EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Feedback/Tech Talk › Site Suggestions (and Compliments) › Optimal settings to view EpicSki???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Optimal settings to view EpicSki???

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

I would think color change would be a very simple and quick thing to implement, but so far the colors are still blinding, stark, whites, and the fonts are tiny. 

 

So what do the powers that be suggest for when using an LCD screen for:

 

Browser

Resolution

Brightness

Contrast

post #2 of 29

Bifocal sunglasses are one option.  

 

I go back and forth as to the benefits or not of the whiter background. In threads and Wikis with images it seems more right. In ones with text, there may be a bit too much white and a mid-value background with little color (grayish) might be easier on the eyes. Reducing window size seems to make the white less of an issue and the overall appearance is fine, IMO. I was never in love with the previous blue. Initially, looking at TGR is a big adjustment, but after viewing it longer it does get better but still too dark.

 

(This and future format/content threads probably should reside under the bug/suggestion section.)

 


Edited by Alpinord - Mon, 02 Feb 09 16:47:05 GMT
post #3 of 29

It's to get our eyes less prone to snow blindness.  Figure we should build them up should we ever face plant and knock our goggles off!

post #4 of 29

There is a happy medium. I'm sure they are taking notes.

 

RR - I would try to be a patient. I wouldn't expect them to start making changes everytime someone posts about what colors they want. If I were the designer/developer I would wait and collect the opinions over time (and possibly take them into account) and use my best judgement on the change. So while a change may not take long to implement itself it would be a bit until it happens. Make sense?

post #5 of 29

This stark white background hurts my eyes.    I found the old site much better, and am now spending more time on TGR.     I think the stark white background with small font size has got to change...

post #6 of 29

I'll be honest as always.  The white background is not even prioritized for change at this time.  Lots of things in line ahead of it.  If anything changes, I'll let you know, but FWIW, after a few drinks or late at night, I don't like getting my eyes burned either, and I thought the other site was bright at times.

 

Sorry, wish the news on this one was different.  Function first.

post #7 of 29

Maybe someone with some time can trudge through the CSS for this site and write a userstyle for those of us who aren't reading this in direct sunlight.

 

Until then, you can do what I do:

 

 

Go to userstyles.org, get the appropriate addon for your browser if necessary, and browse around until you find a style that works for you.  I have this one applied to epicski at the moment.  Much easier on the eyes when the lights are out.  Wastes less power as well.

post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

I'll be honest as always.  The white background is not even prioritized for change at this time.  Lots of things in line ahead of it.  If anything changes, I'll let you know, but FWIW, after a few drinks or late at night, I don't like getting my eyes burned either, and I thought the other site was bright at times.

 

Sorry, wish the news on this one was different.  Function first.

right... because that code is ssoooo hard to rewrite. 

 

give me a break. 

 

Once again: Why were we forced to become BETA-testers without being asked? 

post #9 of 29

Just wear your goggles, or shades. Almosts feels like being on the hill.

 

I'm wearing my helmet and goggles right now, works OK for me.

post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

I'll be honest as always.  The white background is not even prioritized for change at this time.  Lots of things in line ahead of it.  If anything changes, I'll let you know, but FWIW, after a few drinks or late at night, I don't like getting my eyes burned either, and I thought the other site was bright at times.

 

Sorry, wish the news on this one was different.  Function first.

right... because that code is ssoooo hard to rewrite. 

 

give me a break. 

 

Once again: Why were we forced to become BETA-testers without being asked? 

 

not even re-write, just change a color value somewhere. Easy to do, assuming the code is documented.

post #11 of 29

What colours do you use when in MS Word, Excel, etc? Do you change them to white on black, cause it's too bright?

 

I quite like black on white - one of the reasons being that it's less obvious if I'm on Epic when I'm sitting in the office - just looks like I could be reading an email or other work-related document.

post #12 of 29
Quote:

Once again: Why were we forced to become BETA-testers without being asked? 

 

Samurai, when you ask a rhetorical question, you should not expect anyone to answer, for the question is only asked to further an agenda, not to inquire out of an honest interest and an open mind.

