New Forum - Appearance only

[Russethouse]

 Please give your opinion as to the colour scheme, font size and general display, not related to technical issues, here. Please don't rant ![:)]

[Clair]

Windows 7/Firefox 11.

The font size is too small for comfort.

The

colours (dark text on white background) are too contrasting and make the page difficult to

read.

The thread titles (black or blue on dark

blue background) make the text difficult to read.

The background image (lavender field) is too prominent compared to the text area.

[sid]

I find the actual "white bit", the central column where the forum text appears, is too narrow and can't be expanded. I don't want to see the lavender at all once I'm logged in.

[NickP]

Too much contrast, Black on white is tiring on the eyes on a screen. On my PC every other post in on a slightly beige background and is easier to view.

[Tancrède]

[quote user="Clair"]Windows 7/Firefox 11.

The font size is too small for comfort.

The

colours (dark text on white background) are too contrasting and make the page difficult to

read.

The thread titles (black or blue on dark

blue background) make the text difficult to read.

The background image (lavender field) is too prominent compared to the text area.

[/quote]

Hear, hear !  to all these points.

And simply too many colours  -  dark blue, light blue, lighter blue, ivory, pale mauve and white.  All too distracting, especially with the provoking glimpse of a lavender landscape running down the edge on either side.

I agree with NickP that black text on ivory (especially if a better font than Arial is used) is perfectly satisfactory.

Blue text on dark blue for the Edit your details rubric is particularly unsuccessful, and so is the black on dark blue of the headline of the individual postings.

But it is refreshing to find a 3rd millennium product in which so few bogus genuflections have been made in the direction of 'design' or 'consumer choice'.

No technical difficulties at all…  [Firefox 11].

[Rob Roy]

The lavender fields each side are awful IMO and just distract from the main use - the postings. Why the whole screen can't be used I just don't understand.

I also want to know why there is a huge white gap at the top between the page titles and this reply section, it's really annoying.

[Frecossais]

When I followed Clair's direction on showing the forum in full screen, I found the page is just rather annoyingly too big for the screen.

Font size great when writing a post, but too small when reading OPs.

Black on blue writing is almost invisible. apart from those, I rather like the blues.

[suein56]

[quote user="Gengulphus"]I agree with NickP that black text on ivory (especially if a better font than Arial is used) is perfectly satisfactory.[/quote]

No, I really can't agree; the black print on the pale blue background works better for me. The black on the white is too much of a contrast ... perhaps this is due to my HP brightscreen (or whatever it is called) which is normally excellent , but the effect really too much at present as it makes me feel I need sunglasses.

[quote user="Gengulphus"]No technical difficulties at all…  [Firefox 11]. [/quote]

Ditto ... having been involuntarily upgraded from FF 10 to FF 11 this morning.

Sue

[just john]

The biggest problem is one of legibility, especially on a mobile where a more open, not a condensed font is beneficial, and a bigger x-height rather extra linefeed; 
Trade Gothic rather than News Gothic, the mobile/computer screen is not a broad sheet, plenty of font catalogs out there.
White space on brochure where there is no reflective screen maybe, but less stark contrast required on mobiles or computers benefit from a warmer background, white out not dark headings. [geek]

[Judith]

I avoid the "lavender"by increasing the screen / font size so it disappears, (easy with MAC"s / apple+), but then the screen will not fit all the text, so need to scroll sideways..

Ariel impossible - too close together - too small, too contrasty, too many colours - all been said before.

Nothing at all wrong with the old version, worked better than any other forum I know .... please remove all the different colours, two or three perfecctly adequate -  use blue print, larger size (Ideally Verdana 11 good for poor sighted) and test on those whose eyesight is less than perfect!

Black and/or blue on blue is impossible to read.....

[Hereford]

Using Windows XP with Firefox 11.

Colours difficult, black on dark blue on headings very hard to read.

Some of the postings in this thread seem to be on a white background, some on pale blue. How do I get them all to look pale blue, much easier on the eye.

Preferred the old version, no technical difficulties at all, no "white space" etc. Lavender fields only show in less than 1/4 inch down the edges but seem pointless.

H.

[Bugsy]

On iMac 24" screen running (osx Lion)

Safari:

Large white area to right of screen.

Reply-box tiny and no access to Smilies.

Adding photos/links does not work.

Firefox:

Large white area to right of screen.

Reply box OK

Smilies OK

Posting links OK (most of the time.

Both:

Blue on Blue text is difficult to read.

Positive stuff:

Forum loads much faster and after initially having to log-on with new password, it seems stable.

Wish-list:

The ability to stretch the screen to fit my screen would be nice and would, of course, remove the annoying white stripe. Strangely on my Macbook Air it fills the screen perfectly.

.

[cooperlola]

 The Quick Links box's border is very feint.

         The page numbers at the bottom of the threads don't indicate which page you're actually on any more, as it did in the past (iirc it was highlighted/underlined or something.)  Confusing when you're reading a long thread and want to jump pages. EDIT - My fault, I see in fact it's now written as Page 3 of 7 or whatever.  Doh.

