|
Originally Posted by IBJoel
(Post 29569954)
To which font are you referring? What type of device are you on?
Windows 10 desktop with 27" monitor, it that makes a difference. (Whether it's changed back or not, I appreciate the response - thanks) |
Originally Posted by iolairemcfadden
(Post 29573631)
IE Edge shows a graphic for a speaker on the tab name for the site when it’s up. This means the site is playing media. Why is that happening? The odd thing is although it says the flyer talk site is playing sound I cannot hear it and it doesn't stop by music.
I hope this is not some sort of audio fingerprinting system to invade my privacy... https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/19/au...s-study-finds/ Additionally the new site trys to load non-authenticated scripts according to chrome. |
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 29569537)
Ugly and unusable. How do we switch back?
Svantevit |
Originally Posted by IBJoel
(Post 29573412)
The wikiposts are not working for anyone, it seems. But could you link me to a video?
|
Originally Posted by CHSBoater
(Post 29573734)
I think you are using Arial 12 pt, bold for the title of the thread and regular for the body. I can't exactly determine the old font, but it was more like 10 pt. It just seemed more readable to me. Note, in typing this response, it appears to be 10 pt as I type, but 12 pt once posted.
Windows 10 desktop with 27" monitor, it that makes a difference. (Whether it's changed back or not, I appreciate the response - thanks) |
Originally Posted by IBJoel
(Post 29573811)
After speaking with one of our tech guys, they informed me that the font was changed to be more legible to a wider range of readers.
I am not sure, though, that those fonts qualify. Some are too "solid" (not enough spacing between letters) so that it is hard for both visual and mechanical readers to discern. It make take a little experimentation to find the ones that work. |
I kind of like the new look. Browsing threads doesn't seem as...1990s as it did. I would like to have an easier way to jump back to the thread I was on. The old look had a Forum Jump button that was parked on where you came from. The one at the bottom of the new look has no "go" button so it doesn't work on my iPad and also creates a need to scroll to where I was.
|
Originally Posted by IBJoel
(Post 29573811)
After speaking with one of our tech guys, they informed me that the font was changed to be more legible to a wider range of readers.
|
Originally Posted by teemuflyer
(Post 29573849)
Do you all have a lead product manager in charge who researches these types of things, adopts best UI and UX practices etc..?
|
Originally Posted by teemuflyer
(Post 29573849)
Do you all have a lead product manager in charge who researches these types of things, adopts best UI and UX practices etc..?
Case in point: multiple large issues have been discovered - any competent team would've either rolled back the changes by now or at a minimum given people the old skin re-enabled as a "compatibility mode" until this new skin has its kinks worked out. A competent staff also wouldn't be taking hours to re-enable underlines on hyperlinks, which should be an extremely simple change. |
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29573899)
....... This rollout has the signs of an amateur staff ..
<snip> A competent staff also wouldn't be taking hours to re-enable underlines on hyperlinks, which should be an extremely simple change. Work experience high school kids is my view. Not the work of IT professionals. How could anyone get it so wrong!! |
UO
Originally Posted by IBJoel
(Post 29573890)
Since that is a different department than mine, I don't know how their workload is divided. I do know we have at least one person in product who has worked on a lot of accessibility-oriented design before.
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29571037)
vB has support for multiple skins but forcing a default. Why are there only two skins enabled, and why was the old skin completely removed for those who like it? I cannot stand the new one, it's way too bright, and honestly there's absolutely no reason not to give people a choice.
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29572011)
Then it is even more appalling that they refuse to allow us to use the old skin if we want to.
Every single vB site I have been a part of has always added skins, and sometimes switched default, but left the old ones unless there is a compatibility issue. There is absolutely no reason to only have one selectable skin on a vB site (unless of course they don't care what the users think, in which case do whatever they want).
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29573351)
Slightly OT question... why is the person handling feedback not the person making the changes here? It would be much better to have the people answering these "tech tickets" (who actually are these tickets even going to) come to answer our questions and alleviate our concerns. There is absolutely no reason many of these changes should take this long in vB.
Whoever made the decision to flip the switch on this really does need a talking to about testing and debugging workflows in a technical environment. You do not just say "here's my idea, let's force it on everyone all at once with no feedback". You run tests - opt-in beta being the best, an A-B being worse but still okay (but idk if forced A-B test is possible in vB). There is absolutely no reason this skin (which isn't ADA compliant and is extremely poorly made with regards to color selection) should have been forced on anyone with the problems it has that have come to light in this thread. This forced rollout, the response to community concerns, the time it is taking to fix glaring issues that would easily have been caught in testing had it been conducted. The only "preannouncement" was a thread in this forum that was never global-stickied or announced - at least in the two forums I actually read regularly on FT. The thread did not even allow users to try the style before release - it only showed very minimal photos of the style. This thread was not even up for 1 week before the forced rollout. Extremely poor technical management by whoever is making these decisions, and to be quite honest makes me question whether I should trust the FT site to be secure, safe, and reliable. Advice from someone who's been a part of multiple large vB based (and other forum software based) communities - get some people on the administrative and technical teams who know what they're doing and who care more about the users than "site unity" with the clickbait ad-revenue driven FT homepage. If this site wants to maintain any credibility with me (and I suspect many other users who have liked messages of "crap" and "bring back old skin"), there needs to be some answers, some apologies, and some explanation as to why in heck there is no option to use the old skin when it is trivial to implement that in vBulletin. The assumption will be that the owners/administrators here do not give a flying crap about the users and only care about how to make money off this site - which goes against what the "adblocker" message says of we want to make it special for you too. The funding from our sponsors helps us invest back into FlyerTalk to improve your experience. |
Originally Posted by chermorg
(Post 29573929)
Since it looks like you've caught up on reading the feedback and are now responding "in real time" (or close to it), is it safe to assume that you, an administrator of the site, have no response to any of the feedback I have provided? Or are you (and the administrator team) unwilling to consider proper rollout procedures for website changes?
|
Originally Posted by IBJoel
(Post 29573695)
Can you post an example of this? I haven't seen this.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...2d04a06958.jpg |
Originally Posted by IBobi
(Post 29573953)
I'll PM you.
I will, however, await the PM and respond accordingly. I will respect that anything you send me in PM will not leave PM. Again, however, taking this to PM does not bode well for the optics of this poorly planned and executed rollout. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:51 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.