One problem with the new format: Anyone agree?

[Olde Coach]

Throughout the format "secondary information" is presented in a very small font, and a very soft gray color.

For me (and I have 20-20 vision) both are barely readable. The low contrast (pale gray) color is the biggest problem. I have to concentrate and focus very hard to read the text.

A small increase in font size, and a substantial increase in the color contrast would make the site much more readable. For me, a lot of the stuff that is small and pale is of basic interest on every post. What is the purpose of almost "hiding" this information?

I assume this problem could be corrected with a few clicks of a mouse by the site designers.

Comments by other readers are welcome.

Thanks, OC

 

[HuskyNan]

Are you using a PC or a Mac? What browser are you using?

 

[JRRRJ]

Agree with your comments, OC.

The layout would not pass an accessibility review for a number of reasons. The small fonts & lack of contrast are the ones that affect the largest population -- those of us with aging eyes.

I'm guessing you are using a CRT rather than an LCD monitor. On the LCD, the color palette is more restricted and there is a bit more contrast. (As well as likely somewhat sharper, depending on the age of the CRT.)

Your assumption appears to be correct. It would be a small effort to restyle the light grey and pale blue text to have some more contrast, since the developer has used CSS stylesheets to set font attributes..

 

[HuskyNan]

You two are the only people to make this comment about small fonts. I've heard about the pastel colors but not a problem with the font size. I've viewed the site on Firefox, Chrome, IE and my iPad and don't have a problem with the font size. So it would be really helpful if people could be more specific in their complaints rather than just, you know, complaining.

 

[suzyq]

I generally have a poroblem with small fonts on most sites, but this one seems to have an abundance of obscenely large fonts and pictures. That Rick James picture on the men's board is almost wall sized. I am fortuante in that all the monitors I use are quite new and have excellent contrast so I don't find it to be an issue.

 

[AboutWeston]

Actually, I think this will not be a problem when traffic picks up when the WBB season is upon us. As of the time I am writing this, there were only a dozen threads that had been visited "today."

The dramatic dark blue of the title of the thread plus the feature of having your avatar indicated on all threads that you have responded to will be very useful in a month!

It wasn't too difficult to create an avatar - there probably are instructions as to how to do it - here's a try at an "Olde Coach" avatar!

 

[EricSD]

You two are the only people to make this comment about small fonts. I've heard about the pastel colors but not a problem with the font size. I've viewed the site on Firefox, Chrome, IE and my iPad and don't have a problem with the font size. So it would be really helpful if people could be more specific in their complaints rather than just, you know, complaining.

i have no idea what "secondary information" is. however i will say that when you reply to someone, the color of the banner and the posters name are similar - dark blue for background banner and black for the typeface which is hard for me to see. it's not a huge deal tho.

in this post i'm referring to "HuskyNan said:" and the banner/background behind it and then to the right across the page...

 

[TDiNozzo]

I stopped viewing the forum on my tablets because i couldn't read who started the thread or in even a lighter font, how old it was..it's much easier on a desktop on the eyes..but still could be better... I use firefox on the desk..BTW, I'm still looking for a quote button...

 

[AboutWeston]

I stopped viewing the forum on my tablets because i couldn't read who started the thread or in even a lighter font, how old it was..it's much easier on a desktop on the eyes..but still could be better... I use firefox on the desk..BTW, I'm still looking for a quote button...

I just hit "Reply" to your post...and voila!

P.S. Love your avatar!
P.P.S. See below: I swiped across the particular part of your post re: quotes and reverse clicks and then pasted...
I use firefox on the desk..BTW, I'm still looking for a quote button...

 

[TDiNozzo]

I just hit "Reply" to your post...and voila!

...

Thanks... lets see if it works...

 

[Icebear]

Much of my time is on Mac and iPad and iPhone and the fonts can be very small and suffer from sufficient contrast. If I wasn't nearsighted and didn't click and rollover things to highlight them I might have a tough time. That was the only way I found the thread display options at the bottom of the main WBB page.

 

[JS]

" when you reply to someone, the color of the banner and the posters name are similar - dark blue for background banner and black for the typeface which is hard for me to see. it's not a huge deal tho."



Agree, and more of a problem for me than the light colors of the "secondary information." Black on dark blue n.g. for someone like me who's a bit night blind and doesn't see shades of darkness worth a hoot.

I do know it when someone's gone over to the dark side, though.

There's lots of these things like this that'll get fixed over time. Higher priorities first.

 

[temery]

I just haven't gotten around to changing it.

Throughout the format "secondary information" is presented in a very small font, and a very soft gray color.

For me (and I have 20-20 vision) both are barely readable. The low contrast (pale gray) color is the biggest problem. I have to concentrate and focus very hard to read the text.

A small increase in font size, and a substantial increase in the color contrast would make the site much more readable. For me, a lot of the stuff that is small and pale is of basic interest on every post. What is the purpose of almost "hiding" this information?

