I liked the way the old board was where the new messages were adifferent 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. Theprevious board would highlight the 'unread' messages in a bluecolor.Does that make more sense?
Been buggin me too, doesn't seem like enough of a differencereally. 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 betweenhues, not shades, of colours. Like, red and green; not darkgreen and light green.
I have mild-to-moderate red-green color blindness (or, for thoseof you in Canada, Red Greene colour blindness ;-) and I amseeing the read links in a different (lighter) shade than theunread links.
Not a simple question to ask. I abandoned a lot of things wewere used to. That's the beauty of change. Through all thetesting, however, I never had a complaint about the links.
If there's enough of a backlash, I'll change it. But try andgive things a chance, first.
Is it easy enough to differentiate between them? Would it helpif they were adjusted more?--MuffinHead
I agree. And I didn't offer that for a reason. A lot of oldthings changed. In other words, things are different, becausethings aren't the same. (That's paraphrasing a great line fromLaw & Order)
That's the point of testing. To pretend what you're using is thereal thing, and work the bugs out. If a tester doesn't assumethat, then what's the point of testing?
You probably picked that up off the IBM Design Guidelines Ishowed 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 fewmonths 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 theirbrowser that eliminates the color distinction? Will changing thecolors of the site have any effect on that?
Generally, consider making the change that will maximize thedistinction for the greatest number of people. If that meansplaying 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 (forunvisited and visited) be?--MuffinHead
I would prefer the unread/unvisited link something that isbright and easy to spot on alate-night-got-drunk-came-home-checked-the-website type ofnight(like the blue was). The visited ones should remain thesame as it is now(that was the difference is easy to see).Sound good?
You can see I changed it... Is that a bright enough blue or doesit 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 helpyou, or anyone else, with any changes to the colours of thelinks. Netscape 4.x does not support something called"style sheets" which allows me to change all sorts offont settings in different places across the site.Because of this, I have set up the link colours Netscape 4.xusers see so that links are visible to them on any part of thesite. If I change those, that might effect other parts of thesite. They're always blackIf you really like Netscape, I'd encourage you to downloadNetscape 6, since that supports style sheets. To fully supportNetscape 4.x, I'd have to embed FONT tags everywhere, and veryearly on the decision to not use FONT tags was made.--MuffinHead
He still uses a "Gurly browser"! :)Get a Man's Browser, you whimp!
And stop chasing skirts long enough to play some games... Wangand I are itching to whip your sorry little ass at Kohan. (whichyou would love!) Try the demo.N8
Embedding FONT tags everywhere is not just archaic, it's a royalpain 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 everyHTML 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 supportstandards 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.Darklord
As for the security issues, you should be prepared to concedeyourself that most of them have to do with Macintosh Runtime forJava 2.2.0, .1, .2 and .3, I believe. They all had a majorsecurity flaw that could be employed by any malicious applet...running off the Web, or locally. MRJ 2.2.4 introduced supportfor signed applets that eventually solved this bug (and made mylife harder when I was trying to make BC an applet, because thesecurity was TOO tight). There's a lot of talk about this on thejava-dev mailing list that Apple runs, if you want to lookthere, too.