 

Could it be that there are people who like the new color scheme? I rather like the clean simplicity of black on white. Surely there are those who prefer light on dark over dark on light; those that like high contrast versus those that like a little softer edges, etc. The level of protest by the white-background-haters should not alone decide the outcome of this dispute.

 

Your question does raise an intriguing question: how would we canvas -- fairly -- a virtual community in a way that all the people who use this website have an opportunity to weigh in with their opinions? How do we know that "everyone" hates the color scheme? You hate it. I like it. Of course, the obvious solution would be to provide a choice between something like Garrett's option and the white page.

 

Someone mentioned that the white background works well with the wikis, especially those with photos. I imagine the forum page was designed with room to the right not to load up on right-margin ads, but to provide space to serve visual content. Once the page fills with more content-boxes (such as one feeding in some outside blogs, video player, etc.), the white background will make more sense.

 

Take a look at the high-content sites -- take a look at Google.

 

Anyway, Samurai and Garrett, we really can't put this kind of stuff out for a fair vote, and we certainly can't adopt the Rule of the Loudest, can we? So what we have done is form a team of people who represent the community at several levels: we have the owners, whose dedication to the community is beyond that of any other membership class, because they pay the bills and the taxes and all that provides the website for our enjoyment; we then have the moderators whose dedication to the community's experience on the website is exceptional; and then we have the Advisory Group made up of members and Supporters and chaired by Cirquerider--its eclectic composition of members can be counted on to give the complete pros and cons regarding all manner of issues on EpicSki. This team of people had a say in the development of the new website and had opportunity to voice concerns about the new version of EpicSki.

 

We really appreciate their ongoing participation in the process of de-bugging and re-fitting the new site, but I must say, as a rule, we did not get the kind of detailed, hands-on feedback from that team like we did from the community when we went live. Community involvement has made EpicSki the great site it is; Community involvement (feedback, constructive criticism) will make the new website fit us well into the future.

 

That old site database has a ton of good information in it. Unfortunately, it all got buried under itself. The search sucked because there was no mapping. Now we have a way to map the information, save the goodies, bring in more outside info like the blogs and video content, and in general have an easier time accessing the information that's of importance to each of us individually. The ability of each of us to filter information according to our preference through these tools is pretty cool. It's not exactly perfect right out of the chute, but holding anything new and different to that standard pretty much precludes anything new and different ever happening. 

 

Ultimately, I take full responsibility for making the decision to go live when we did. As I said in another thread, I firmly believe that the best time to change is NOW. If you wait for a convenient time to change, you may never again have the guts to do it.

 


Edited by nolo - Tue, 03 Feb 09 13:03:01 GMT
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post

Could it be that there are people who like the new color scheme? I rather like the clean simplicity of black on white. Surely there are those who prefer light on dark over dark on light; those that like high contrast versus those that like a little softer edges, etc. The level of protest by the white-background-haters should not alone decide the outcome of this dispute.


Lots of these things "could be", but that would all be rather irrelevant last week because vBulletin has had the functionality to hotswap styles (colors, fonts, etc.) with a simple drop down box for many years...a feature epicski made use of.  Now you've reverted to software where that functionality doesn't exist, so only technically savvy people are able to do what I described above via user styles without a tutorial.

 

This is a perfect example of functionality you've reverted without considering the repercussions.   You seem completely oblivious to the idea that you previously had the ability to have cake and eat it.

 


then we have the Advisory Group made up of members and Supporters and chaired by Cirquerider--its eclectic composition of members can be counted on to give the complete pros and cons regarding all manner of issues on EpicSki. This team of people had a say in the development of the new website and had opportunity to voice concerns about the new version of EpicSki.

 

 Apparently this advisory group did not give you a full accounting of the pros and cons.  What a silly statement.  Half the new posts I've been reading in the last few days have been meta, and that isn't good for any site.

 

I went to some trouble to show others how they can, right now, change the style of the site, yet for some reason you accuse me of trying to rule by being loud.  Lame.