I assume this problem could be corrected with a few clicks of a mouse by the site designers.

Comments by other readers are welcome.

Thanks, OC

 

[Olde Coach]

Are you using a PC or a Mac? What browser are you using?

Nan: I have a Dell Inspiron E1505 PC. And use a Firefox browser with UBUNTU.

The font size would be acceptable if there was a greater contrast in the color.

OC

 

[EricSD]

I just hit "Reply" to your post...and voila!

P.S. Love your avatar!
P.P.S. See below: I swiped across the particular part of your post re: quotes and reverse clicks and then pasted...
I use firefox on the desk..BTW, I'm still looking for a quote button...

AW - how do you get your font to show as Ariel instead of New Roman?

 

[EricSD]

now ur killin us JS - shades of ORANGE???!!!

 

[temery]

now ur killin us JS - shades of ORANGE???!!!

That's the default. I'll work on it tomorrow. I am too tired to work on it now.

 

[JACKofallTrades]

Agree with your comments, OC.

Your assumption appears to be correct. It would be a small effort to restyle the light grey and pale blue text to have some more contrast, since the developer has used CSS stylesheets to set font attributes..

I only got back online the other day, so I've not been reading the new layout, a whole lot, since it changed (right before we got whacked). We had similar complaints & discussions the previous times we've changed servers... I'm guessing it's been 3 or 4 times (?) in the last decade+. I've got my own complaints & preferences... but (I'm guessing) a lot of it is simply because this interface & layout is still new (& different ).

Making a web page cross-browser compatible (visually identical on different platforms) is tough. Besides having different operating systems, browsers, and versions, people have different monitors of widely different types & different sizes. In addition, people then SET UP their monitor with different basic settings (brightness, contrast, etc). I've seen monitors that are unbelievably bad to look at.

As for the CSS here, it says it's using "YUI reset-fonts," and the entire CSS file is (predictably) BIG. I agree with Coach that one of the specific things on the page that I look at (quite a lot) is badly attributed (in the CSS). I'm talking about the date & time, plus the posters handle at the bottom of each post. It's colored as #969696 in Hex, which is a (much too) light grey. Similarly, when you see a "Quote" section, that persons name ("so & so said:") is also too small & hard to read (black font on a dark blue background ). I'd change both those ID's (CSS) a different (contrasting) color so they each easily stand out, yet are still small.

As for the base font (what you reading right now), it's not my fave, but this subject can get a bit arcane, so I'll pass getting into it. But I think a lot of the "problem" (visual scanning - readability) has as much (or more) to do with the page's CSS, as it does with the font (it's style, size, weight & color attributes).

Most web designers will put text (when you have large chunks of it) into blocks (ID's) that are limited to 4 to 6 inches wide. You'll see that on most Blogs & many newspapers. The reason is it's hard for your eye to scan across an entire (WIDE) page & read it smoothly (quickly & easily) on a display. My own display is 18 inches across (a "25" monitor). It was state of the art for photo imaging (which is why I got it), so it's optimal for visual art, photos, & video. But NOT for reading text. So my own recommendation is to change the width from it's default (100%) to 6 inches (600px + or-). Some of those (CSS) attributes are: #messageList & .pageWidth but I haven't looked that closely at the code.

 

[EricSD]

That's the default. I'll work on it tomorrow. I am too tired to work on it now.

i'm just giving u a hard time!

 

[NCorBust]

Throughout the format "secondary information" is presented in a very small font, and a very soft gray color.

For me (and I have 20-20 vision) both are barely readable. The low contrast (pale gray) color is the biggest problem. I have to concentrate and focus very hard to read the text.

A small increase in font size, and a substantial increase in the color contrast would make the site much more readable. For me, a lot of the stuff that is small and pale is of basic interest on every post. What is the purpose of almost "hiding" this information?

I assume this problem could be corrected with a few clicks of a mouse by the site designers.

Comments by other readers are welcome.

Thanks, OC

YEA VERILY! See color harmony for info. Use of color is not a feel thing, there is an applied science to it.

 

[pap49cba]

And just to stir the pot a bit more this new website is extremely difficult to read on a smart phone. I know.... bitch, bitch, bitch....

 

[Stinger92860]

I am very happy with the new site. Font's are good for me and so is the color scheme (and I am color blind). If I want to make the font's larger I just hit Ctrl and the plus sign.

 

[temery]

And just to stir the pot a bit more this new website is extremely difficult to read on a smart phone. I know.... bitch, bitch, bitch....

This site added tapatalk about an hour ago.

 

[Biff]

I'm using tapatalk to do this reply. So far so good and easier to read than safari on iPhone.

 

[EricSD]

This site added tapatalk about an hour ago.

for the woefully computer illiterate, what is "tapatalk"? sounds a bit like the Spanish version of "appetizers"...