|By Gadfly on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 09:16 pm: Edit|
"To hell with serifs."
Actually, Artie - you don't mind if I call you Artie, do you? - Verdana IS a sans serif font. I thought I was agreeing with you, though I guess I wasn't clear on that. I don't know what research was being quoted but in my field (graphic design for print and web) it is commonly understood that serifs work better for long passages of print and sans-serifs work best for long passages on screen.
Oh and I suppose I can apologize for the cheese-dick comment. It's just that I've been spending some time at fuckedcompany.com and believe it or not, I was being affectionate.
|By Bob_Chong on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 08:07 pm: Edit|
When I look at the thread, I see that I was the one who first expressed an opinion about serifs.
I interpreted your later post about them as a reply to my opinion (i.e., the post which you began, "To hell with serifs...").
I didn't mean to "correct" you. Sorry for coming off that way and all subsequent bullshit on my part.
|By Artemis on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 01:04 pm: Edit|
I'm done fighting over them. I just get a little batshit over people citing "studies" in the face of what their own senses ought to be telling them.
I apologize to Bob and to anyone else who might feel they deserve an apology.
But God knows, a good fight clears venom from the blood, and even stupider fights have taken place here.
|By _Blackjack on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 10:20 am: Edit|
...you're fighting over serifs...
|By Artemis on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 08:39 am: Edit|
Bob, if you're talking about me with your kettle black, you're full of shit. You did not merely express your own opinion, as I did to Kallisti, or tell about something of which you had firsthand knowledge, such as my work experience, or attempt to counter my opinion with your own. No, you sought to *correct* me by invoking some unidentified "research" as though it were a higher authority than what I know to be true for ME through my OWN experience. At least that's the way I read it. Now I'll let it drop if you want to, or I can go on kicking your illogical allegations around the block till the stuffing falls out. It's up to you. If you WEREN'T talking about me, try to more clear. Clarity suffers at the hands of (pseudo)-clever.
|By Lowlight on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:55 pm: Edit|
I prefer Sans Serif fonts for PC and Serif fonts for books.
|By Bob_Chong on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit|
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 03:10 pm: Edit|
"One man's personal experience always trumps decades of study."
When it comes to one man's personal preference, that's absolutely correct. They weren't studying ME, but I damn sure have studied myself. And I started out in this thread by expressing MY personal preference. It grew into a fucking argument from there, as it always seems to do. It's amazing a thread about absinthe can't be sustained in this forum, but this kind of crap goes on forever and ever and ever ......
Yeah, cheese breath, I don't know shit about what's easiest on my eyes on a computer screen, either. I've only made a living sitting face to face with a monitor for 8-12 hours a day, 5-6 days a week for 13 years now.
|By Gadfly on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 02:13 pm: Edit|
Regarding fonts: you cheese-dicks are talking about different things. What works best for print aint what works best for computer screens.
Verdana is the shit! Good choice, Kallisti
|By Bob_Chong on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 01:44 pm: Edit|
Apologies. You're right. One man's personal experience always trumps decades of study.
ps try this little test--grab ten books randomly (and not your manuals) from a bookshelf and tell me how many are sans serif. I thought so.
pps actually, fuck all this. it's an age old debate and I don't really give a shit. they each have their uses, depending on the context, and it's pointless to claim that one type fits all. tomato, tom-ah-to...
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 01:17 pm: Edit|
"Actually, oldstyle fonts are the easiest to read, according to research."
Oh, then I stand corrected. God forbid that I should let my own experience deceive me in the face of "research"!
p.s. I write technical documents for an industry wherein it is considered important that nothing come between the reader and immediate comprehension. For that reason, every effort is made to make said documents as easy as possible for the user to read. Guess which fonts are chosen to facilitate that? Hint - they ain't got serifs!
|By Bob_Chong on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 12:01 pm: Edit|
Actually, oldstyle fonts are the easiest to read, according to research. Bookman was found to be the best (i.e., most readable). Sans serif fonts are too homogenous and tend to tire the eyes more quickly.
|By Absinthedrinker on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:54 am: Edit|
No, no and thrice no Kallisti! Please don't delete my account, I promise I won't complain any more. My password is OK now honest, see how easily I am posting.
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:51 am: Edit|
And just as I post that, everything changes to serifs. What the hell is going on?
|By Artemis on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:50 am: Edit|
To hell with serifs. I use Arial or Helvetica for almost everything. Easier to read.
|By Admin on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 08:46 am: Edit|
Mr. Drinker, hrrmmmm ... I haven't encountered those problems. Tho the server will dish up that grey screen error, "Internal Server Error" or something. That is the server chewing cgi and not the software. But if it's being funky authenticating your password, email me and perhaps we could delete your account and recreate it. It might have gotten partially et during the upgrade.
Bob, being the MACK that I am, I went in last night and edited the template cgi by hand on the server to bust those "carnival colors" as they just didn't match my scheme. But now the frame menu don't match the board, so I may change that for copacetic purposes, tho it may clash with the rest of Fée Verte. A designers life is hard.