 

edit:  I had to view source and close my own containers to make multiple quote blocks.  It's like a modern CSS enabled USENET.


Edited by Garrett - Tue, 03 Feb 09 13:35:14 GMT
post #14 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat View Post

What colours do you use when in MS Word, Excel, etc? Do you change them to white on black, cause it's too bright?

 

I quite like black on white - one of the reasons being that it's less obvious if I'm on Epic when I'm sitting in the office - just looks like I could be reading an email or other work-related document.

 

After reading Nolo's very early morning response and WTFH's simple truth, I checked all of my open apps' windows (8 currently) and most are black on white with a couple with a light gray (typical Mac backgrounds). All of the default font sizes are around 12pt which is the same for this forum format.

 

I do know that with CAD applications (drawing and graphics intensive with text) they backgrounds are either white or black. One I know for sure is that the vast majority use white backgrounds because they do not compete with color matching and provide the best contrast.......but the much smaller percentage of users using black are adamant about using black.

 

Random thought: Why is YouTube white?

 

Personally, I really prefer the white over darker options. While reading a lot of text like Nolo's response, a little larger font size like 14pt would be better for me. This might reduce the percentage of white to black. I need to check into the zoom capabilities inherent in Firefox further, but all in all it's not a deal breaker and I'd rather focus on skiing and content. Simply reducing window width gives a considerable amount of control. A separate window for EpicSki versus other sites is no big deal to manage.

 

You'll never please everyone and the only real option is to provide user preferences if that is practical......but then the look and feel/character of a site is no longer unique. I'm not sure how user driven background add-ons will really affect image contrasts, but I suspect you will get some less than optimal compatibility in some cases.


Edited by Alpinord - Tue, 03 Feb 09 13:50:17 GMT
post #15 of 29

Might I add that I don't think the Advisory Group was given substancial time to develope all the concerns, or the same concerns that the entire community might have, and that some of the concerns that did arise weren't entirely addressed, before the rush to bring the new Huddler Site to reality.

post #16 of 29

Personally if it were my site I would have a light background with dark text for the content areas but have a relatively darker background beside on the left and right. This creates more definition of the content viewing area and draws the eye to that. It is also acts as a 'fill' for various screen resolutions. Content would be allowed to flow to an extent as well though.

 

But hey I'm not a user or anything just a web designer.


Edited by MattL - Tue, 03 Feb 09 14:01:08 GMT
post #17 of 29

WRT WTFH and Alpinord, I'd like to point out some facts:

 

  • My email service does themes, and my theme has muted colors not unlike the old epicski.  Not user generated, straight from a little town in California home to a very large tech company.
  • I'm sitting here staring at a Solidworks part and the background is definitely not white.  The blank desktop is gray, and a part or assembly view has a blue gradient background by default, though that can be changed.  The task panes are all gray too.  Not sure what CAD software Alpinord is referring to but stark white most certainly isn't the most common color.
  • Bright websites work well in daylight and in the office, not so much for people reading outside of those situations.  I already mentioned that I find it necessary to use a bias lamp (for much more than just epicski) but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to mention that again.  Search google for DIY monitor bias lighting.
  • Discussing whether or not users should be able to change colors is ridiculous: they can, this is the internet, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  The only discussion is whether or not you want to force a one size fits all approach upon the less savvy users, and whether or not you want them to have several professionally designed options or their very own kludged together amateurish options.   Your homework is to install Stylish, visit news.google.com, and click Find Styles For this Page.
post #18 of 29

I didn't say that all CAD software uses white backgrounds, just the one I'm familiar with and do know the user's preferences. If it had more than two preferences like the far more expensive Solidworks does, I have no clue where the preferences would end up, but it says to me that lighter versus darker clearly is the preference for that large group.....but the dark is important for some. As I said before towards a middle tone would not be unwelcome but it's not a huge issue for me, there are bigger issues to focus on with the site with the resources at hand for the moment.

 

Regarding testing, it's been all volunteer squeezed in busy schedules. And it clearly looks like the vast majority of users are content and moving forward using the site.

