PDA

View Full Version : New forums theme discussion thread



Temüjin
May 17th, 2012, 11:04 PM
Thank you but I know how a LCD works.
I don't think you do, or you wouldn't claim that a 60Hz refresh rate causes seizures...

lisati
May 17th, 2012, 11:06 PM
I don't think bickering about the finer points of how LCD works is going to help TV much...... :D

Technoviking
May 17th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Well I do like a good LCD tussle :).

T-V

Technoviking
May 17th, 2012, 11:59 PM
Was asked to remove the Ubuntu-White theme by the Canonical design team.

Sorry, but I have stop work on that one anyways.

T-V

KiwiNZ
May 18th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Was asked to remove the Ubuntu-White theme by the Canonical design team.

Sorry, but I have stop work on that one anyways.

T-V

No probs.

DoubleClicker
May 18th, 2012, 04:44 AM
A about 4 hours ago I came to the site, and saw major improvements. I came back a few minutes ago, and those improvements are gone.

Thank God for Stylish!!!!!!

KiwiNZ
May 18th, 2012, 04:58 AM
A about 4 hours ago I came to the site, and saw major improvements. I came back a few minutes ago, and those improvements are gone.

Thank God for Stylish!!!!!!

it's a work in progress

wolfen69
May 18th, 2012, 05:55 AM
The way the forums work hasn't changed, so themes don't matter much to me. It's like changing your wallpaper. Meh.

But I appreciate any work done.

teejay17
May 18th, 2012, 11:15 AM
I think this has gone on long enough, if you find a problem, please create a bug report on bugs.launchpad.net (https://bugs.launchpad.net). Closed
oops...

philinux
May 18th, 2012, 12:18 PM
oops...

See post 370

Dngrsone
May 18th, 2012, 12:52 PM
People look at the page and see things that are disturbing them, but frequently they make the wrong assumptions about what is disturbing them. Several post say that white (255,255,255) is giving them a headache, but they should ask themselves does wikipedia or gogle give them a headache?

Yes.

There are some of use who truly do have issues with bright colors, overbright monitor screens (laptops that don't dim enough), et al.

For this particular forum, there is a workaround in the form of stylish and KISS. There are also dark stylish themes for both Google and Wikipedia; for which I am grateful.

There are other sites, forums, which do not have these workarounds, and which I can visit for only short amounts of time. So be it. If it means that much to me, then I will teach myself the rougher points of CSS and make my own workarounds, just as I have been trying to fix the Ubuntu themes on my laptop.

While it would be nice if designers were accommodating of my problem, I see no point in arguing about it when there is no resolution forthcoming.

Were I a moderator on these forums, this is is the point where I would warn the whiners to chill out, or face dire consequences.

Bandit
May 18th, 2012, 03:36 PM
People look at the page and see things that are disturbing them, but frequently they make the wrong assumptions about what is disturbing them. Several post say that white (255,255,255) is giving them a headache, but they should ask themselves does wikipedia or gogle give them a headache?

One problem with the site in it's current form, is that the white frame around posts draws your eyes to where you aren't intending to look, causing you to strain to read what's on the lower contrast light grey background.

The brightest part of the page, should be in the most text rich part of the page, which in the case of a forum, is the post area. This should be framed by a contrasting color to focus your eyes where they intend to be.

You make a valid point. Which is prob why Wikipedia (while still very white) doesnt bother me. Plus it just doesnt make good logic to have white boarders around a softer white text area.

del_diablo
May 18th, 2012, 04:38 PM
Steel needs a dark theme. Orange, white and black?

Technoviking
May 18th, 2012, 04:40 PM
Steel needs a dark theme. Orange, white and black?

I suggest using a stylish plugin style. This will be the only official look.

T-V

Frogs Hair
May 18th, 2012, 09:12 PM
I spoke too soon, I liked the theme a couple of hours ago . I will have to wait and see what the final looks like.

codingman
May 18th, 2012, 09:32 PM
I'm guessing I can't change the theme now because TV and ubuntu-geek are playing with the servers?

codingman
May 18th, 2012, 09:32 PM
i'm also constantly being switched from one berry to the other!

CharlesA
May 18th, 2012, 09:44 PM
I think it is an optical illusion - ;)
Could always verify with gimp.. ;)


i'm also constantly being switched from one berry to the other!

Those are the two db servers doing load balancing. Nothing to worry about. :)

codingman
May 18th, 2012, 09:52 PM
Those are the two db servers doing load balancing. Nothing to worry about. :)

I know but even when I'm just idle I get switched.

c@ssie
May 19th, 2012, 01:40 AM
I added this in stylish and it looks great:


@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml); (http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml%29;)
@-moz-document domain("ubuntuforums.org")
{
.tborder { background: #FFFEFD !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important; }
.tcat { background: #FFFEFD !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important; }
.alt1 { background: #FFFEFD !important; }
.alt2 { background: #F7F6F5 !important; }
.alt3 {background: #F7F6F5 !important;}
.alt4 {background: #CEC8C2 !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important;}

}

jtarin
May 19th, 2012, 05:12 AM
i added this in stylish and it looks great:


@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml); (http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml%29;)
@-moz-document domain("ubuntuforums.org")
{
.tborder { background: #fffefd !important; border: 1px solid #cec8c2 !important; }
.tcat { background: #fffefd !important; border: 1px solid #cec8c2 !important; }
.alt1 { background: #fffefd !important; }
.alt2 { background: #f7f6f5 !important; }
.alt3 {background: #f7f6f5 !important;}
.alt4 {background: #cec8c2 !important; border: 1px solid #cec8c2 !important;}

}

+1

Bandit
May 19th, 2012, 05:25 AM
+1


I added this in stylish and it looks great:


@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml); (http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml%29;)
@-moz-document domain("ubuntuforums.org")
{
.tborder { background: #FFFEFD !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important; }
.tcat { background: #FFFEFD !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important; }
.alt1 { background: #FFFEFD !important; }
.alt2 { background: #F7F6F5 !important; }
.alt3 {background: #F7F6F5 !important;}
.alt4 {background: #CEC8C2 !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important;}

}

Not bad.. I think it looks good, perhaps others can comment as well.

kansasnoob
May 19th, 2012, 11:20 AM
I don't know what to say :(

Right now the forum theme is back to being nearly unusable for me .............. and I can't really put my finger on exactly why that is.

