Illegible type

[NASAguy]

Am I the only one who finds the type style in the various rooms to be almost illegible. When you get to the messages themselves it is much better. But I will get a migrane trying to read the rest. Or is it just old age and bifocals?

[Guy Fawkes]

You can use the "View" menu on your explorer to set the size of the fonts.

[Boston Guy]

>You can use the "View" menu on your explorer to set the size

>of the fonts.

 

Yes, that's true.

 

But why is the default so incredibly small? Does the new software not offer font choices? So far, every comment about the fonts has been negative.

 

Why not simply adjust them to something more reasonable, instead of asking people to muck with their View settings every time they come to M4M?

 

It's bad enough that the system now logs you out after what seems like a short period of inactivity -- unlike the old software that would keep you logged in so long as you didn't close the Explorer window. So every time you come back you have to log in again. Must we also have to keep changing View options just to view this site?

 

Even with the new server, the site is noticeably slower than before. The blue font is harder to read, partially because of its size and partially because of its color. All of these may seem like minor complaints but they add up to a site that is simply not as convenient or enjoyable to visit as it was before.

 

I appreciate the need to upgrade software from time to time (although I'm pretty much a diehard against going with v1.0 of anything). But new upgrades should be better: faster, easier to use, neat new features -- something should be better. On a side-by-side basis, this software is slower than the old version, which makes it less convenient to browse the threads; it's harder to read; it forces you to constantly have to log in again; and it forced you to acquire and install a new server. Where's the upside???

 

I would think and expect and hope that at least some of these issues are addressable. The font should be fixable. I understand the View option choice; I'm suggesting leaving that as the only option is not a good choice if you want the site to be maximally usable and user-friendly for an audience that counts many of its members in middle age and above. Further, I would expect there to be a setting that says "log this person off after NNN seconds of inactivity." If so, I'd like to suggest that the time interval be greatly lengthened from its current setting.

 

Once again, I offer these suggestions not as complaints but as fairly neutral observations about how this site is viewed by one viewer. I may or may not represent the average viewer, but the comments posted elsewhere in this forum suggest that my observations are by no means limited to me alone.

 

If history is any guide, this stuff will all settle down. But I'd urge you to try to address these few user-interface issues. They do make a difference.

 

BG

[Huey]

BG I feel some of your font frustration. I went to DC's site and from what I can tell ... I'm pretty sure the font size and color can be adjusted in this version. Most likely HooBoy and Daddy are doing a little experimenting on us

 

I do disagree about the speed of the entire site. I have experienced a remarkable improvement since the server upgrade. In fact, for me the Message Center has never run so quickly.

[Michael]

I think that the problem is that the new software relies

very heavily on style sheets to get everything to look

right. If you are using an older browser that doesn't

support style sheets you are pretty much out of luck.

 

Even if you increase the font size things still won't

look right.

 

Whoever designed this stuff obviously decided that they

just didn't care about people like me who still use

Netscape 4.x browsers.