 


Edited by Alpinord - Tue, 03 Feb 09 14:23:44 GMT
post #19 of 29

I agree with Garrett about using design apps. I find it difficult to see a yellow line on a white background, so would tend to draw white on black, but Garrett, what colour do you use as a background when word processing?

post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
  • Discussing whether or not users should be able to change colors is ridiculous: they can, this is the internet, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.  The only discussion is whether or not you want to force a one size fits all approach upon the less savvy users, and whether or not you want them to have several professionally designed options or their very own kludged together amateurish options.   Your homework is to install Stylish, visit news.google.com, and click Find Styles For this Page.

Could not complete the homework! Where is the "Find Styles" that you speak of?  

I've gone to userstyles.org and have gotten Stylish plug in for firefox.

I've got sylish and so far have run InBlue- gloal style and Low Vision Zebra Insideout.  InBlue looks pretty good except buttons like Reply, Quote disappear.  Thanks to the Great Post button you can find them in the dark by starting left and erring on that one, then move right.  You loose the ability to see most of the buttons in the editor too.  The site actually with InBlue looks a bit like the TGR site  but the font is thinner so it's a lot more readable. 

 

Youtube as a style reference is like Vista as an upgrade reference - not recommended!

Since obviously we're stuck with this, the arguing over GUI principles is mute.  Besides, following the rule of software developers, you're all luddite morons unless proven otherwise.  It all comes out in the wash when the masses in the ether show up and see the greatness of it all.  You may be the Michael Phelps of interface design but when it comes to their app you're just a guy with a Bong.

- don't take the above too seriously!  I'd throw in some smiles but I can't see the button right now because of my cro-magnon man interface that I'm forced to run at this moment to save from going blind. 

 

So, in order to move forward, could we publish some workarounds on the looks?  The best way perhaps to make progress on that is just to work around it and then see how many people use it.

 

And let's drop the "testing" issue.  Face it, it's being developed now.  Just look at the list iof development priorities in the suggestions and comments area on the list of foums. 

http://www.epicski.com/forum/thread/80175/epicski-feature-development-list

 

 

 


Edited by Tog - Tue, 03 Feb 09 17:31:12 GMT
post #21 of 29

Nolo-

 

I never said I didn't like the color. Nor was my question rhetorical. (Thanks for the definition, though.)

 

I was just curious as to why we're beta testers for FUNCTIONALITY.

 

(I would click subscribe again, but it doesn't work.)

post #22 of 29
Thread Starter 

I went over to the Huddler site and it seems that ALL their sites have the exact same color scheme and layout...other than the titles and ads, the forums they run are exactly the same.....100% identical  This explains why nothing is being done about the way things now are.   A color swap, even for a non-career web developer like me, takes about 2secs.

post #23 of 29

The issue has been the strong opinion of the designers that this design is "best practice", not an inability to make the changes. That said, it's clear that many (including me, FWIW), don't agree. We'll work on the options.

post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post

The issue has been the strong opinion of the designers that this design is "best practice", not an inability to make the changes. That said, it's clear that many (including me, FWIW), don't agree. We'll work on the options.

 

Is sombody, "epicski", paying these people?

 

If so, it doesn't make a damn bit of diference what they think is "best practice". They are providing a service, and we are requesting a change to that service. Make it or loose the site...

post #25 of 29

The new look is not easy on my old eyes.

 

Instead of imposing my personal needs on everyone else, I'd like to see some user customized features return.The ability to choose my own personal theme (color scheme), # of posts per page, etc.

 

"Best Practices" are a great place to start for the default public view, bring back the abilty for users to adjust to their needs.  It is also best practice to separate content and presentation, so these functions should be fairly easy to implement.

post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 

Perhaps the designers should listen to the"customers" and not force feed that which several have voiced is unacceptable.   Here is an article:

 

Are you using the best colors for your web site? Many web designers often overlook the issues of color in web design. When choosing colors for your web site there are three main areas that should be addressed.

1) The psychological effect of colors,

2) The effect on the readability of your site, and

3) The complementary choice of colors for your background, graphics, links, and text

These are all areas that must be well satisfied to create an effective and professional web site.