I don't think it's a matter of the orange being too reddish or bright anymore, I honestly don't know what it is.

I can only say that after a fairly short time, maybe as little as 30 minutes, I feel like a bobble-head (like I'm nodding continually, but I'm not).

Then the headaches and nausea begin, and these are sometimes precursors to a seizure. I think I should know since I've suffered from seizures since I began recovering from Meningoencephalitis over 10 years ago ;)

I need to spend some more time completing a couple of Precise post-release tasks:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1966370

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1959675

But I can't do it with a forum theme that makes me ill :cry:

I'm not just some looky-loo that's out to cause trouble. I love Ubuntu and I find it ridiculous that we'd force a new forum theme with no other options while the proposed them is still in development!

Think about it! You're subjecting everyone to testing with no options to revert to a stable "release". I'd think that's much more in violation of "owner guidelines" than just color and such :mad:

Dngrsone
May 19th, 2012, 12:35 PM
I don't know what to say :(

Right now the forum theme is back to being nearly unusable for me .............. and I can't really put my finger on exactly why that is.


I suggest using one of the Stylish mods, then. At least until you get your problems solved.

vasa1
May 19th, 2012, 02:11 PM
I don't know what to say :(

Right now the forum theme is back to being nearly unusable for me .............. and I can't really put my finger on exactly why that is.


I suggest using one of the Stylish mods, then. At least until you get your problems solved.

There's also a "zap white backgrounds" bookmarklet. After a page is fully loaded, clicking on the bookmarklet runs a script that tones down the overall whiteness. But I don't think this thread should be about alternatives. People interested could have another thread on accessibility/visual issues, which are totally real, even if the majority of users don't face them.

codingman
May 19th, 2012, 02:23 PM
The first color of the Quote button is f25d29. The second button is dd4814.

Case closed. :)

Hey TV, can you fix this?

Where's ubuntu-white :cry:

Technoviking
May 19th, 2012, 02:40 PM
Hey TV, can you fix this?

Where's ubuntu-white :cry:

It was removed by request of the Canonical design team.

T-V

ajgreeny
May 19th, 2012, 08:55 PM
It was removed by request of the Canonical design team.

T-V
So does that mean that we get no options of any kind?

We have to use this red/orange theme and nothing else is available?

CharlesA
May 19th, 2012, 08:58 PM
So does that mean that we get no options of any kind?

We have to use this red/orange theme and nothing else is available?

The only option is to use the stylish plugin and changing the theme that way.

KiwiNZ
May 19th, 2012, 09:08 PM
Speaking as Mike Forum user and Not KiwiNZ Forum staff I do not understand or agree with Canonicals decision. It seems for me to be good customer service to allow members a choice, is choice not one of the leading paradigms of OSS . I do not believe it would damage Ubuntu branding etc to allow users to change theme. Maybe this could be added to the 50 bean rule.

CharlesA
May 19th, 2012, 09:12 PM
Speaking as Mike Forum user and Not KiwiNZ Forum staff I do not understand or agree with Canonicals decision. It seems for me to be good customer service to allow members a choice, is choice not one of the leading paradigms of OSS . I do not believe it would damage Ubuntu branding etc to allow users to change theme. Maybe this could be added to the 50 bean rule.
I feel that way as well, but I can understand the whole "branding" thing, but choice is good.

forrestcupp
May 19th, 2012, 09:15 PM
Speaking as Mike Forum user and Not KiwiNZ Forum staff I do not understand or agree with Canonicals decision. It seems for me to be good customer service to allow members a choice, is choice not one of the leading paradigms of OSS . I do not believe it would damage Ubuntu branding etc to allow users to change theme. Maybe this could be added to the 50 bean rule.

I agree with this. We should at least be able to have other themes and just not have "Ubuntu" in the name of the theme. Did Canonical actually come and ask for the official theme to be changed, or did T-V do this on his own initiative? If the latter is true, then why do they care about extra themes any more than they cared about the old theme before T-V started working on it?

KiwiNZ
May 19th, 2012, 09:18 PM
I feel that way as well, but I can understand the whole "branding" thing, but choice is good.

I have had years of commercial experience an it is not logical. Example Ford's corporate colour is blue, do they only allow blue cars?, GM down under corporate colour is red do they only allow red cars? No offering choice enhances the customer experience an encourages loyalty.

KiwiNZ
May 19th, 2012, 09:20 PM
I agree with this. We should at least be able to have other themes and just not have "Ubuntu" in the name of the theme. Did Canonical actually come and ask for the official theme to be changed, or did T-V do this on his own initiative? If the latter is true, then why do they care about extra themes any more than they cared about the old theme before T-V started working on it?

Our branding is dictated by Canonical, they are the Forum owners.

CharlesA
May 19th, 2012, 09:21 PM
I have had years of commercial experience an it is not logical. Example Ford's corporate colour is blue, do they only allow blue cars?, GM down under corporate colour is red do they only allow red cars? No offering choice enhances the customer experience an encourages loyalty.
Aye. I think the plan was to make all community sites look the same color wise, but I don't know why the choice of having different themes was squashed. If one theme is set to default, it doesn't matter what other choices people have.

Lisiano
May 19th, 2012, 09:23 PM
I also don't understand the reason why ubuntu-white was removed, I didn't use it but still, if you compare the Ubuntu forums to Ubuntu as an OS, you can still tell a person has Ubuntu, not by the colour scheme or the "Ubuntu xx.xx" being shown at boot. No, you see Ubuntu when you see Unity, when you see USC, the features, translated to the forums it would be the Community and Ubuntu based questions and discussions. But yes, as in the OS, a default forum colour scheme should exist, but limiting to what it can be and limiting the choice of alternative themes, is against what OSS stands for, like KiwiNZ said.
What is free software? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.

When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.

Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”.

