How do we change text colors?

edited June 2001 in General Discussion
«1

Comments

  • edited December 1969
    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!!!!

    Darklord
  • edited December 1969
    Re: How do we change text colors?

    I liked the way the old board was where the new messages were a
    different color. It made reading the boards a lot easier.

    You mean the "NEW:" thing? It's still here. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Besides changing the colours of active/visited links and text on most of the site, the WebBBS script was not modified at all.

    Oh - most importantly - the new site looks awesome!!!!

    Thanx...

    I have a question for you though... what's our fund up to?

    If you could e-mail me with whatever Account Ledger/CP Fund material you have, anything at all, I would be most thankful. 8)

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Re: How do we change text colors?

    I think I need to clarify.

    The word "NEW" is red. That is working perfectly. However, all the threads are all the same black color. The previous board would highlight the 'unread' messages in a blue color.

    Does that make more sense?

    Darklord
  • edited December 1969
    Re: How do we change text colors?

    However, all the threads are all the same black color. The
    previous board would highlight the 'unread' messages in a blue
    color.

    Does that make more sense?

    That makes sense, but I've never seen the colours change from black to blue on the old board... so maybe I'm missing something myself...

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    AH!!! :)

    I figured it out...

    He's used to the READ messages chaging color. Not the old, they just happen to be the same thing for him typically.

    You've got the visited/non-visited links both blue. (A different shade, but blue)

    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?)

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Re: AH!!! :)

    Been buggin me too, doesn't seem like enough of a difference
    really. And could be hell for people with color-blindness.\n
    I think colour blindness typically effects differing between hues, not shades, of colours. Like, red and green; not dark green and light green.

    Why did you abandon the typical purple? (For visited sites?)

    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.

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    FWIW...

    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 unread links.
  • edited December 1969
    I stand corrected

    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
    unread links.

    Is it easy enough to differentiate between them? Would it help if they were adjusted more?

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Long-term plan

    Hopefully we can incorporate custom style sheets in the future, and you'll be able to style the site to whatever you want, or just use the default if you're not inclined.

    For now, feel free to e-mail me or post messages if you want things changed. I just spent today working on Perl-izing the FoP page, but I can look at other stuff tomorrow, hopefully.

    If I don't immediately get to a request, feel free to e-mail me a reminder. Sometimes I forget. 8)

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Re: AH!!! :)

    I think colour blindness typically effects differing between
    hues, not shades, of colours. Like, red and green; not dark
    green and light green.

    Yeah, don't ask me really. Colorblindness is really something I keep meaning to explore as a designer, and havn't ever gotten around to.

    (Though one of the reasons is that I've never found a good resource aimed at web use)

    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.

    Change for the sake of change... Thats a lame reason :)

    And the reason I hadn't complained? When I tested it I wasn't using it, so they didn't bug me. Actual use is a different matter, when the links I'm clicking actually mean something.

    Visted links (IMO) should always be a different color. I like to stick to the typical blue/purple, though I usually change to a more pleasing hue. But at least a different color. Differing shades aren't as easy to scan for.

    Thats also the reason you'll never see the words "click here" as a link on MV, when scanning links jump out. And "click here" is meaningless. :) Same for scanning for visited links. Maybe I'm looking for a link I'd clicked an hour before, having it purple makes it much easier for scan and find.

    If there's enough of a backlash, I'll change it. But try and
    give things a chance, first.

    I didn't menion right off the bat did I? :) I was giving it time, but it's been buggin me the whole time.

    Changing a standard for the sake of change isn't a reason. I'd be happy with red or purple really. But red would conflict with the "New" on boards, so I'd go with purple.

    image
  • edited December 1969
    [b]Re: AH!!! :)[/b]

    [quote]
    Change for the sake of change... Thats a lame reason :)

    [/quote]
    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)

    [quote]
    And the reason I hadn't complained? When I tested it I wasn't
    using it, so they didn't bug me. Actual use is a different
    matter, when the links I'm clicking actually mean something.

    [/quote]
    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?

    [quote]
    Thats also the reason you'll never see the words "click
    here" as a link on MV, when scanning links jump out. And
    "click here" is meaningless. :)

    [/quote]
    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.

    [quote]
    Changing a standard for the sake of change isn't a reason.

    [/quote]
    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.

    In short: things are different because it's a new site. But that doesn't mean what you see is set in stone. Please continue to suggest changes. I'm not going to refuse any new ideas, because it isn't completely up to me.

    --MuffinHead

    [img]http://www.clanplaid.net/~muffin/questionmuffin.gif[/img]
  • edited December 1969
    Hmm?

    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
    unread links.

    Red Greene? If you mean the show, it's also spelled Red Green. :)

    -Cauldyth

  • edited December 1969
    Re: I stand corrected

    For the record, I'm quite colourblind as well, but the difference is very noticeable. Looks nice, IMO.

