am i the only one who finds the colors used on the new site to be extremely hard on the eyes?
thumbs down new website aesthetics
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:51pm
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:22pm
#1
colors
I find the (Blue on Blue) and (Red on Blue) colors VERY hard to read.
I also fing the default font size too small.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:41pm
#2
I concur, but...
you can always do "command +" or the pc equivalent to up the font size
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:51am
#3
Jim R - webmaster
We will be looking at ways to change the color scheme...especially on those areas of the site that members use a great deal. This is all.useful feedback. As to the speed, the fluttering menus, some of the ride posting problems...these will be solved with more server space. That is in process. All the feedback is useful, but don't be too impatient. Much of the feedback required us to go live to obtain it. As to the server capacity, no one implements capacity testing to save $100/month...but $100/ month is important to us.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:14am
#4
Sounds like we're going to
Sounds like we're going to throw money/hardware at what is fundamentally a software problem.
This is a very dangerous road to tread...
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 4:41pm
#5
As the old saying goes
As the old saying goes "Beware of programers that carry screwdrivers!" ;-)
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:18pm
#6
Fundamentals - Avoid "Ranson Notes"
C'mon, dark blue background with light blue lettering? Dark blue background with bright orange section heads with white text???????? Some of the site looks like a ransom note.
Maybe the code guys are good at javascript menus and rolling pictures, but they know nothing about ease of use and look and feel. The programmers need to read the book called "About Face" which talks about user interfaces.
Anyway, the colors and such should be nothing more than a skin that can be replaced, like a template. That is assuming the site was designed right!!
If not, changing the background and text colors is a re-work that will not be pleasant, for the programmers or the budget.
SAD...I CANNOT EVEN MAKE A LINE BREAK IN THIS EDITING INTERFACE!!!!!
This from a hack (at best) programmer......
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:15am
#7
.png "2014 B-SIG Grad")
One More Thing
It's hard to tell what post in a thread is being replied to, except by looking at the date and time, which is tedious. It would be helpful if replies could "nest," i.e., indent in by a set number of pixels when they are below the post they reply to. Is that possible with this board format?
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:19pm
#8
totally agree
Nesting would be good. I miss the thread overview, where you can get a sense of all the replies, and their dates. Also, I think there's too much space dedicated to each reply. I know this is a work in progress, and thank you, web people, for your efforts.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:51am
#9
>>Much of the feedback
>>Much of the feedback required us to go live to obtain it.<< Why couldn't the old board have been kept up with the option to use the new one as a beta site, until most of the bugs could be eliminated?
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:41pm
#10
I concur, but...
you can always do "command +" or the pc equivalent to up the font size
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:18pm
#11
Font size
I do know about Command +, but I find that annoying, and as a web and print designer, think (in my opinion) it is a bad choice.
It is a minor issue especially in light of the blue on blue text.
The new sight is a good start, but it seems not ready for prime time.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:19pm
#12
Font size
I do know about Command +, but I find that annoying, and as a web and print designer, think (in my opinion) it is a bad choice.
It is a minor issue especially in light of the blue on blue text.
The new sight is a good start, but it seems not ready for prime time.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:23pm
#13
posting a problem
I also find the posting and replying process unclear, especially compared to the old system.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:31pm
#14
Not the only one!
This thing cost 11k? I feel like the developers should be paying _us_ for subjecting us to this not-even-beta monstrosity. The colors make my brain hurt, half the links don't work, and this window took 3 minutes 19 seconds to load up on my system. (Mac, Firefox.) I don't really care how fancy and "drupal" (whatever that means) the back end is if the front end is a big stinking turd.
-Erica
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:20am
#15
The new website cost $11,000?
If that's true, I don't intend to renew my membership next year. What a waste of money.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:59pm
#16
Cheap
$11,000 is cheap for a website. I guess that says it all!
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:05pm
#17
Don't go, we will miss you!
There must be other more constructive ways to register our disapproval-- and ensure that it won't happen again! NYCC is not "THEM" is it "US."