/rant


I added this in stylish and it looks great:


@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml); (http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml%29;)
@-moz-document domain("ubuntuforums.org")
{
.tborder { background: #FFFEFD !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important; }
.tcat { background: #FFFEFD !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important; }
.alt1 { background: #FFFEFD !important; }
.alt2 { background: #F7F6F5 !important; }
.alt3 {background: #F7F6F5 !important;}
.alt4 {background: #CEC8C2 !important; border: 1px solid #CEC8C2 !important;}

}
Doesn't work for me or I'm doing it wrong, could anyone post a screenshot?

Artemis3
May 19th, 2012, 09:27 PM
There are other sites, forums, which do not have these workarounds, and which I can visit for only short amounts of time. So be it. If it means that much to me, then I will teach myself the rougher points of CSS and make my own workarounds, just as I have been trying to fix the Ubuntu themes on my laptop.

There are global styles, try "Midnight Surfing (http://userstyles.org/styles/23516/midnight-surfing-global-dark-style)" for example. When you use a global style, you have to turn off site specific styles.

A shame so many people don't care about accessibility; while i don't look for dark themes, i absolutely detest white backgrounds (same goes for desktop themes).

Canonical is committing a big mistake here by not allowing both bright and dark themes. The web standards are for accessibility first, looks second, remember that, always.

forrestcupp
May 19th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Our branding is dictated by Canonical, they are the Forum owners.

I understand that. I'm just wondering who at this time initiated this beta theme? When T-V started working on this, did he initiate it, or did they come and ask for it to be done?

Irihapeti
May 19th, 2012, 10:44 PM
I understand the need to have consistent branding, and that Canonical would need to keep tabs on that. However, a forum or other website isn't just a letter, piece of packaging or billboard that's just seen briefly. It's something that may be used for long periods of time at a stretch. Therefore, it should take usability/accessibility factors into account, but this aspect seems to have been overlooked.

Incidentally, a significant minority of the population are going to see the forums rather like this.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=218307&stc=1&d=1337463666



I wonder if that was taken into consideration when the design was done.

NOTE: I'm talking about the original colour choices, not Technoviking's work!

koenn
May 19th, 2012, 10:53 PM
Therefore, it should take usability/accessibility factors into account, but this aspect seems to have been overlooked.

Incidentally, a significant minority of the population are going to see the forums rather like this.
but that has got nothing to do with usability/accessibility, has it?

so where do you see usability/accessibility factors not taken into account ?

Lisiano
May 19th, 2012, 10:55 PM
but that has got nothing to do with usability/accessibility, has it?

so where do you see usability/accessibility factors not taken into account ?

Colour blindness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_blindness). Serious issue.
Also photophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia) which some people above have been talking about.

Irihapeti
May 19th, 2012, 10:58 PM
There have been replies on this thread about difficulty using the forums, and they are not being taken into account by the design team, who seem to be determined to use just the one design.

The screenshot has nothing to do with accessibility, I agree. It does show that you can only go so far anyway in imposing a uniform experience.

koenn
May 19th, 2012, 11:01 PM
Colour blindness. Serious issue.
I know Irihapeti was referring to red/green colour blindness.
My point is that seeing the site in green in stead of in orange doesn't make it any less usable and doesn't make any information on it less accessible.

Lisiano
May 19th, 2012, 11:04 PM
In accessibility it isn't a problem, in usability it looks like vomit (The green), so it is a problem.

Per say we aren't criticizing what Technoviking is doing, his work has had awesome progress in the last few days. We are criticizing Canonical for the, sorry, moronic decision to kill off ubuntu-white and alternate themes.

koenn
May 19th, 2012, 11:29 PM
In accessibility it isn't a problem, in usability it looks like vomit (The green), so it is a problem.

It may be a probnlem (otoh, I know people to whom that green is their favourite colour), but it's a matter of opinion / taste in colours, not a usability or accessibility problem.

An accessibility problem would be a hypotetical (and moronic) decision to use reddish fore-ground colours on greenish backgrounds. Or, equally moronic, having light-gray backgrounds with slightly darker grey text, in a small fixed-size font.

A usability problem would be a lack of clues as to what are clickable links and what is plain text. That's actually a bit of an issue in this theme.

koenn
May 20th, 2012, 12:28 AM
There have been replies on this thread about difficulty using the forums, and they are not being taken into account by the design team, who seem to be determined to use just the one design.

Yeah, hadn't seen those yet, I was still scanning the thread.
The accessibility issues mentioned have to do mostly with the brightness, or too much white in the wrong places, right ?
I wonder if it'd be so hard to fix that while still conforming to the approved color palette and other guidelines.



The screenshot has nothing to do with accessibility, I agree. It does show that you can only go so far anyway in imposing a uniform experience.
yep, especially in web design where most styling can be overridden client-side. Which is as it should be.

Temüjin
May 20th, 2012, 01:37 AM
I understand that. I'm just wondering who at this time initiated this beta theme? When T-V started working on this, did he initiate it, or did they come and ask for it to be done?

What difference does it make? BTW, I'm pretty sure T-V wouldn't change the forum theme just for the "fun" of it..

Dngrsone
May 20th, 2012, 12:25 PM
There are global styles, try "Midnight Surfing (http://userstyles.org/styles/23516/midnight-surfing-global-dark-style)" for example. When you use a global style, you have to turn off site specific styles.

A shame so many people don't care about accessibility; while i don't look for dark themes, i absolutely detest white backgrounds (same goes for desktop themes).

Canonical is committing a big mistake here by not allowing both bright and dark themes. The web standards are for accessibility first, looks second, remember that, always.

Thank you for that.

forrestcupp
May 20th, 2012, 12:32 PM
What difference does it make? BTW, I'm pretty sure T-V wouldn't change the forum theme just for the "fun" of it..

He may not change it for the "fun" of it, but he may change it because he thinks that it should follow standards. The difference it makes is that if Canonical didn't initiate this, and if Technoviking took his own initiative, then they shouldn't care about alternative themes any more than they did the old theme.

chili555
May 20th, 2012, 02:32 PM
The orange is a bit unsettling to me. Perhaps it's my inner Neanderthal, but I get the feeling there has been violence here and the blood hasn't quite dried! I certainly recognize that it matches other Ubuntu and Canonical themes, but I dislike not having the option to use a dropdown to select another theme such as 'boring' or 'calming.'

