Author Topic: Forum Upgraded August 30, 2015 - Report issues here (Read 378,846 times)

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #275 on:** September 08, 2015, 03:44 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 08, 2015, 03:32 PM

I think logically there is something to be said for not having links bolded by default -- just because it enables SOME links to be bolded for emphasis; other than that I am ambivalent.
Let's try it this way for a week and make a decision at that point.
Screenshots above show the difference in look -- or you can always use a local css file to override the site css.

Me on my admittedly creaky system, I have no idea what any of you are talking about. No new colors, no new icons, the works.

mouser · « **Reply #276 on:** September 08, 2015, 03:50 PM »

the links there used to be bold, now they are normal.

wraith808 · « **Reply #277 on:** September 08, 2015, 04:39 PM »

Quote from: tomos on September 08, 2015, 03:02 PM

Quote from: mouser on September 08, 2015, 11:08 AM
Ok I have switched to a default of non-bolded hyperlinks; i still bold them in a few places (like inside posts) to make them more readable, but elsewhere back to non-bolded.
Remember to hit F5 to force a re-load of the css file to see the changes.

Let me know if you folks like this look better or worse.

I'd vote for the default being bolded - well, for thread titles anyways. I found them easier to read bold.

+1.

JavaJones · « **Reply #278 on:** September 08, 2015, 05:37 PM »

Came to the forum this morning and went to my usual Unread: All view and *woah*, no eye strain/brain overload/whatever! It was seriously a strongly different feeling, almost *relief*. I know that sounds crazy. But needless to say I really prefer the non-bold links, at least in topic lists. Within threads bold links would be OK, though IMO not necessarily an improvement. But in big lists it's just fatiguing somehow (to me at least).

One notable benefit that has been mentioned but perhaps not focused on is that stickied topics are bold by default in SMF. I had forgotten that, but coming back to the forum I noticed immediately in the topic lists and remembered that I hadn't been able to tell stickied/important topics from others on the new forum. Just goes to show there are sometimes issues that you notice but can't necessarily identify or put your finger on. So experimentation is good, it helps us get new perspectives on things.

- Oshyan

tomos · « **Reply #279 on:** September 08, 2015, 06:41 PM »

^ wondering if screensize makes a difference:
on a smaller screen (FHD 15.6") I do find unbolded thread titles more difficult to read - maybe I'll get used to it though.

I think it's also to do with the fact there is not so much contrast between the default link colour and the grey background - when not bold, then harder (for me) to read.

Deozaan · « **Reply #280 on:** September 08, 2015, 07:56 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 07, 2015, 11:49 AM

Quote from: Ath on September 07, 2015, 11:21 AM
Was making all hyperlinks bold chosen to get larger message-titles?, as those are also hyperlinks. I expect those would have their own css style.

it was one to make it easier to identify clickable links.

Quote from: mouser on September 08, 2015, 11:08 AM

Ok I have switched to a default of non-bolded hyperlinks; i still bold them in a few places (like inside posts) to make them more readable, but elsewhere back to non-bolded.
Remember to hit F5 to force a re-load of the css file to see the changes.

Let me know if you folks like this look better or worse.

IMO the bolded links in posts are still hard to see because their color is very close to black. They should be more obviously blue or some contrasting color to the default text color so that they stand out.

EDIT: After further investigation, I've realized it's the "visited" link color that is hard to distinguish from the normal black color.

dr_andus · « **Reply #281 on:** September 08, 2015, 07:59 PM »

I sort of got used to the bold after a while, though I found it a bit disruptive at first. But now I find the non-bold version too small and hard to read. Maybe the problem is not so much that it is not bold but that the font is of a too skiny variety. I had to zoom in on the page to make it more readable.

wraith808 · « **Reply #282 on:** September 08, 2015, 08:07 PM »

Quote from: dr_andus on September 08, 2015, 07:59 PM

I sort of got used to the bold after a while, though I found it a bit disruptive at first. But now I find the non-bold version too small and hard to read. Maybe the problem is not so much that it is not bold but that the font is of a too skiny variety. I had to zoom in on the page to make it more readable.

This. Though I didn't have to zoom in, the font itself is less readable.

Deozaan · « **Reply #283 on:** September 08, 2015, 08:44 PM »

I agree. In the (upcoming) age of high DPS screens, I'm finding the default font/size to be quite thin and small. We could do with a thicker font, or the current font being bumped up a couple sizes.

Not so much for the font used in forum posts, but just about everywhere else. Such as the "Quote" links in the top right of each post, or the "breadcrumbs" links at the top of the page, etc.

