I liked the way the old board was where the new messages were a
different color. It made reading the boards a lot easier.
Oh - most importantly - the new site looks awesome!!!!
However, all the threads are all the same black color. The
previous board would highlight the 'unread' messages in a blue
Does that make more sense?
Been buggin me too, doesn't seem like enough of a difference
really. And could be hell for people with color-blindness.\n
Why did you abandon the typical purple? (For visited sites?)
I think colour blindness typically effects differing between
hues, not shades, of colours. Like, red and green; not dark
green and light green.
I have mild-to-moderate red-green color blindness (or, for those
of you in Canada, Red Greene colour blindness ;-) and I am
seeing the read links in a different (lighter) shade than the
Not a simple question to ask. I abandoned a lot of things we
were used to. That's the beauty of change. Through all the
testing, however, I never had a complaint about the links.
If there's enough of a backlash, I'll change it. But try and
give things a chance, first.
Is it easy enough to differentiate between them? Would it help
if they were adjusted more?
I agree. And I didn't offer that for a reason. A lot of old
things changed. In other words, things are different, because
things aren't the same. (That's paraphrasing a great line from
Law & Order)
That's the point of testing. To pretend what you're using is the
real thing, and work the bugs out. If a tester doesn't assume
that, then what's the point of testing?
You probably picked that up off the IBM Design Guidelines I
showed you a long time ago, and you're right. They are useless.
I don't see the relation between link colours and this, though.
I never said that. I'm starting to feel the anger I felt a few
months ago when someone kept asserting I was saying something,
but I wasn't.
Red Greene? If you mean the show, it's also spelled Red Green.
Is it possible that someone may have set something in their
browser that eliminates the color distinction? Will changing the
colors of the site have any effect on that?
Generally, consider making the change that will maximize the
distinction for the greatest number of people. If that means
playing with the colors until Darklord says "Peachy!"
so be it.
Now go forth and do good.
Okay then. Darklord, what would you prefer the link colours (for
unvisited and visited) be?
I would prefer the unread/unvisited link something that is
bright and easy to spot on a
late-night-got-drunk-came-home-checked-the-website type of
night(like the blue was). The visited ones should remain the
same as it is now(that was the difference is easy to see).
You can see I changed it... Is that a bright enough blue or does
it still need work?
I don't see any change. No blue on my screen.
What browser you using? I'm using Netscape (if that helps).
Okay, I should have asked that to begin with. Sorry, my fault.
If you're using Netscape 4.x or lower, I won't be able to help
you, or anyone else, with any changes to the colours of the
links. Netscape 4.x does not support something called
"style sheets" which allows me to change all sorts of
font settings in different places across the site.
Because of this, I have set up the link colours Netscape 4.x
users see so that links are visible to them on any part of the
site. If I change those, that might effect other parts of the
site. They're always black
If you really like Netscape, I'd encourage you to download
Netscape 6, since that supports style sheets. To fully support
Netscape 4.x, I'd have to embed FONT tags everywhere, and very
early on the decision to not use FONT tags was made.
He still uses a "Gurly browser"!
Get a Man's Browser, you whimp!
And stop chasing skirts long enough to play some games... Wang
and I are itching to whip your sorry little ass at Kohan. (which
you would love!) Try the demo.
Embedding FONT tags everywhere is not just archaic, it's a royal
pain in the ass. To make a single change to the heading font,
for example, I'd have to spend a good hour or two trolling every
HTML page in the site. Not a good expenditure of time.
I'm sorry the 6.1 installer isn't working for you.
Fact is, Netscape 4.x is an archaic browser that doesn't support
standards introduced five years ago.
I was using Netscape 4.77 - had no probelms with it.
I play the demo. Bought the game. Finished the game. Got bored.
Haven't touched it since.
Never tried it online.
As for the security issues, you should be prepared to concede
yourself that most of them have to do with Macintosh Runtime for
Java 2.2.0, .1, .2 and .3, I believe. They all had a major
security flaw that could be employed by any malicious applet...
running off the Web, or locally. MRJ 2.2.4 introduced support
for signed applets that eventually solved this bug (and made my
life harder when I was trying to make BC an applet, because the
security was TOO tight). There's a lot of talk about this on the
java-dev mailing list that Apple runs, if you want to look