Options! I need options! That's one of the primary reasons I love Linux.

vasa1
May 20th, 2012, 03:15 PM
The orange is a bit unsettling to me. Perhaps it's my inner Neanderthal, but I get the feeling there has been violence here and the blood hasn't quite dried! I certainly recognize that it matches other Ubuntu and Canonical themes, but I dislike not having the option to use a dropdown to select another theme such as 'boring' or 'calming.'

Options! I need options! That's one of the primary reasons I love Linux.
Add the Stylish extension and visit userstyles.org or learn elementary css. That should help you for other sites as well.

Technoviking
May 20th, 2012, 05:55 PM
Loving the new theme, but like many here I'm definitely finding performance slow. Tried with both Chrome and Firefox on my desktop, and just Firefox on the missus' laptop. Takes an age to access the site and browse generally.

There were network issues on some Ubuntu server based in London this weekend, including the forums. Don't think the theme is slowing things down.

T-V

Technoviking
May 20th, 2012, 06:00 PM
He may not change it for the "fun" of it, but he may change it because he thinks that it should follow standards. The difference it makes is that if Canonical didn't initiate this, and if Technoviking took his own initiative, then they shouldn't care about alternative themes any more than they did the old theme.

Canonical asked for this two years, it has taken awhile to figure out the vB3 code. Canonical want one look to represent Ubuntu, so was asked to remove to old themes. Please don't think am doing this for S&Gs.

T-V

BigSilly
May 20th, 2012, 06:01 PM
There were network issues on some Ubuntu server based in London this weekend, including the forums. Don't think the theme is slowing things down.

T-V

No, 'course. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply for a minute that it was the theme causing it!

chili555
May 20th, 2012, 06:54 PM
Add the Stylish extension and visit userstyles.org or learn elementary css. That should help you for other sites as well.Got it; thanks!

forrestcupp
May 20th, 2012, 09:25 PM
Canonical asked for this two years, it has taken awhile to figure out the vB3 code. Canonical want one look to represent Ubuntu, so was asked to remove to old themes. Please don't think am doing this for S&Gs.

T-V

Gotcha. Thanks for your hard work.

Uncle Spellbinder
May 20th, 2012, 10:25 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

I've got a friend working on a code for the Stylish extension to enable the white look again. In my opinion, the choice between the current orange and white still reflect extremely well on Ununtu.

I'm quite shocked, in all honesty, that the Canonical design team can tell a user-help forum how to design a forum.

chili555
May 20th, 2012, 10:40 PM
I'm quite shocked, in all honesty, that the Canonical design team can tell a user-help forum how to design a forum.Indeed!

forrestcupp
May 20th, 2012, 10:45 PM
I'm quite shocked, in all honesty, that the Canonical design team can tell a user-help forum how to design a forum.

They own the forum. They can do whatever they want with it.

KiwiNZ
May 20th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

I've got a friend working on a code for the Stylish extension to enable the white look again. In my opinion, the choice between the current orange and white still reflect extremely well on Ununtu.

I'm quite shocked, in all honesty, that the Canonical design team can tell a user-help forum how to design a forum.

Ubuntu Forums is owned by Canonical Ltd and is the official ubuntu support Forum, therefore it required to meet the official corporate branding for ubuntu as directed by Canonical Ltd.

Uncle Spellbinder
May 21st, 2012, 12:00 AM
Ubuntu Forums is owned by Canonical Ltd and is the official ubuntu support Forum, therefore it required to meet the official corporate branding for ubuntu as directed by Canonical Ltd.

While I agree here (it is their forum), it's still a stupid decision on their part. And I don't use "stupid" lightly, it is STUPID.

The whole beauty of Ubuntu is choice. Choice to install (or not) proprietary drivers, choice to theme your install as you choose or leave it as-is, choice to install third party apps via PPAs or remain "pure" Ubuntu......


To eliminate the ability to choose between something easier on the eyes (for me anyway) is STUPID. The other version of the current theme was much more white but STILL RETAINED THE UBUNTU IDENTITY.

Canonical screwed the pooch on this decision. The elimination of choice is always bad. Especially when the other choice still conforms to the general Ubuntu look and feel.


Very disappointed with Canonical's lack of vision regarding this decision.

jtarin
May 21st, 2012, 12:11 AM
While I agree here (it is their forum), it's still a stupid decision on their part. And I don't use "stupid" lightly, it is STUPID.

The whole beauty of Ubuntu is choice. Choice to install (or not) proprietary drivers, choice to theme your install as you choose or leave it as-is, choice to install third party apps via PPAs or remain "pure" Ubuntu......


To eliminate the ability to choose between something easier on the eyes (for me anyway) is STUPID. The other version of the current theme was much more white but STILL RETAINED THE UBUNTU IDENTITY.

Canonical screwed the pooch on this decision. The elimination of choice is always bad. Especially when the other choice still conforms to the general Ubuntu look and feel.


Very disappointed with Canonical's lack of vision regarding this decision.

Ubuntu is about "Humanity"....and Humanity is by and large "Stupid" sometimes. It's a fact we must accept.
It is about choice...I agree whole-heartedly.....just not yours or mine.:p

CharlesA
May 21st, 2012, 12:14 AM
Time for a more practical note: I'm currently at work using a machine running IE 9 on Win 7, not sure what addons are installed, and haven't figured out screenshots on this machine. The Search box, text and button seem to be a little low on the top banner, with the lower half of the word "Search" (and corresponding parts of the bos and button) off the bottom of the banner. I noticed a similar effect on another machine running XP (IE version unknown)
Hit Print screen and dump it into mspaint:

Hit start and type in mspaint. :p

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 12:28 AM
Ubuntu is about "Humanity"....and Humanity is by and large "Stupid" sometimes. It's a fact we must accept.
It is about choice...I agree whole-heartedly.....just not yours or mine.:p

Why would software freedom equate to freedom to change Corporate image ?