    -Cauldyth

    Is it easy enough to differentiate between them? Would it help
    if they were adjusted more?

    --MuffinHead

  • edited December 1969
    Re: AH!!! :)

    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)

    I meant different that expected, not different than it was.

    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?

    I did assume I was using the real thing, thats not the point. I was looking at the site and for bugs. I wasn't reading it for real content, so I didn't notice how confusing the links were. It's only now that I realized it once I was really reading the boards with a purpose.

    Thats why in useability studies they give users a specific task and watch them complete it. So they are really doing something. I didn't really do that, maybe I should have, but I didn't.

    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.

    No, I picked that up from Jakob Neilson actually. One of the things he got right (though I don't always agree with him.

    You make links relevant because they jump out when you scan text, kind of like a bold word does.

    This is exactly the same as scanning a list of (for example) messages in a thread for unread messages. I like visited links a different color so that I can easily tell the difference at a glance or a scan. Right now there isn't enough difference for me.

    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.

    "I abandoned a lot of things we were used to."

    You said this in the context of the site. (I think at least)

    But I think it has more basis in the context of the general web. I'm not used to links and visited links the same color. I don't think most people are. Changing a big unspoken standard of the web without a real reason is exactly what you did IMO.

    Don't mean that in a bad way. I just don't see the value of retraining myself just for this site.

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Hmm?

    Red Greene? If you mean the show, it's also spelled Red Green.
    :)

    Whatever... my point was made. 8-)
  • edited December 1969
    Gentlemen!

    You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    Seriously, though... the site looks fine to me and the links on the boards are adequately distinguished on my screens at home (Mac IE5) and work (Win98 IE5).

    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.
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Gentlemen!

    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?

    Good question.

    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.

    Okay then. Darklord, what would you prefer the link colours (for unvisited and visited) be?

    Now go forth and do good.

    Raising hell is much more entertaining.

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Gentlemen!

    Okay then. Darklord, what would you prefer the link colours (for
    unvisited and visited) be?
    --MuffinHead

    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).

    =)

    Sound good?

    Thanks!

    Darklord
  • edited December 1969
    Sooo...

    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).

    Sound good?

    Ja, so... jetzt magst du gern die Farbe?

    You can see I changed it... Is that a bright enough blue or does it still need work?

    Watch as I adjust it one way people will want it back... now the teeter-totter game begins... ;-)

    Tschüß!

    8)

    --Muffinkopf

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Sooo...

    You can see I changed it... Is that a bright enough blue or does
    it still need work?

    Dunno... tis a bit bright.

    I liked the color of links as they were, really fit in well. It was the visited that I had a problem with...

    image
  • edited December 1969
    I can't please everyone

    I'll try my best, but I know in the end there's always going to be people who aren't going to like some aspect. I could spend the entire day tweaking things back and forth. 8)

    Instead I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if some aspect is important enough that it needs changing. I'll try and balance requests with time required to implement new things. Hopefully we can add in some type of personal customization sooner rather than later.

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    Didn't work.

    I don't see any change. No blue on my screen.

    What browser you using? I'm using Netscape (if that helps).

    Darklord

  • edited December 1969
    Re: Didn't 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.

    --MuffinHead

    image
  • edited December 1969
    I KNEW it..... DL SUX!

    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.

    N8
  • edited December 1969
    I have a problem with this

    OK-

    All I see in my NS 4.77 are brownish links new and visited I can't see the difference. Really stinks.

    Why is it 99.9% of other Web sites I visit support Netscape?

    This "decision" to NOT support NS was a HUGE mistake.

    The decision should have been made based on actual numbers of what % of us are using clanplaid.net

    I for one tried to install the new 6.1 and the installer locked me up twice and I am NOT using IE. I'll leave it to others have gaping security and privacy issues.

    Please make the Board links the colors they used to be, I don't recall any browser users compalining then...why did it work then and not now?
    Why are we losing functionality instead of gaining it?
    VJ

    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.

    --MuffinHead

  • edited December 1969
    [b]Re: I have a problem with this[/b]

    [quote]
    All I see in my NS 4.77 are brownish links new and visited I
    can't see the difference. Really stinks.

    [/quote]
    Please take a screenshot for me. The only link colours Netscape 4.x users should see are black and grey. You can upload the screenshot to my dropbox and/or e-mail me.

    [quote]
    Why is it 99.9% of other Web sites I visit support Netscape?

    [/quote]
    I can't say for sure what per cent of sites "support" Netscape myself. I don't have those data. But I can say that to give Netscape 4.x users a better experience, many sites use the now-deprecated FONT tags embedded in every nook and cranny. And many are fully dynamically-generated sites, usually using PHP or some other dynamic content method to serve the entire site. Or they do other, more complicated tricks, tricks I'm not prepared to spends hours doing.

    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.

