When is new format to be used?

[tony_brookes]

The proposed new format seems to have had a good response. When are

we likely to see it implemented ?

[terrypittman]

Hopefully never...

 

I guess I am one of the few who like the current setup.

 

I love this site and visit it daily.

 

Unfortunately, if it changes I will have to leave because for me personally it is just too hard to read.

[spider_.]

I agree with Terry. I hope that the format does not change, as the current uncluttered format is a pleasure to read, compared to most of the trashy-looking formats found elsewhere on the internet.

[Karim Ghantous]

I don't know. As long as they keep things READABLE it's okay by me.

 

PN's designers have actually come up with something (so far) that is worse than other systems that convey more information yet do so very nicely. I keep mentioning vBulletin as a good example of forum software that shows a lot but is easy(-ish) to read.

 

If you would like to see what I mean, try this site:

 

http://www.dayofdefeat.net/forums/index.php

 

Or Invision Power Board:

 

http://www.invisionboard.com/

 

and an example of it in use:

 

http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/

[cosmo_genovese]

There is no reason to change the current format: It is clean, uncluttered, and very readable. Please don't mess with it!

[jay_.]

If you can stomach Photoshop, what's wrong with a forum tricked out by techies showing off their HTML prowess?

[Rob F.]

Let's please leave it the way it is.

[mottershead]

Why is it less readable?

 

The font sizes and family used for almost all the text is whatever you have set as the default on your browser. So you control that, the same as before. The line width is 140 pixels less at any browser window size than before -- in order to accomodate the new column at right for text links. On an 800x600 display this is a 20% reduction in line width. Many/most people actually find the shorter text line more readable, but if you are one who doesn't, you can size your window 140 pixels wider, which would make the line width the same width as you are used to.

 

The only other change is to have the name of the poster first in a slighly smaller font, using small-caps and dark blue for contrast with the text. This was done to economize on the use of vertical space, since the poster attribution was previously taking a lot of space.

 

The change is not gratuitous, but has been done to create the column for text links, which will be used in a variety of ways that will add value to the forums (as well as provide revenue for the site via paid text links.) How does this add up to a significant enough difference to be bothered about, never mind enough to justify all the sarcasm?

[bishop_vc]

Geez Brian,

 

I don't see much, if any, sarcasm above. I do see posts by people who like the present format and don't like the new (and vice-versa). I would hope an honest airing of opinion is allowed here. Or is it lèse majesté in this case?

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[bill_g2]

<p>I'd be happy to see photo.net move to an updated format. I'm not much of an HTML guy, so putting in anything other than a very basic message here is a bit of a chore for me.

 

<p>Yes, I can do it. It just takes a lot longer.

 

<p>There are many new formats that have more features, but don't get in the way of information exchange.

[Karim Ghantous]

>Why is it less readable?<br />

<br />

Brian, that's because:

<br />

<br /> > The only other change is to have the name of the poster first in a

<br /> > slighly smaller font, using small-caps and dark blue for contrast

<br /> > with the text. This was done to economize on the use of vertical

<br /> > space, since the poster attribution was previously taking a lot of

<br /> > space.

<br />

<br />

Caps, even small caps, are not as easy to read as lower case. David Oglivy, the well-known advertising copywriter and co-found of Ogilvy & Mather knew that decades ago (though nobody seems to listen to him).

And the lighter blue you've chosen doesn't contrast enough with the white background.<br />

<br />

Sure, the current format takes up a bit more space with the poster attribution but as even a novice typographer knows, white space is important. You don't get something for nothing.

[watts]

The present look is virtually Photo.net's branding. It's been like

this for as long as I can remember. Tinkering with familiar

brands can be a risky business.