Lemuriano
May 21st, 2012, 01:07 AM
Hi,

Canonical own the Ubuntu forum and Ubuntu is a register trademark also own by Canonical Ltd.

Where is the community on this big corporate equation?

Regards.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 01:14 AM
Hi,

Canonical own the Ubuntu forum and Ubuntu is a register trademark also own by Canonical Ltd.

Where is the community on this big corporate equation?

Regards.

Software

Uncle Spellbinder
May 21st, 2012, 02:27 AM
Why would software freedom equate to freedom to change Corporate image ?

Change the corporate image? You're kidding, right?

Giving the forum member the ability to change to white while retaining all Ubuntu logos and branding is changing the corporate image????

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 02:30 AM
Change the corporate image? You're kidding, right?

Giving the forum member the ability to change to white while retaining all Ubuntu logos and branding is changing the corporate image????

Continuity of design and image is a marketing basic. If you wish to have a different look on your own PC there are alternatives available to you.

Uncle Spellbinder
May 21st, 2012, 03:04 AM
Continuity of design and image is a marketing basic. If you wish to have a different look on your own PC there are alternatives available to you.

Your signature does not conform to the new Ubuntu branding and color scheme. Being a member of the forum staff (thus a representative of Canonical ©), I'd urge you to change it to the currently accepted design, font and color scheme ASAP.

vasa1
May 21st, 2012, 03:12 AM
Hit Print screen and dump it into mspaint:

Hit start and type in mspaint. :p

What about the snipping tool found by pressing the "super" key in Windows 7?

lisati
May 21st, 2012, 03:36 AM
Hit Print screen and dump it into mspaint:

Hit start and type in mspaint. :p

For a moment I forgot I had Vista with IE9 at home. I was able to reproduce the effect I was seeing, attached.

CharlesA
May 21st, 2012, 03:56 AM
What about the snipping tool found by pressing the "super" key in Windows 7?
I always use paint when on a Windows box. :lolflag:

lisati
May 21st, 2012, 04:01 AM
I always use paint when on a Windows box. :lolflag:

I very rarely use IE at home, but have no choice at work. I think this is the first time I've actually had a use for mspaint in something like 12 years of using Windows.

cariboo907
May 21st, 2012, 04:33 AM
Even though Canonical owns the domain name, and the servers the forum runs on, they pretty well leave us to run the forum as we see fit. If anything we are frustrated with the lack of communication with Canonical.

Only recently has there been someone from Canonical actually assigned as the "owner" of the forum, otherwise, not much else has changed.

jtarin
May 21st, 2012, 05:07 AM
Continuity of design and image is a marketing basic.Remember "Classic Coke"?

CharlesA
May 21st, 2012, 05:12 AM
Remember "Classic Coke"?
You mean the one that is still around?

vasa1
May 21st, 2012, 07:11 AM
I always use paint when on a Windows box. :lolflag:
The snipping tool is not a replacement for paint. It is for grabbing a screenshot and cropping the desired area and saving the result as a png file (or other format) so that it can then be used in paint or other program.

Edit: it's used instead of "Hit Print screen and dump it into mspaint:"

jtarin
May 21st, 2012, 10:13 AM
You mean the one that is still around?And why is it still around??? Because people didn't like change, so they were given a choice.New or Classic. Coke didn't hardline their marketing.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 10:22 AM
Remember "Classic Coke"?

Not sure what you mean?

Bandit
May 21st, 2012, 11:20 AM
And why is it still around??? Because people didn't like change, so they were given a choice.New or Classic. Coke didn't hardline their marketing.

Actually they did. They switched formulas and the public got upset by it. So they changed back to the older formula and renamed it Coke Classic. But that has nothing to do with the forum colors, the only way that analogy would fit is if we switched the kernel to a BSD one or something. Crying over the looks isnt going to do anything but excite rage within everyone. A productive and suggestive post can do more with getting something changed. Mike (T-V) is doing the best he can and please give him time. He is only doing what he is told to do. I am sure we will eventually be given the option for alternate themes, but QQing isnt productive in the IT industry.

- Joe

hakermania
May 21st, 2012, 11:41 AM
I like very much the new theme. It was quite unexpected, because the old thread talking about this wasn't active the last months :) !

jtarin
May 21st, 2012, 12:27 PM
Actually they did. They switched formulas and the public got upset by it. So they changed back to the older formula and renamed it Coke Classic. But that has nothing to do with the forum colors, the only way that analogy would fit is if we switched the kernel to a BSD one or something. Crying over the looks isnt going to do anything but excite rage within everyone. A productive and suggestive post can do more with getting something changed. Mike (T-V) is doing the best he can and please give him time. He is only doing what he is told to do. I am sure we will eventually be given the option for alternate themes, but QQing isnt productive in the IT industry.

- JoeWho's crying?:p An analogy doesn't amount to tears from where I stand. It's to do about marketing...which was alluded to in an earlier post.

After 24 years, one of the most famous blunders in marketing history is quietly coming to end. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/business/media/31coke.html)
Let's not blunder here. Give people what they want...AND...retain branding.

*note last line of my sig

Temüjin
May 21st, 2012, 12:50 PM
I am sure we will eventually be given the option for alternate themes

Actually, I remember a recent post in this thread where T-V said there would be no alternate themes (too lazy to dig it up) by decision of Canonical. As noted, users are on their own (using Stylish or making their own themes).

Lynceus
May 21st, 2012, 03:08 PM
I'm a new member so i haven't had the chance to see the old theme.
But i love the look of this site :P

kansasnoob
May 21st, 2012, 04:57 PM
Re-opening thread.

I have removed the cruft since the last time the thread was closed. This thread is to be used for constructive criticism only.

All discussions on marketing, branding, canonical decisions, coke, refresh rates etc please use the link below.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1984188

Any that go in here will be removed.

Totally understandable :)

I'm wondering if it would be acceptable, or even wise, to begin a new thread where those who either need or desire something different could share their tweaks?

