Page design [Was: Beginner's All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code - Still?]

[Ext User(Phred)]

In article <1174556359.647350.297300@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>, "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 1:39 am, "Eric" <englere_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have a favor to ask. Could you kindly change the background image on
>> your site to something more mellow that doesn't clash with the text? I
>> find it difficult to read the text.

>If you find the background distracting, you can switch it off (in
>Internet Explorer) using 'Tools... Internet Options... General...
>Accessibility... Ignore colors specified on web pages' (then click on
>OK).

G'day Richard,

I have to say I'm in sympathy with Eric on this one.
Why expect the *reader* to have to correct defects in page design?

>You might also want to check your monitor adjustments (contrast
>and brightness) because the background 'watermark' is designed not to
>be distracting with correct settings.

Perhaps "not to be *too* distracting" would be closer to the mark?

I don't understand why people go to the trouble of writing stuff, then
assume no one will really want to read it "so better make the page
at least look pretty".

Many modern magazines have adopted the same approach, to the extent
that much of their stuff is completely unreadable. Mind you, in
that case their position is probably justifiable in that much of their
content is not worth reading anyway -- mostly "reviews" plagiarised
directly from advertising blurb; and editorial material full of
garbled facts, incomplete sentences, and redundant paragraphs.


Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

[Ext User(news@rtrussell.co.uk)]

On Mar 22, 11:28 am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:
> I have to say I'm in sympathy with Eric on this one.
> Why expect the *reader* to have to correct defects in page design?

Of course the reader should not have to correct defects in the page
design but it is not unreasonable for him to have to correct for
defects in his eyesight or monitor settings. I worked in the
television industry for many years and my page background is of an
amplitude that should not cause problems. Certainly in 8 years and
87000 visitors to the site I have only ever had two comments of that
sort, and on the contrary I have had very many complimentary remarks
about my site's design. Incidentally the background is not intended
to make the pages 'pretty' but to act as a watermark.

Some LCD monitors have characteristics which are a poor match to those
of a CRT (in respect of gamma etc.) so it's possible that the
background is being displayed at a higher contrast than intended. Are
you viewing on an LCD or CRT? I'm pleased to say I'm still using a
CRT display on my PC!

Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

[Ext User(Happy Trails)]

On 22 Mar 2007 07:59:40 -0700, "news@rtrussell.co.uk"
<news@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:

Richard.

I was prompted by this thread to have a look at your web pages. I'm
afraid I have to agree that your pages are a pain in the eye to read.
All the little wavelets/sharksfins/whatever, are very distracting on
just about every line on the page.

If you worked in TV you must know that communicating is everything.

The message you are communicating her is "You are going to have to
slow down your reading rate and squint a lot to read my pages".

I didn't bother. Typing this a few minutes later, I can recall
nothing at all on that page or your site

And my IEX and monitor - not to mention my eyes - are all tuned
perfectly.

Sorry.

Watermarks are for security.

If you feel you need security on your pages, I strongly suggest you
get it in some other less visually offensive way.

- Tom

[Ext User(Eric)]

On Mar 22, 3:12 pm, Happy Trails <nom...@myplace.com> wrote:

> Watermarks are for security.
>
> If you feel you need security on your pages, I strongly suggest you
> get it in some other less visually offensive way.

Exactly. I think there's merit in having "reasonable" protections on
commercial programs, but I doubt if there's any content on the actual
web pages that needs protecting?

The web pages are supposed to be a teaser that entices people to try
the software. They should be visually and technically appealing. Well,
we don't expect "visually appealing" to mean that you need to hire a
high-end graphics artist, but at least it shouldn't hurt a reader's
eyes.

It's true that my eyes are aging, but perhaps many of your potential
users also suffer from the "aging eyes" syndrome?

Eric

[Ext User(Phred)]

In article <1174575580.760015.65000@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.c om>, "news@rtrussell.co.uk" <news@rtrussell.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mar 22, 11:28 am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:
>> I have to say I'm in sympathy with Eric on this one.
>> Why expect the *reader* to have to correct defects in page design?
>
>Of course the reader should not have to correct defects in the page
>design but it is not unreasonable for him to have to correct for
>defects in his eyesight or monitor settings. I worked in the

I admit my eyesight is no longer perfect, but I don't need glasses to
read text on computer monitors. I have no trouble reading most text
on a plain background with adequate contrast. (Idiots who use black
on dark blue may as well not bother saying anything; similarly for
those inclined to writing in yellow on white.)

