The new White Background

[+dprovan]

The odd thing is that this is post #49 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

I know what you mean and agree with your point, but I have to admit I've come to expect it, so I don't think I can really call it "odd". I think I'd say, "The sad thing is..."

 

Edited to add: and now, the second page...

Edited November 6, 2015 by dprovan

[+geodarts]

I am sure they have an explanation, I just can not even imagine what it would be.

 

Maybe because they think it looks modern. Or cool. Or sleek. Or slimmed down. Who needs a background when you can have bright white? And who needs choices when the designers know best?

[+HCompleto]

I think the best solution would be to provide the old skin as well. This way, people could chose the skin they like the best.

[+ecanderson]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

[+barefootjeff]

The problem is that the bright white is on the part of the page that you're not trying to read, while the text itself is dark grey on light grey. A bit like trying to read a smartphone screen while looking into the sun, I guess, and I imagine it'd be worse for anyone with developing cataracts.

 

Jeff

[+Mockingbird559]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The problem is that the bright white is on the part of the page that you're not trying to read, while the text itself is dark grey on light grey. A bit like trying to read a smartphone screen while looking into the sun, I guess, and I imagine it'd be worse for anyone with developing cataracts.

 

Jeff

 

I've had cataract surgery on both eyes. Just as bad, or worse, after cataract surgery. My suggestion is that this qualifies as deliberate discrimination against the visually handicapped.

[+J Grouchy]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

 

Ease up on the hyperbole. It's not "like looking into the sun".

[+Mockingbird559]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

 

Ease up on the hyperbole. It's not "like looking into the sun".

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, hyperbolē, lit. "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (lit. "growth"). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

 

So it is like looking into the sun.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Mockingbird559

[+J Grouchy]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

 

Ease up on the hyperbole. It's not "like looking into the sun".

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, hyperbolē, lit. "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (lit. "growth"). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

 

So it is like looking into the sun.

 

I know what hyperbole is. You basically just made my point for me.

[knowschad]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

 

Ease up on the hyperbole. It's not "like looking into the sun".

 

True. It is more like looking near the sun.

[knowschad]

The odd thing is that this is post #49 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

I know what you mean and agree with your point, but I have to admit I've come to expect it, so I don't think I can really call it "odd". I think I'd say, "The sad thing is..."

 

Edited to add: and now, the second page...

 

The odd thing is that this is post #61 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

[knowschad]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

 

Ease up on the hyperbole. It's not "like looking into the sun".

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, hyperbolē, lit. "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (lit. "growth"). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

 

So it is like looking into the sun.

 

I know what hyperbole is. You basically just made my point for me.

 

You apparently missed the "As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally." part.

[+Mockingbird559]

I would have thought that 'older eyes' would have appreciated this. The increased light squeezes the pupils down a bit and improves depth of focus. Kinda like going to a higher F stop on a camera. (Actually, exactly like that).

 

This is like looking into the sun.

 

Ease up on the hyperbole. It's not "like looking into the sun".

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, hyperbolē, lit. "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis (lit. "growth"). In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally.

 

So it is like looking into the sun.

 

I know what hyperbole is. You basically just made my point for me.

 

You apparently missed the "As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally." part.

 

Thanks knowschad, and still nothing from GS. It still hurts my eyes, and other eyes too. Looks like this one will be ignored even more than the text v html emails.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

The odd thing is that this is post #49 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

I know what you mean and agree with your point, but I have to admit I've come to expect it, so I don't think I can really call it "odd". I think I'd say, "The sad thing is..."

 

Edited to add: and now, the second page...

 

The odd thing is that this is post #61 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

 

What's odd is that after all these years, people still think Groundspeak is going to post in the forums explaining their decisions.

[+barefootjeff]

Interesting to note that Facebook is the exact opposite - the timeline text is black on white for maximum contrast while the peripheral background is grey.