If I were to begin such a thread I'd probably just name it "Share your forum theme tweaks here", then begin by saying something like:

This thread is only for sharing Ubuntu Forum theme variations and tweaks, not for approval or criticism of any specific official or unofficial forum theme.

Constructive suggestions regarding the official forum theme should be posted here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1977943

Actual Forum Theme bugs should be reported as described here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11936681&postcount=238

If the bug truly effects accessibility you should add the "a11y" tag to the bug report.

General complaints and whining belong here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1984188

Then I'd begin with a link to using Stylish and my own screenshot:

218400

What do you mods think?

Such a thread might help quell the kerfuffle ;)

|{urse
May 21st, 2012, 05:05 PM
Too bad Canonical claims purple as their thing, it would compliment this theme well. I've been gone a few days and just saw all the updates and changes tv has changed, lookin rad, dude.

kansasnoob
May 21st, 2012, 05:34 PM
Just thought to add a question, but not a true edit to my previous post :-k

Since a lot of what's effecting the forum theme, particularly the elimination of the ubuntu-white theme, is coming from the design team I wonder what the proper way is to assign them to an accessibility bug report :confused:

Let me try to explain my thinking :)

I'd long been a member of the Ayatana team which has now basically morphed into unity-design, but I did fight a few battles .......... some I won, some I lost. Two examples:

#1: I truly dislike the hidden boot option menu in the live iso and when it was first introduced I tried to get it reverted but I lost that battle.

#2: When they totally rebuilt ubiquity in Maverick they left out the ability to change the hostname/computer name during installation and I won that battle ........ SABDFL even got involved :)

BTW; if requested I will dig up the documentation.

So, my point is, sometimes it's possible to change any "teams" decision - no matter how powerful they seem to be. Not always, but sometimes.

So what's the proper way to assign a bug to the design team so they can see the mess they've created :confused:

nothingspecial
May 21st, 2012, 05:48 PM
Totally understandable :)

I'm wondering if it would be acceptable, or even wise, to begin a new thread where those who either need or desire something different could share their tweaks?

If I were to begin such a thread I'd probably just name it "Share your forum theme tweaks here", then begin by saying something like:

This thread is only for sharing Ubuntu Forum theme variations and tweaks, not for approval or criticism of any specific official or unofficial forum theme.

Constructive suggestions regarding the official forum theme should be posted here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1977943

Actual Forum Theme bugs should be reported as described here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11936681&postcount=238

If the bug truly effects accessibility you should add the "a11y" tag to the bug report.

General complaints and whining belong here:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1984188

Then I'd begin with a link to using Stylish and my own screenshot:

218400

What do you mods think?

Such a thread might help quell the kerfuffle ;)

It may well do, but in the mean time can we keep anything that isn't feedback on the theme itself, in this thread please :)

codingman
May 21st, 2012, 09:51 PM
Gee... never knew color palettes went this far

Lynceus
May 21st, 2012, 10:04 PM
No aubergine plz

forrestcupp
May 21st, 2012, 10:10 PM
I kind of think that as picky as they're being about some things, maybe the whole retheming of this forum needs to be assigned to the design team. If it's that hard to make them happy, just let them do it.

KiwiNZ
May 21st, 2012, 10:14 PM
No aubergine plz

wish granted;-)

koenn
May 21st, 2012, 10:55 PM
That's too bad T-V... It would have been nicer with a little aubergine. I also thought you were allowed to use a little aubergine, ...

I think the underlying idea is that on a community site, thus mainly orange, yo can have aubergine highlights to point to Canonical stuff, e.g. a new official Ubuntu release, official documentation, ...

The idea is that when you see orange, you think 'ubuntu commmunity', when you see aubergine, you think 'Canonical'. mixing them gratuitously would undermine that effect.

rai4shu2
May 21st, 2012, 11:51 PM
Like the ancient Romans, no?

Bandit
May 22nd, 2012, 03:40 AM
I kind of think that as picky as they're being about some things, maybe the whole retheming of this forum needs to be assigned to the design team. If it's that hard to make them happy, just let them do it.

Yea Mike has more patience then me. My superiority complex would have set in by now, followed by rage, a lengthy nasty gram I prob would regret and some alcohol consumption. :guitar:

Merk42
May 22nd, 2012, 03:45 PM
Why would software freedom equate to freedom to change Corporate image ?
Entitlement complex.


For a moment I forgot I had Vista with IE9 at home. I was able to reproduce the effect I was seeing, attached.This is because IE is rendering in IE7 mode (even if you have IE9) and thus the additional padding around the header isn't being applied.



All these <table> and <tr> make me sad. Hopefully vBulletin 4 has less of those and more named semantic elements when we switch to it some time in 2015.

samigina
May 22nd, 2012, 04:18 PM
What about a mobile versión?

Technoviking
May 22nd, 2012, 04:53 PM
What about a mobile versión?

It is built into vB4, so hopefully some time in the future.

T-V

KiwiNZ
May 22nd, 2012, 10:20 PM
For a break from orange :p:p:evil:

<--------------<<<<

c@ssie
May 22nd, 2012, 11:16 PM
For a break from orange :p:p:evil:

<--------------<<<<
Awsome Avatar!!!!!!!!!! please keep it

VinDSL
May 24th, 2012, 02:12 AM
Good job, Technoviking!

Orange is V hard colour to work with...

Ubuntu 12.10
Opera Next - OK ;)



http://vindsl.com/images/vindsl-desktop-23-may-2012-2(650x520).png (http://vindsl.com/images/vindsl-desktop-23-may-2012-2.png)

Dngrsone
May 24th, 2012, 04:08 AM
Good job, Technoviking!

Orange is V hard colour to work with...

Ubuntu 12.10
Opera Next - OK ;)



http://vindsl.com/images/vindsl-desktop-23-may-2012-2(650x520).png (http://vindsl.com/images/vindsl-desktop-23-may-2012-2.png)

What is that side panel you have there?

rk0r
May 24th, 2012, 04:18 AM
I notice that the ubuntu forum website colours reminds me of the DVLA website to tax your car ... direct.gov.uk

eeek,

CharlesA
May 24th, 2012, 04:26 AM
What is that side panel you have there?
That be Conky.