Where there is absolutely no *need* for a textured background, why use
it? And I can't think of any *need* for such "camouflage" for any
written material people are expected to read easily and understand.

>television industry for many years and my page background is of an
>amplitude that should not cause problems. Certainly in 8 years and
>87000 visitors to the site I have only ever had two comments of that
>sort, and on the contrary I have had very many complimentary remarks

You know how dolphins have a reputation for rescuing people in trouble
at sea by guiding them back to shore? Do you ever hear from the
people that the dolphins took further out to sea?

>about my site's design. Incidentally the background is not intended
>to make the pages 'pretty' but to act as a watermark.

Now I'm really curious. What part of your promotional material for
BBC BASIC don't you want readers to "steal" and pass on to others?

>Some LCD monitors have characteristics which are a poor match to those
>of a CRT (in respect of gamma etc.) so it's possible that the
>background is being displayed at a higher contrast than intended. Are
>you viewing on an LCD or CRT? I'm pleased to say I'm still using a
>CRT display on my PC!

I happy to hear you're still in the party! (Of course, some may see
that as being as antediluvian as continuing to program in BASIC. ;-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID

[Ext User(winston19842005@yahoo.com)]

On Mar 23, 10:10 am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:

>
> I admit my eyesight is no longer perfect, but I don't need glasses to
> read text on computer monitors. I have no trouble reading most text
> on a plain background with adequate contrast. (Idiots who use black
> on dark blue may as well not bother saying anything; similarly for
> those inclined to writing in yellow on white.)
>

When I was with EDS, more than once they did a Powerpoint presentation
with the text in light yellow on the white background...

[Ext User(Happy Trails)]

On 23 Mar 2007 07:15:08 -0700, "winston19842005@yahoo.com"
<winston19842005@yahoo.com> wrote:

>When I was with EDS, more than once they did a Powerpoint presentation
>with the text in light yellow on the white background...
>

Don't tell me - let me guess - that was during the GM ownership era,
right?

What I find even much more sensually distracting, to the point of
rendering something completely useless, is that effect of playing
background music on a "multimedia" training course.

My wife, who grew up in a shack in the Philippines with a house full
of siblings watching TV all day with the sound turned up full blast,
isn't bothered by stuff like that at all!

I suppose I could train my brain to tune it out, but I usually just
walk out of the course instead.

[Ext User(Eric)]

On Mar 23, 10:15 am, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"
<winston19842...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> When I was with EDS, more than once they did a Powerpoint presentation
> with the text in light yellow on the white background...

Maybe that's why Ross Perot was never president?

He did like those charts, though: "I've summarized the entire problems
of the world on these 2 charts..."

Eric

[Ext User(H-Man)]

On 22 Mar 2007 07:59:40 -0700, news@rtrussell.co.uk wrote:

> On Mar 22, 11:28 am, ppnerkDELETET...@yahoo.com (Phred) wrote:
>> I have to say I'm in sympathy with Eric on this one.
>> Why expect the *reader* to have to correct defects in page design?
>
> Of course the reader should not have to correct defects in the page
> design but it is not unreasonable for him to have to correct for
> defects in his eyesight or monitor settings. I worked in the
> television industry for many years and my page background is of an
> amplitude that should not cause problems. Certainly in 8 years and
> 87000 visitors to the site I have only ever had two comments of that
> sort, and on the contrary I have had very many complimentary remarks
> about my site's design. Incidentally the background is not intended
> to make the pages 'pretty' but to act as a watermark.
>
> Some LCD monitors have characteristics which are a poor match to those
> of a CRT (in respect of gamma etc.) so it's possible that the
> background is being displayed at a higher contrast than intended. Are
> you viewing on an LCD or CRT? I'm pleased to say I'm still using a
> CRT display on my PC!
>
> Richard.
> http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
> To reply by email change 'news' to my forename.

Looks fine to me on either LCD or CRT.
No complaints here, I kinda like it.

--
HK