[+Mockingbird559]

The odd thing is that this is post #49 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

I know what you mean and agree with your point, but I have to admit I've come to expect it, so I don't think I can really call it "odd". I think I'd say, "The sad thing is..."

 

Edited to add: and now, the second page...

 

The odd thing is that this is post #61 and still no word from Groundspeak about it.

 

What's odd is that after all these years, people still think Groundspeak is going to post in the forums explaining their decisions.

 

What's odd is that after all these years, people still think Groundspeak is going to post in the forums ...anywhere...would be a plus... explaining their decisions.

[+ecanderson]

It's entirely understandable. Would you like to be put into a position to defend some of them?

[Rock Chalk]

The simple explanation is the skin was changed so that the forum look would better match that of the main website. Personally, like some others, I didn't like it at first. Now, like some others, I don't notice it anymore. In any case, there are no plans to return to the old skin, or for optional skins at this time.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The simple explanation is the skin was changed so that the forum look would better match that of the main website. Personally, like some others, I didn't like it at first. Now, like some others, I don't notice it anymore. In any case, there are no plans to return to the old skin, or for optional skins at this time.

 

A shade of grey would be so much easier on the eyes,

[+Mudfrog]

The bright white is definitely harder on the eyes!

 

I've noticed that there's not much action on the forums these days either. Guessing that phone appers don't come in here and that many of our old timers have just given up. Not sure what the reason might be but it wouldn't surprise me if GS threw this white background at the few of us left in a push to just close the forums completely.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Mudfrog

[+Mockingbird559]

The simple explanation is the skin was changed so that the forum look would better match that of the main website. Personally, like some others, I didn't like it at first. Now, like some others, I don't notice it anymore. In any case, there are no plans to return to the old skin, or for optional skins at this time.

 

The main website hurts my eyes too.

[+kunarion]

The main website hurts my eyes too.

I add a green background to my cache pages, to fill the blank white space, and frame the page. I was very proud of myself for doing that, since normally my web design starts out with a nice template but then tends toward minimalist, utilitarian pages. The more I work on the sites, the more they look like this Forum. Except for the gray on gray. That's unacceptable, I would not do that.

 

Edited November 15, 2015 by kunarion

[+EngPhil]

The simple explanation is the skin was changed so that the forum look would better match that of the main website. Personally, like some others, I didn't like it at first. Now, like some others, I don't notice it anymore.

I'm going against the flow here. At first I actually kinda liked it. The more I see it, the less I like it.

 

In any case, there are no plans to return to the old skin, or for optional skins at this time.

Given that, in this case, you can hardly say that "only those who come to the forums complain, the feedback we get elsewhere is positive", I'm curious as to why this is so? It's clear that there's a significant number of folks actively annoyed by this change (and for plausible accessibility reasons, too)..... surely at least an optional, easier-on-the-eyes skin could be added for them?

[+SwineFlew]

The simple explanation is the skin was changed so that the forum look would better match that of the main website. Personally, like some others, I didn't like it at first. Now, like some others, I don't notice it anymore. In any case, there are no plans to return to the old skin, or for optional skins at this time.

It still bug me...Its ugly... really ugly... u cant get use to ugly.

[+fbingha]

The simple explanation is the skin was changed so that the forum look would better match that of the main website. Personally, like some others, I didn't like it at first. Now, like some others, I don't notice it anymore. In any case, there are no plans to return to the old skin, or for optional skins at this time.

 

.. but this change doesn't better match the main website any more than before. Previously, both websites featured green and brown. Now it is just white, white, white beyond the small bit of green space utilized by the GEOCACHING logo.

 

At least, brand the forums with the same header and footer as the main website so that it never feels like one is visiting different websites.

 

The previous forums' style was the same as the main website until September of 2013 when you switched to the main site to the green bar but didn't switch the forums. The change you've made now seems like a lazy, we don't care look since it hasn't updated to fit into the main website.

Edited November 17, 2015 by fbingha