VinDSL
May 24th, 2012, 04:57 AM
What is that side panel you have there?


That be Conky.
And, there's a HOWTO in my sig (if you're interested).

You can choose any colours you wish... I just happen to like orange. ;)

Dngrsone
May 24th, 2012, 02:22 PM
And, there's a HOWTO in my sig (if you're interested).

You can choose any colours you wish... I just happen to like orange. ;)

Thanks!

Technoviking
May 24th, 2012, 04:31 PM
Be sure to clear cookies and cache if you are having weird issue with the Forums. People are reporting issues I can not duplicate.

T-V

Technoviking
May 24th, 2012, 05:34 PM
Ok, switched over the navbar and got rid of the orange on it (more within the design guidelines). Hopefully it should help with the re-sizing error people were having, since it is only one bar now instead of 5.

Thoughts?

T-V

PaulW2U
May 24th, 2012, 05:59 PM
Ok, switched over the navbar and got rid of the orange on it (more within the design guidelines).

Looks very good but most of the 'Search' menu has gone. :(

VinDSL
May 24th, 2012, 05:59 PM
Ok, switched over the navbar and got rid of the orange [...]

Thoughts?
Delicious! :KS

VinDSL
May 24th, 2012, 06:03 PM
Be sure to clear cookies and cache if you are having weird issue with the Forums. People are reporting issues I can not duplicate.
I set my browser(s) to delete all cookies, cache, et cetera (everything, except saved passwords) when I "close" them.

You would not believe how many problems are [SOLVED] by doing this... here & elsewhere. ;)

Technoviking
May 24th, 2012, 06:11 PM
Looks very good but most of the 'Search' menu has gone. :(

You can get most of that via advanced search, but I can see what I can do.

T-V

raja.genupula
May 24th, 2012, 06:13 PM
Hi the search option gone , i cant list my posts and my threads from search option .

PaulW2U
May 24th, 2012, 06:26 PM
You can get most of that via advanced search, but I can see what I can do.

Menu now restored, thank you!

raja.genupula
May 24th, 2012, 06:31 PM
You can get most of that via advanced search, but I can see what I can do.

T-V
Thanks man , its fine now :) :) :)

Retlol
July 1st, 2012, 09:05 AM
Win Xp Chrome:

http://i49.tinypic.com/4igcvm.png (http://i48.tinypic.com/2hykm6t.png)

Win Xp Firefox:

http://i46.tinypic.com/34t4lsw.png (http://i50.tinypic.com/m8cvaa.png)

Click for full resolution.

The website is unusable in Chrome.

CharlesA
July 1st, 2012, 11:50 AM
Define "unusable." I was able to access it fine from Firefox/Opera/Chrome on XP/7.

Check your browser plugins.

screaminj3sus
July 2nd, 2012, 03:48 AM
The new theme is beautiful, a much needed overhaul.

Retlol
July 2nd, 2012, 01:03 PM
Define "unusable." I was able to access it fine from Firefox/Opera/Chrome on XP/7.

Check your browser plugins.

The font makes it unusable. Besides flash player and adblock, no add ons.

CharlesA
July 2nd, 2012, 02:54 PM
The font makes it unusable. Besides flash player and adblock, no add ons.
It should be using webfonts now. Firefox looks right, but it looks like Chrome is not using the webfonts.

Looks like it is a bug with the way Chrome for Windows displays fonts.

https://plus.google.com/118153417237614725639/posts/LRdM7QtTzop
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/oXILHkVG75M

I tested it on an XP VM and the text looks terrible. One of the above pages said it is "fixed" by adding a shadow to the font.

EDIT: Try installing the Ubuntu font from here:
http://font.ubuntu.com/

forrestcupp
July 2nd, 2012, 05:45 PM
I just did a clean installation of Windows 7 a couple of days ago. When I loaded up the forums in Firefox, it was absolutely horrible looking. I should have taken a screen shot.

After I went to ubuntu.com and installed the Ubuntu Fonts, it was back to normal. It would probably be good if you could either use standard fonts, or figure out how to get them embedded in the web site in such a way that works.

Retlol
July 2nd, 2012, 05:57 PM
It should be using webfonts now. Firefox looks right, but it looks like Chrome is not using the webfonts.

Looks like it is a bug with the way Chrome for Windows displays fonts.

https://plus.google.com/118153417237614725639/posts/LRdM7QtTzop
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/oXILHkVG75M

I tested it on an XP VM and the text looks terrible. One of the above pages said it is "fixed" by adding a shadow to the font.

EDIT: Try installing the Ubuntu font from here:
http://font.ubuntu.com/


Still displays the messed up font. Installing fonts to make a website work isn't an option for me.

CharlesA
July 2nd, 2012, 07:09 PM
I just did a clean installation of Windows 7 a couple of days ago. When I loaded up the forums in Firefox, it was absolutely horrible looking. I should have taken a screen shot.

After I went to ubuntu.com and installed the Ubuntu Fonts, it was back to normal. It would probably be good if you could either use standard fonts, or figure out how to get them embedded in the web site in such a way that works.

It looks fine for me in Firefox on both Win7 and XP without the Ubuntu font installed. *shrugs*


Still displays the messed up font. Installing fonts to make a website work isn't an option for me.

Then use Firefox instead of Chrome, if Firefox is the one where the fonts are readable.

VinDSL
July 2nd, 2012, 08:10 PM
Then use Firefox instead of Chrome, if Firefox is the one where the fonts are readable.
LoL! :D


From Gray's Anatomy:


Q: Why must we constantly hit ourselves over the head with a hammer?

A: Because it feels so good when we stop.

rai4shu2
July 2nd, 2012, 09:46 PM
Installing fonts to make a website work isn't an option for me.

What form of hell inflicts this restriction on people? Seriously. That is something I'm having trouble picturing.

forrestcupp
July 3rd, 2012, 01:30 AM
What form of hell inflicts this restriction on people? Seriously. That is something I'm having trouble picturing.