Then again, if I get more ambitious, I just might go crazy on the template editing and end up with a carnival of green.
|By Bob_Chong on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 04:03 am: Edit|
Looks great! Way to go!
p.s. I only suggested a serif font for contrast (e.g., the large titles of threads), not for the text of all the mssgs. The forum is much improved now--one of those things like you didn't know how much was possible until you went and actually changed it (i.e., went from good to great). Thanks for doing all that and running this place.
|By Absinthedrinker on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 03:14 am: Edit|
I'm recovering from Burns night. Green, purple or polka dot - it all looks the same to me!
(and I still get an authentication error when I try to post)
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:26 pm: Edit|
Sorry, to clarify, I'm working with templates w/ limited changeability as far as colors & fonts. I can choose ONE font (and cannot determine font size), and background & link colors.
If the board is slow or not letting you post or view, that's because it takes roughly 5-10 minutes to regenerate tbe board each time I change it.
Going to do it one more time tonite to change font back, then I'm done for the evening. Still want your opinions tho!!!
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:23 pm: Edit|
Damn you Bob, I just changed the visited link to purple. Just for you :P But the message header backgrounds were the ones that were purple before. Now they are grey.
I tried to change the font too, but it's too unreadable in smaller size. Hrrm. Have to change that back.
Serif fonts are hideous when small on computer screens, and the subtopics list is pretty small. It really looks best in verdana.
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:08 pm: Edit|
Crap--as long as you're asking, a serif font somewhere around here--anywhere--would be nice.
Can you guess that I'm a Robin Williams fan (not the prop-comic but the designer)?
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:00 pm: Edit|
Opinions? Yes, this layout is much better.
White (or white-space) is our friend. Nice on the eyes.
The edit icon was too busy. Glad to see it gone.
I see the wacky purple headers are back. If you can make the headers with colors from the existing palette, you're onto something. But the purple is getting a bit carnival-esque.
And two link colors would be good, too.
My two pesetas,
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:48 pm: Edit|
Well, that could have been cuz I was updating again. This message layout is a little simpler and friendlier I think ...
|By Perruche_Verte on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:34 pm: Edit|
I think it's all just beautiful, so I have only one gripe, just one:
Now it takes an infernally long time to load up the page with the index headings.
I'm on a 56kbps modem, well optimized.
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:33 pm: Edit|
Crazy, ain't it?
The other greens looked pukey on the grey. But I'm not sure I'm going to keep the grey. May go back to the simple colors. Unfortunately, they don't make it easy to change the table colors, so I'm pretty much stuck between the two interfaces.
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:23 pm: Edit|
Whoa--what's this new shade of green that has just entered the fray? Also, unvisited and visited links are now the same color? Drag.
|By Malhomme on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 08:49 pm: Edit|
And a search function that WORKS!!! Kallisti, you rawk!!!
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:30 pm: Edit|
just dumped the purple headers. There's also a new "edit" feature next each message.
I like the alternating color thing. makes it easier to navigate.
|By Bob_Chong on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:10 pm: Edit|
What about the purple headers?
The "Check Spelling!" button is new.
Congrats on the upgrade.
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 12:05 pm: Edit|
wow. if this posts, then I am da bomb.
not only is it fixed, it is upgraded. will be testing and reconfiguring this afternoon.
please post any issues or problems found in this thread.
|By Admin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 08:54 am: Edit|
This may take a few days to fix. Please use existing threads to post new and exciting information.
I want to die.
|By Absinthedrinker on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 08:43 am: Edit|
I just ried to post a new topic and it semed to be acepted then nothing...
|By Thegreenimp on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 08:38 am: Edit|
Are we still alive?
I just hear the sound of crickets.....
|By Head_prosthesis on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 07:08 am: Edit|
MY POEMS, MY BEAUTIFUL POEMS!!!
|By Martin on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 03:30 am: Edit|
and you can't view other people's Profile's either.
|By Admin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:21 pm: Edit|
auto registration appears to not be working as well. If you are new and wish to register, please email me directly, including USER NAME, VALID EMAIL, FULL NAME:
you will not be able to update your profile at this time.
|By Admin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:16 pm: Edit|
Unfortunately, upgrade did not work, and after restore some features now appear to be non-functional. Like profile editing etc. Don't think last day etc is working either.
This is what I was askeered of. It may take me some time to get it back to normal, and I won't attempt and upgrade until after my trip to NOLA when the board can go down for a few days.
|By Admin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:10 pm: Edit|
well, that was a bomb
|By Admin on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:27 pm: Edit|
The forum has been getting buggier and buggier. Will be trying to upgrade over the next few hours, so please bear with any problems or errors.
If anything get seriously snafu'd I will be restoring from backup which might loose some messages.
Keep yer fingers crossed.
Also, may have to reset some parameters. Once again, bear with me.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation