Page 1 of 1
whats with the downgrade?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:33 pm
by Kamakazi
this new look is very low tech. its black white and red- a color scheme used by people trying to look cool, but it rarely works. also, the buttons are web 1.0. try getting to 2.0. I really don't like the black web 1.0 look to this new site. and the chatroom doesn't work now either.
advice:
go back to a brighter color theme (whites/ blues/ greens/ reds. not black)
as for the buttons, use something that kinda integrates with the theme of the website. a bunch of really good examples of forums can be found at
http://www.eblah.com you should check it out.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:33 pm
by Nate
Kamakazi wrote:also, the buttons are web 1.0. try getting to 2.0.
Web 2.0 is a buzzword that internet-savvy morons throw around to sound 1337. Some argue it has something to do with making the internets more like a normal computer application. Web 2.0 can only be viewed from a MacBook or a computer running Windows Vista, preferably while wearing a shirt from Threadless and drinking Smartwater in Chicago, the home of everything 2.0.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:54 am
by mechana2015
I always thought that 2.0 had to do with function, not form, specifically, networking functionality (DIGG for example). Clear definition please?
With reguards to brighter colors, there were a million complaints about the light background when we changed from dark to light originally. I dunno about the rest of the web, but the constituancy here seems to prefer dark sites.
As for the chat.
User CP>Edit Options>Forum Skin> Set Skin to: Use Forum Defualt
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:48 am
by everdred12a
Nate wrote:Web 2.0 is a buzzword that internet-savvy morons throw around to sound 1337. Some argue it has something to do with making the internets more like a normal computer application. Web 2.0 can only be viewed from a MacBook or a computer running Windows Vista, preferably while wearing a shirt from Threadless and drinking Smartwater in Chicago, the home of everything 2.0.
Whoah, Nate, calm down. Here, take some of this, it'll soothe your nerves.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:02 pm
by Nate
mechana2015 wrote:With reguards to brighter colors, there were a million complaints about the light background when we changed from dark to light originally. I dunno about the rest of the web, but the constituancy here seems to prefer dark sites.
Not just you, mech. Research has shown white letters on a dark background is a whole lot easier on the eyes than black letters on a bright background. So this new skin actually reduces eyestrain. Imagine that!
*takes the pills*
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:20 pm
by uc pseudonym
Kamikaze wrote:and the chatroom doesn't work now either.
The chatroom works, but only if you are on the correct skin. Enter User CP, Edit Options, and select "New CAA." What you are seeing now is how the vBulletin upgrade interpretes old data, not the polished version of the site.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:50 pm
by Stephen
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:30 pm
by LorentzForce
Web 2.0 is basically an idea where it's not a single or multiple users serving data and entertainment to visitors, but rather where the users come and supply their own content. Dynamic content, vs static content of old.
It is a pretty bad buzz word, but it can be used to describe various websites such as facebook, myspace, youtube, etc.
A lot of people seem to confuse it with some kind of fancy dandy AJAX features on a website though, or some kind of circular 3Dfied glassy buttons, or white background with large bold font all styled up.
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:46 pm
by Etoh*the*Greato
Web 2.0 ≠ Apple Web Design.
... But it should. it totally should.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:17 am
by mechana2015
LorentzForce wrote:Web 2.0 is basically an idea where it's not a single or multiple users serving data and entertainment to visitors, but rather where the users come and supply their own content. Dynamic content, vs static content of old.
It is a pretty bad buzz word, but it can be used to describe various websites such as facebook, myspace, youtube, etc.
A lot of people seem to confuse it with some kind of fancy dandy AJAX features on a website though, or some kind of circular 3Dfied glassy buttons, or white background with large bold font all styled up.
Thank you Lorentz. I was pretty sure thats what it meant and you said it better than I could.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:37 am
by Puguni
Nate wrote:Not just you, mech. Research has shown white letters on a dark background is a whole lot easier on the eyes than black letters on a bright background. So this new skin actually reduces eyestrain. Imagine that!
*takes the pills*
I actually prefer the dark text on a light background. It's easier on my eyes.
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:55 am
by Etoh*the*Greato
Puguni wrote:I actually prefer the dark text on a light background. It's easier on my eyes.
back in the day when I still used irc I would change to a dark background on light text because the black on white gave me headaches.
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:16 am
by ChristianKitsune
*is totally not going to complain when the mods actually were doing something NICE for the members and taking an extremem amount of time trying to update the website for thos who wanted a change.
Is totally going to be considerate of their feelings and not down the WIP they are doing and the fact that they know of the slight errors and are working When they can to fix them.
*totally appreciates what they are doing!*
*skips away happily eating a 2.0 Chocolate Chip Cookie*
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:42 pm
by Mr. SmartyPants
Kamakazi wrote:this new look is very low tech. its black white and red- a color scheme used by people trying to look cool, but it rarely works. also, the buttons are web 1.0. try getting to 2.0. I really don't like the black web 1.0 look to this new site. and the chatroom doesn't work now either.
advice:
go back to a brighter color theme (whites/ blues/ greens/ reds. not black)
as for the buttons, use something that kinda integrates with the theme of the website. a bunch of really good examples of forums can be found at
http://www.eblah.com you should check it out.
Yeah because you're a total leetsauce while we're all nubcakes.
Frankly, I like the look. It's clean and easy on the eyes.
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:57 pm
by Kuro-Mizu
NUBCAKES! yumm... I eat them for breakfast! Ones with lame usernames starting with K are especially tasty! ^_^
The only thing I don't like about the site is the fact that they don't have some sort of logo at the top. I always felt Like I was more at home when I saw the caa logo at the top. But thats minor and I'm pretty sure we will have one after the mascot contest is decided!
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:20 pm
by rii namuras
NATE wrote:Not just you, mech. Research has shown white letters on a dark background is a whole lot easier on the eyes than black letters on a bright background. So this new skin actually reduces eyestrain. Imagine that!
*takes the pills*
[color="Red"](Gee, well, it hurts my eyes. The red alleviates that -- one of the reason I post in it.)
(No, I have no idea how that works.)
(But I don't think I'm in a position to complain, since I'm not the webdesigner!)[/color]
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:38 pm
by Radical Dreamer
ChristianKitsune wrote:*is totally not going to complain when the mods actually were doing something NICE for the members and taking an extremem amount of time trying to update the website for thos who wanted a change.
Is totally going to be considerate of their feelings and not down the WIP they are doing and the fact that they know of the slight errors and are working When they can to fix them.
*totally appreciates what they are doing!*
*skips away happily eating a 2.0 Chocolate Chip Cookie*
Massive agreeage with this post. Seriously, a lot of work goes into this site. If you want to tell about an actual problem, that's fine, but don't just bash it because you don't like how it looks. :/