Listed below are a few characteristics of color that should always be considered when designing your graphics.

- Colors have an effect on our emotions within 90 seconds of viewing.

- Color choices can motivate, impress, and persuade your prospect to buy from you.

- Colors not only intensify the item, they greatly influence our behavior.

- The effects of color differ among different cultures.

- Color choices alone are sending a specific message to your viewers.

Given the fact that people respond more to non-verbal cues than verbal cues, it's all-important that you choose the corresponding colors for the emotional trigger you want to trip. The following colors are associated with certain emotions or qualities in North American culture.

White - Suggests truthfulness, purity, clean, devotion, mild, and contemporary. White is the best color for a background color on the web. For business it can be refreshing and sterile.

Black - Suggests elegance, boldness, power, authority, seductive, evil, sophistication and classic. Black is the ideal choice for text on a light background. It is hard on the eyes when used as a background on web sites.

Red - Suggests strength, sex, excitement, passion, speed, danger, aggressiveness, and demands attention. In business it is associated with debt. Red is the most emotionally intense color. It stimulates a faster heartbeat and breathing.

Blue - Suggests security, trust, reliability, coolness, faithfulness, belonging, and dignity. Blue is the most popular color. It is the second most popular color. In business it suggests fiscal responsibility and sanctuary.

Green - Suggests abundance, health, fertility, freedom, healing, nature, growth, jealously, and cool. In business it suggests status and wealth. It is the easiest color on the eye.

Brown - Suggests effectiveness, politeness, richness, and helpfulness. Brown is the color of earth, and is abundant in nature.

Gray - Suggests earnestness, authority, and practicality. In business it suggests traditional and conservative.

Pink - Suggests softness, sweet, femininity, well-being, innocence, and nurture.

Purple - Suggests dignity, spirituality, royal, luxury, wealth, authority, mournfulness, and sophistication. In business it is upscale. Purple is favored by the artistic.

Orange - Suggests playfulness, pleasure, cool, warmth, cheer, vibrant, strength, endurance, and ambition.

Yellow - Suggests sunshine, warmth, cheer, happiness, cowardice, and jealousy. In business it is appealing to intellectual types and is good for accents. Yellow enhances concentration, increases metabolism, and is the most difficult color for the eye to take in.

Gold - Suggests expensive, and prestige.

Silver - Suggests cold, scientific, and prestige.

Whenever you begin to choose your colors, think about your target market. What emotions do you want to evoke? Give some thought to the current emotion of your prospect and to the message you want to send. Then choose your colors.

Want Professional Graphics For Your Websites In Less Than 72 Hours! Let eCoverGeeks design your websites/blogs, guaranteed to boost your sales and conversion rates, check out our stunning portfolio at http://www.ecovergeeks.com

 


 


 


Edited by Richie-Rich - Wed, 04 Feb 09 16:41:58 GMT
post #27 of 29
Thread Starter 

I don't know about others, but for me I am finding it is much easier to read the white on blue at the bottom of the screen and the white on gray 'Ads by Google' bar.

 

This site has lost its character, looks very generic and there is little to no differentiation throughout.

 

I think that the main problem is that there is just too much white and or highly muted colors.   There is a lack of contrast, the result is a dazzling (in a bad way) page that is far less than easy on the eyes.


 

 


Edited by Richie-Rich - Wed, 04 Feb 09 16:54:06 GMT
post #28 of 29

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades...

post #29 of 29

I'll cast another vote for much preffering the color and style of the white text on blue background at the bottom of the page.    It's much easier on my eyes and more visually appearing.

 

Incidentally, I would still like a response from the admins or those on charge on the question originally asked - what are the optimal settins to view the site now?    I am using Firefox and have gone to VIEW - ZOOM IN a few times to get the text big enough to read.   This has caused the icons ("Great Post" Reply Quote, etc") to now appear blurry.

 

 

 


Edited by fireball - Wed, 04 Feb 09 18:18:19 GMT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Feedback/Tech Talk › Site Suggestions (and Compliments) › Optimal settings to view EpicSki???