-Erica
ps It took going live to realize that blue on blue is a terrible idea??
pps 2 minutes 08 seconds to load this window-- almost enough to go get coffee
ppps and the formatting is all screwy
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:37pm
#18
I posted earlier that I
I posted earlier that I liked the new look of www.nycc.org but after using the site further, I've got to walk that back. Whenever I spend any time here I get a headache. Literally, no joke. Also, I find the navigation clunky and when I tried to submit a ride, it didn't work, server errors every time. I tried to register for the holiday party, not working either.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:25pm
#19
No, I think they are a bit
No, I think they are a bit "hard" on the eyes.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:36pm
#20
Surely font size/style,
Surely font size/style, background color, speed and layout are details which can be solved.
This message board has always been a workhorse. User-friendly is the bottom line. I would be surprised if feedback, time and effort does not bring us to a suitable result. Thank you all who are now scrambling to get this off the ground.
We have to give a lot of credit to Robin Read, Peter O'Reilley, Timothy McCarthy and those who gave us our Message Board version 1. It was a great product. We will run hard to get up to its standards.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:47pm
#21
I apologize but, 'Why
I apologize but, 'Why reinvent the wheel?'
Was there a reason NOT to Get vBulletin?
It's the STANDARD for web forums.
Did our webdesigner suggest using it or even try to get you to use it?
Why did we choose not to?
http://www.vbulletin.com
Shouldn't we use a product whose design and structure is so popular that any future transition in our web team would easily be understood.?
The message board is our lifeline to everyone and everything in our club.
I will be patient, but it appears that our ship is sinking. Why did we not do a beta test?
Sadly Rob
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:43am
#22
type color is poor
Insufficient contrast. Light blue within medium blue or darker blue is simply awful. Black type on a white background has been working reasonably well for six centuries. The letters contrast with the background. As I type this draft, the contrast of the light blue letters against the white background (small typeface aside) underscores the insufficiency of the cute color combinations to readily and easily convey written information. The greater the contrast, the easier the text is to read.
The typeface is also too small. Reset the msg board, not hundreds of computers.
Moreover, the msg board overrides my chosen paragraph formation. The block run-on adds to the difficulty in reading.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:43pm
#23
Can we use the old while the "team" figures out the new?
Also I like the old set up with a thread overview. Where the new post are, who is replying to whom. The post numbers don’t tell us anything useful.
Less scrolling, better usability, less bells and whistles.
+1 to HS, big round of applause to Tim, Peter, and Robin for v1.0 and v2.0. Good luck to the new web people.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:56am
#24
New Website Horrible
Newer is not always better. Please go back to the old website. It was easy to use and easy to read and there was nothing wrong with it. The new website is difficult to navigate, difficult to read, and it is slow as hell. You can't even see the picture on the home page--why did you design it to be changing every few seconds? It is so annoying--just when you are looking at a picture, it disappears. The designers have succeeded in removing another little piece of control from our lives--why did you think we would want someone else to decide when we're finished looking at a picture? Sheesh. Please just go back to the old site. Only one thing I like better on the new site: no more anonymous posts since you have to log in to post messages. But I'm sure this feature could have been implemented on the old site.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:12pm
#25
colors are hard on my eyes
Also very hard to read on my iphone! I miss the old website.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:49pm
#26
where members use it most?
Why change the color scheme only where members use it most? The entire site should look uniform and be ascetically pleasing. This blue on blue is awful.
We will be looking at ways to change the color scheme...especially on those areas of the site that members use a great deal. This is all.useful feedback. As to the speed, the fluttering menus, some of the ride posting problems...these will be solved with more server space. That is in process. All the feedback is useful, but don't be too impatient. Much of the feedback required us to go live to obtain it. As to the server capacity, no one implements capacity testing to save $100/month...but $100/ month is important to us.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:09pm
#27
It seems we have reinvented
It seems we have reinvented the wheel with this forum software. Is this commercial forum software or did we contract developers to build it from scratch? Why not just use phpbb or vbulletin?
Check out the NYCMTB board (phpbb): http://nycmtb.com/phpBB2/index.php
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 8:36am
#28
New Website
Just what I was thinking!!! Poor design, very busy and certainly not inviting.