Paragraphs no longer come out automatically when you input a new line yourself.  I'm still not sure if this is a good or a bad thing but the problems is that they appear as a blank line when you type but it disappears when you post - it at least needs to be consistent.

I really don't know if all these are technical or appearance problems so I'll c&p and stick some of this on both.

I'd prefer to have the edit buttons at the bottom than the top.

The black on blue is hard to read.

The white is too stark and hard on the eyes.

The border is distracting and limits the font size (yes, I know there's a fix for this but why do we need to do this?  A forum should look good to attract new users who read adverts who ultimately pay the wages.[:)] (signed ex marketing bod.)

[cooperlola]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

 The Quick Links box's border is very feint.

        [/quote]As is the bottom line of the border on a quote.  Makes it hard to distinguish the quote from the new post. 

Edit : Not so obvious on a short quote like that but confusing with longer texts which use up the full width.

[Gardengirl]

The colours/contrast make reading the forum extremely difficult and uncomfortable.

The font is small and not at all easy to read.

The

contrast of the font on a very white background is too dazzling. Quotes

from earlier posts seem to be on a light grey/white background and are

easier to read.

The lavender field stripe down both sides of

the forum screen are a great distraction. Changing the browser improves

the lavender field stripes, but means that to read a post or to see who

posted the left and right arrows have to be used a lot. Maddening! This

should not be necessary.

Paragraphs seem to have disappeared; I'm trying out leaving 3 lines between each point, which worked when in preview.

A return to the old forum would be

much appreciated. Perhaps change was necessary, but to have made such

violent changes, annoying and upsetting to faithful posters is a huge

mistake.

[Richardbk]

For me the fundamental problem with this set up is not so much the forum itself but its INTEGRATION with the rest of the site.

The header section of the main web site "intrudes" on the forum pages itself. E.g the blue banner with "Home", "French Property" etc is not well enough differentiated from the forum. These two aspects need to be clearly distinguished, such that it is clear that when you click on forum or "community" in the site banner heading that this part of the site is being viewed. An initial simple way to do this is simply put a header across the page (above the "edit your details") that says FRENCH FORUMS (or similar), but even with this more work is needed to show the differentiation between the forum (and is complexity of subheadings, search etc) and those of the site headings. Currently the tab down in the site banner headings for ALL of the various sections, is too subtle.

Why is the tab down for the Forum in the site banner is marked "Community", whereas all other links in the site say "Forum" this is inconsistent.

I would also remove the background photo. Nice as it is, it is frustrating in that little of it shows (on a smaller screen), and that you may only glimpse it momentarily when the page refreshes.

Was a professional design team used for this. I have designed sites for many years from an engineering point of view, but we always use a separate team of designers and graphic designers work on the flow, and ergonomics and useability of the site. What I see before me is more an engineer's approach to integration (just add more tabs) , rather than a site that has been considered from a user perspective. :(

[Patf]

The only thing I don't like is the cramped feel of the text - squashed into a little narrow column.

The width of this reply page is much easier on the eye.

However I noticed that the layout is similar to that in another popular forum, which doesn't seem so claustrophobic.

The old layout was my favourite of all the forums I go on - wide , clear, good colours and sort of "generous."

[Russethouse]

 May I suggest that if Archant want to keep to this colour scheme rather than going back to red and cream, the background could be altered to very pale blue so that its less glaring and therefore less tiring on the eye ?

[Patf]

And I   prefer the cream background - individual tastes differ so much.

[suein56]

[quote user="Patf"] And I prefer the cream background - individual tastes differ so much. [/quote]

Perhaps it all depends on the brightness of your screen ... as, for me, with my HP brightscreen, the white background seems very glaring.

Sue

Edit : of course it is s#d's law that my reply has a pale blue background. [:)]

[Russethouse]

To be honest I prefer the cream background but I suspect the powers that be want to stick with the red, white and blue theme, so pale blue (a little bit darker than it is now) might  better for our eyes but still fit in with the overall scheme.

[pachapapa]

This evening with XP+IE8+Compatability Button Activated.

NO WHITE SPACE AT TOP.[:D]

[Racerbear02]

I agree with most people, bin the lavender fields, allow the working part of the page to expand to full screen, not a major problem on a big monitor, but a total waste of real estate on a small one.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Racerbear02"]I agree with most people, bin the lavender fields, allow the working part of the page to expand to full screen, not a major problem on a big monitor, but a total waste of real estate on a small one.
[/quote]

The post two up concerns a 10" Netbook, hardly widescreen cinemascope. I am now perfectly content with it.

As for lavender fields on a netbook, the fields are 3 milimetres wide on each side and could easily be mistaken for a vertical scroll bar.

Surfing, posting, etc, without changing compatability setting.

Have a stiff coffee and wake up to the change in virtual reality in the last 12 hours.

GO ON! GIVE IT A TRY!

Do you know how to activate the button?

[Théière]

[quote user="pachapapa"]

This evening with XP+IE8+Compatability Button Activated.

NO WHITE SPACE AT TOP.[:D]

[/quote]

Exactly the same and still big white areas, I was going to suggest a "Complete France" wheeled scroll mouse [I]