JavaJones · « **Reply #284 on:** September 08, 2015, 08:51 PM »

I was just noticing it seems small too, after visiting one of my other forums (default SMF config basically). But if I look at the CSS inspector it appears to be the same size and font. Looking at it I think for me it may be the fact that the background color is another shade of blue, it gets a little lost then, whereas on my forum links are dark-ish red. Which is to say, something is not working as well (for me) on this forum vs. the other one, but using the same solution may not be appropriate here as it is there. Perhaps change font size a bit? Maybe that's no less drastic than Bold...

- Oshyan

Ath · « **Reply #285 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:01 PM »

Ever since viewing the test-dc and now the actual new dc, I'm trying to convince myself that the font used is 1 or maybe even 2 points smaller than the old dc forum. Maybe mouser can compare the css/settings?

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #286 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:09 PM »

"Zoom in" is a bit of a strange thing. Because your browser "mostly" remembers those, and then you forget you ever even did it "whenever back then".

So I'm on the fence and don't know what to say.

A laptop and a desktop with a big screen are totally two diff experiences!

mouser · « **Reply #287 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:10 PM »

The font size on original forum was the tiniest bit larger -- take your screenshots now, im going to enlarge the font in a few minutes...

mouser · « **Reply #288 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:23 PM »

I've bumped the forum font size up a small but non-trivial amount. Better?

Note 1: As always, make sure to F5 reload pages to have new css applied.
Note 2: On a browser less than 800 pixels wide, it will revert to smaller text size.

dr_andus · « **Reply #289 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:27 PM »

Quote from: TaoPhoenix on September 08, 2015, 09:09 PM

"Zoom in" is a bit of a strange thing. Because your browser "mostly" remembers those, and then you forget you ever even did it "whenever back then".

So I'm on the fence and don't know what to say.

You might be right about this. I vaguely remember that I zoomed in some months ago and then stayed that way, so perhaps that's part of the effect of what I'm experiencing.

Having said that, now even after zooming in the fonts look skinny to me...

dr_andus · « **Reply #290 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:29 PM »

Sorry, I should have specified that I'm talking about the link font such as the posts/threads displayed in the Info Center box when looking at the main page (and not referring to the font inside the posts).

tomos · « **Reply #291 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:33 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 08, 2015, 09:23 PM

I've bumped the forum font size up a small but non-trivial amount. Better?

yes, that helps quite a bit here

what is the font btw?

mouser · « **Reply #292 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:38 PM »

Quote from: tomos on September 08, 2015, 09:33 PM

what is the font btw?

Original forum css was:

font-size: small;
font-family: verdana, sans-serif;

New forum as of yesterday was:

font: 78%/130% "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;

New forum as of now is:

font: 90%/130% "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;

Essentially ignore everything except the font size.

I think the old "small" was translated to something around 85% or so? (i tried it here, it landed somewhere between the 78% and 90%).

mouser · « **Reply #293 on:** September 08, 2015, 09:41 PM »

Quote from: tomos on September 08, 2015, 09:33 PM

yes, that helps quite a bit here

yeah, i guess it looks better to me too.

dr_andus · « **Reply #294 on:** September 08, 2015, 10:06 PM »

Yes, it does look better, I could zoom out now, thanks!

Target · « **Reply #295 on:** September 08, 2015, 11:00 PM »

Quote from: mouser on September 08, 2015, 10:58 AM

Quote from: Target on September 08, 2015, 12:15 AM
I find that there isn't enough contrast between pinned threads and everything else (eg the living room) particularly when viewed on a small device (like my 10" netbook). Did the old format have a dedicated icon (I can't remember, but it was quite plain)

Check again now please (make sure to F5 to reload css).

contrast is the same, but the pins are quite plain

many thanks!!

Deozaan · « **Reply #296 on:** September 09, 2015, 02:49 AM »

This spoiler box (found here), which contains a code box, is tiny and can't be resized to see the contents:

mouser · « **Reply #297 on:** September 09, 2015, 02:55 AM »

spoiler boxes are supposed to autosize based on their css.. it works most of the time -- i'll have to see why it's not in this case.

Ath · « **Reply #298 on:** September 09, 2015, 06:38 AM »

Quote from: mouser on September 08, 2015, 09:10 PM

The font size on original forum was the tiniest bit larger

Aha, so I actually don't need new glasses after all

Looking great now

phitsc · « **Reply #299 on:** September 09, 2015, 09:13 AM »

I thought I had visited the supporters yearbook after the upgrade, but now I can't find it any more.