    With style sheets I can tie everything together in a single document, which means if I want to change something, I do it in one place, and it's universal. This saves me time. CSS also makes pages look nicer to the user, if your browser supports CSS. Netscape 4.x doesn't.

    [quote]
    This "decision" to NOT support NS was a HUGE mistake.

    [/quote]
    We didn't decide to just toss NS users into the trash. The decision was made to make all content accessible to Netscape users, but not necessarily perfectly presented. Netscape 4.x has MAJOR flaws in its rendering engine, and doesn't even support CSS-1 (the oldest Cascading Style Sheet reference) worth a darn.

    If you're seeing brown links and other assorted craziness, then let's work together to fix it. When I was betaing the site, both Spam and Conner helped me by taking several screenshots in Netscape 4.x browsers as I went along, to ensure all content was accessible. I thought I had succeeded. When I solicted comments from 4.x users in the past, they agreed the site didn't look "great" but it worked. And that's all that matters, when it comes to Netscape 4.x compatibility.

    I didn't just whip together this site and say "voila"... I spent a lot of effort getting feedback from users of various platforms and browsers. When they mentioned problems, they were fixed.

    [quote]
    The decision should have been made based on actual numbers of
    what % of us are using clanplaid.net

    [/quote]
    I don't have any personal vendetta against Netscape.

    So trust me, VJ, we DID look at what people were using, and we still made the decision that an archaic browser would not hold us back. We debated this in the forum. Feel free to look in the archive for yourself if you don't believe me.

    At the same time, I didn't want to go through the excruciating trouble of doing all sorts of extra things to make the Netscape 4.x experience prettier.

    [quote]
    I for one tried to install the new 6.1 and the installer locked
    me up twice and I am NOT using IE. I'll leave it to others have
    gaping security and privacy issues.

    [/quote]
    I'm sorry the 6.1 installer isn't working for you.

    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 there, too.

    Fact is, Netscape 4.x is an archaic browser that doesn't support standards introduced five years ago.

    [quote]
    Please make the Board links the colors they used to be, I don't
    recall any browser users compalining then...why did it work then
    and not now?

    [/quote]
    Let's be clear, the board still works. The links still work. They just don't look right. We'll fix that.

    [quote]
    Why are we losing functionality instead of gaining it?

    [/quote]
    Excuse me, but I think you're branching too far into hyperbole here. I could cite about a dozen examples of new, better functionality we've gained, but I'm sure you've seen them with your own eyes. I'm sure you made that statement in haste.

    The only functionality we've lost is that, in a couple of examples so far, the link colours are screwing up. And I'm willing to help fix them, if you'll let me.

    I'd say that's an excellent tradeoff. Wouldn't you?

    --MuffinHead

    [img]http://www.clanplaid.net/~muffin/questionmuffin.gif[/img]
  • edited December 1969
    Re: I KNEW it..... DL SUX!

    He still uses a "Gurly browser"! :)

    Get a Man's Browser, you whimp!

    I was using Netscape 4.77 - had no probelms with it.

    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.

    N8

    I play the demo. Bought the game. Finished the game. Got bored. Haven't touched it since.

    Never tried it online.

    Darklord

  • edited December 1969
    Re: I have a problem with this

    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.

    Agreed 100% :)

    I'm sorry the 6.1 installer isn't working for you.

    VJ, don't even look at that sorry excuse for a browser. Mozilla is a lot better even though it's the same code. :)

    Fact is, Netscape 4.x is an archaic browser that doesn't support
    standards introduced five years ago.

    It's the bane of web designers everywhere.

    I still can't comprehend why 20% of MV users still use NS 4. I'm even MORE befuddled as to why 1% still use NS 3.

    When a browser can't support CSS, which has been around for a damn long time. It was approved as a recommendation 5 years ago, which was a heck of a long time ago. But they were working on it long before that."Viewable, but not pretty" is a fine goal IMO.

    image
  • edited December 1969
    DL beats N8

    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

    The man is even more short and to the point than mr. gruff over there. :) LOL!

    Bungie Sightings
  • edited December 1969
    Very true

    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.

    Well, I can explain a faster method of doing this, but I don't want to knock down your argument... I like CSS myself. But seriously, I think you know what I'm talking about.

    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
    there, too.

    Very true Muff, good catch. Many folks point to MS for this, but if they look at their IE prefs, it's all right there: Java=Apple MRJ

    I can understand VJ's frustration. Why does his own club force him to have to change over to a different browser? But I think, like Muff sez, with a little investigation, it may be solvable. Hang in there VJ, Muff will try to do right by you and the rest of the CP NS users out there.

    Muff, can you state with certainty which other 3rd party Mac browsers work well with this site? Maybe folks that want to use NS for the majority of their browsing can consider a non-IE substitute for the occasional CP# browsing. I dunno, just a thought.

    - F

    Bungie Sightings
Sign In or Register to comment.