It's not a big deal to most people to install a font, but what about all of the Windows users who come here to figure out how to install Ubuntu or even if they want to, and they don't have any idea that they even need to install a font to view the forum properly? It's pretty ridiculous to expect people to install a font for the web site to not look like crap. First impressions mean a lot.

But since the guy in charge didn't have that problem in Windows 7, it's not going to get changed, even though other people have had problems.

VinDSL
July 3rd, 2012, 02:15 AM
It's not a big deal to most people to install a font, but what about all of the Windows users [...]
Hrm...

While reading your post, I had a Déjà vu.

Back in the last century, when I ran winders, surfing the web would drive me crazy, because most language packs weren't installed by default - only the language packs for my locale.

Soooo, I would spend hours (on new installs) finding and installing every language pack I could find. If I did not do this, many "foreign" sites looked as the OP described.

The point is: Since some MS users are having problems, but not others, could it be a "language" problem, not a font problem?!?!?

That would explain why installing the Ubu fonts made no difference, yes?

Just saying... ;)

vasa1
July 3rd, 2012, 03:32 AM
...
But since the guy in charge didn't have that problem in Windows 7, it's not going to get changed, even though other people have had problems.

It would be a pity to lose viewers because of a font issue. Let's hope things are fixed.

Retlol
July 3rd, 2012, 06:41 AM
It looks fine for me in Firefox on both Win7 and XP without the Ubuntu font installed. *shrugs*



Then use Firefox instead of Chrome, if Firefox is the one where the fonts are readable.


This is the site feedback thread, yes?

The site doesn't work properly on XP/Chrome on a lot of setups. I'm just reporting it. Installing a font to make a website work doesn't make this site nor the distribution look good.

I'm sure I don't need to paint the picture where someone on an old XP box with Chrome comes here for info on Ubuntu and sees the font mess. That's someone who won't be using Ubuntu. I guess I painted that picture anyway.

Some people seem to think it's normal to install a font to use a website? I don't even ...

Retlol
July 3rd, 2012, 06:43 AM
What form of hell inflicts this restriction on people? Seriously. That is something I'm having trouble picturing.

You don't understand why I will not install a font on my pc to make 1 website look normal?

The issue isn't on my end, it's on the websites end.

rai4shu2
July 3rd, 2012, 07:26 AM
Okay, so it's your choice to not install fonts? Since when do people actually do that? I always have (and had for the past ten years) many MBs of fonts installed. I can't remember anyone who was satisfied with the default set of fonts.

catlover2
July 3rd, 2012, 07:40 AM
Yes, but just suppose some Windows XP/Chrome user that barely knows how to change their desktop background (let alone how to install a font) comes here and finds that they have to install some font just to look at the website. That's not exactly an ideal first look at Linux/Ubuntu.

VinDSL
July 3rd, 2012, 12:27 PM
Heh! Now, I must look at this site from work. I'll use a portable version of Chrome.

They are still running untouched WinXP Pro workstations -- no extra fonts -- no nothing, but tons of security/virus db updates.

If these forums look okay on their machines... Well, let's just wait n' see.

BBL

coffeecat
July 3rd, 2012, 12:36 PM
A clarification. If you look through the New Forum Feedback (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1977943) thread you'll see that Technoviking has embedded the Ubuntu font family, so it *should* be unnecessary to install the Ubuntu font locally. However, there do seem to be reports of varying experience of the quality of font-rendering in Windows. If this is to be investigated properly, Technoviking will need informed, constructive and complete information to work on. A recent trollish post, which was entirely unhelpful, has been removed.

If anyone who is experiencing poor font rendering in this site with Windows wishes to help by looking into this further, please post to the thread linked above, and give the following details:


Which version of Windows you are using
Which browser you are using.
Whether you have antialiasing/cleartype enabled.
Whether you have the Ubuntu font family installed locally. Indeed, it would be helpful if people could test the forum both with the Ubuntu font not installed locally and installed to see if there is a difference.


In the meantime - this thread is closed for staff review.

Re-opened. Site rendering feedback problems in the other thread please. Discussion about the new look here, but please keep it constructive.

VinDSL
July 3rd, 2012, 09:21 PM
Heh! Now, I must look at this site from work. I'll use a portable version of Chrome.

They are still running untouched WinXP Pro workstations -- no extra fonts -- no nothing, but tons of security/virus db updates.

If these forums look okay on their machines... Well, let's just wait n' see.

BBL

Sorry! Looks bad, here at work...


If anyone who is experiencing poor font rendering in this site with Windows wishes to help by looking into this further, please post to the thread linked above, and give the following details:


Which version of Windows you are using
Which browser you are using.
Whether you have antialiasing/cleartype enabled.
Whether you have the Ubuntu font family installed locally. Indeed, it would be helpful if people could test the forum both with the Ubuntu font not installed locally and installed to see if there is a difference.


In the meantime - this thread is closed for staff review.

Re-opened. Site rendering feedback problems in the other thread please. Discussion about the new look here, but please keep it constructive.


WinXP Pro
Google Chrome 13
Cannot remember how to check antialiasing/cleartype in winders
Ubuntu fonts not installed
This is a workstation @ my workplace -- not going to install anything :D


I'll copy n' paste this to the other thread, when I get home... ;)

CharlesA
July 3rd, 2012, 10:11 PM
You can check to see if clear type is enabled by going to display properties > Appearance > effects

VinDSL
July 4th, 2012, 12:31 AM
You can check to see if clear type is enabled by going to display properties > Appearance > effects
Heh!


I was on a 10 minute break.
Takes 2-3 minutes to login (it's winders, you know?) :)
I searched the display properties for 2-3 minutes, but it's a Dell. Proprietary menu. Couldn't find it.
A minute or two typing the reply, and I had to get back to work.


Anyway, the display looked like the screenie on the last page.

Actually, I kind of liked it. It looked like the fonts were made out of sticks, like a thatched hut in the African plains... real earthy looking.

It was still readable, but it looked like somebody was trying to be cute, like my coworkers that send me mails in Comic Sans or whatever.

CharlesA
July 4th, 2012, 12:48 AM
Gotcha. It shouldn't matter what brand the PC is, unless they locked the display settings down. :p