and multiple page threads were introduced to help with loading large topics on mobile devices. It was such a minor change but everyone complained loudly because it was different.

And also, when it comes to renowned faculties like UC Berkeley, I somehow rather expect bleeding edge technology. But maybe that's just me.

SETI@home <> UC Berkeley.