The Adblock Project Forum Index The Adblock Project
Pull up a seat ...stay a while.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Adblock website (aka "Feature request: readable website

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Makali



Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005    Post subject: Adblock website (aka "Feature request: readable website Reply with quote

Sorry this isn't about adblock per se, but the adBlock website on MozDev is virtually unreadable super-pale grey on white at every possible level of brightness on both my powerbook's LCD panel, and my housemate's thinkpad. Even the screenshot seems washed-out. Am I the only one suffering from this? I really have to squint to be able to read the titles. #E3E3E3 is just way too pale against #FFFFFF. Please fix it so half-blind geeks like me can read it?

Many thanks for the great extension, at least Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

you're not the first to mention this:

The Adblock Project :: View topic - Home Page Font Contrast
The Adblock Project :: View topic - The Grey Look
The Adblock Project :: View topic - Site Contrast
The Adblock Project :: View topic - Please change the font color on the Adblock website.
The Adblock Project :: View topic - Adblock Extension Website is Difficult to Read
The Adblock Project :: View topic - home site is almost unreadable
The Adblock Project :: View topic - PLEASE I beg you, change the front page style
The Adblock Project :: View topic - Light grey on white is almost unreadable
_________________
• Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcm_ham



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, now that you are a moderator you could always sticky a FAQ at the top of the forum Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

hmmm ... I don't know if I was given that ability -- I was asked to patrol spam, so that's all I've done

but, yeah ... a FAQ is probably a good idea, huh

(edit: oh, there's the sticky option right there if I go to create a new topic ... I'll work on a FAQ and on the clean install instructions in a week or two ... when finals are over)
_________________
• Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Makali



Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dude, this isn't spam. It's a legitimate concern, and I did search the topics before posting, but for whatever reason I got no results. That's obviously changed since then, but whatever.

Are you seriously telling me that Rue just doesn't care that it's unreadable? I saw one comment in there by Org that wasn't confirmed, which suggested that the content was greyed out because it was out-dated, and the idea was to point people at the dev page. Is that true? If so, please reconsider this tactic. I can supply a patch if it really comes to that, but simply putting a coloured DIV at the top of the page saying "this content is out of date, please look at the dev page" would be a far better alternative for all concerned. Alternatively, why not add a link to the page that runs one of those bookmarklets that removes/changes the colours? Both would solve the problem of people complaining about the low contrast without your answer having to be something like "well you must be some kind of retard, download some scripts to fix it for you", which is the feeling I get from the earlier responses in the threads you listed.

If the reason the site is white on white is because Rue likes it that way, then let me know if you ever put up a donation box to buy Rue a new computer, because damn, it's got some mad configuration if he finds it readable.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that I'm not the only one who's frustrated by this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
mcm_ham



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

The most likely answer is that rue is on a Mac and it looks good on his computer. Currently he is the only one with access to mozdev to be able to update the site, but to a certain degree 0.5 is neglected as they work on 0.6. So once the new version is out I think you might see rue around again and can ask him then. He probably already has a new site planned to coincide with the new version anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Makali



Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well you know, I'm on a mac too, a 1 year old powerbook at home and a mac mini with a Dell LCD flat panel at the office. It looks the same on both, and exactly the same on a thinkpad running Windows XP. In fact, I was under the impression that Mac and PC gamma levels became the same with OS X.

I should be a bit clearer - the main text is very pale, but just about legible. The titles, subtitles and the logo are as close to white as makes no difference.

Could we arrange a ninja squad to sneak into his house and recalibrate his monitor while he's asleep? Please, anything will do. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Makali wrote:
Dude, this isn't spam.
I didn't say it was spam.

(I am sorry that my post confused you, I was talking about my admin functions, not your post)

If it was spam I would have deleted it.




In regards to your posts, my initial response is still all I have to say: "you're not the first to mention this"
(many people completely agree with you)
(though the other posts I linked to may not be helpful, I hope they were informative)
_________________
• Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Cooper



Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Holland, MI USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

This issue should never have been an issue, considering their are many tools available to ensure proper contrast with readable text -- but I won't go there again. Evil or Very Mad

See this site:
http://adblock.mozdev.org/

Now place the following CSS into your userContent.css file. This is site specific code, so it will not affect any other pages viewed. Wink

Code:

@-moz-document url-prefix(http://adblock.mozdev.org/){
*{background-color:#fff !important;color:#000 !important;font-family:Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif !important}
a:link,a:visited{color:#00f !important;text-decoration:underline !important}}


Restart Fx and view the following site once again. Very Happy

http://adblock.mozdev.org/
_________________
My Firefox Page
NOTE: Firefox is spelled “F-i-r-e-f-o-x”; only the first letter capitalized. The preferred abbreviation is “Fx” or “fx”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ken Cooper wrote:
This issue should never have been an issue, considering their are many tools available to ensure proper contrast with readable text -- but I won't go there again. Evil or Very Mad


Ken, I'm satisfied that the site's not going to change anytime soon, I've pretty much given up, but since you dragged the argument back to light here's why the issue really shouldn't have been an issue, and please please please don't take these as an attack, just as a justification for my bafflement Smile I've also manually recalibrated my monitor profile, so now I can actually just about see the titles on that page, but how many other people can you expect to have done that? Smile

This issue would never have been an issue if:

  • The site was user tested by more than 5 people and,
  • The author cared that some (many?) people couldn't read parts of it, and
  • accepted that not everyone is clever enough (or heck, willing) to modify their browser to make one site more readable.


There's a difference between allowing users to assert their preferences on their browser (e.g., setting a default font size), and expecting them to modify their own equipment to account for a poor design choice in a single site. I work with graphic designers all day, and I can see how hard it is for some of them to have to ditch an idea because it's going to cause problems for some people; the good ones never have that problem, they take it into account before they start. It's like having to run sites through vischeck to make sure the colourblind don't have problems, or checking the site in lynx to make sure that people using assistive technologies through it aren't going to get the content in a baffling order. You start off having to do it all the time, but as time goes on, you develop an instinct. And you hone that instinct by testing on real people and listening to them.

It's not fun, and sometimes it means going back to the drawing board. In this case, all it means is applying that stylesheet you so kindly provided to the main site instead of to each person who complains here (as I understand it, it's a fairly regular occurrence Smile ).

Before anyone says it, this isn't the tyranny of the minority. I'm not saying that all sites should be dull and dreary. But visibility is just another one of those little limits that designers need to be aware of. There are other limits the designer needs to take into account, too, like bandwidth, screen-width, etc. I've seen people cry out about that, too, especially when we used to have to design sites to work at 640x480 Smile The difference is that the visibility of a design is a human limit rather than a technological one, but really there's no difference to the designer at all, except that technological ones tend to go away over time. Most designers (and programmers) that I know actually excel within limits, producing some of their best work when they know what the boundaries are; just look at all those awesome 4k code competitions, or the 64k Amiga demos of yesteryear Smile

So yeah, I'd stopped here because it seemed to me that I was making a huge issue out of something (you know, when you stop and ask yourself, "Shouldn't you be out having fun right now?" Smile ), and it isn't a huge problem, just a little one that's easy to fix. As far as I can see, it's 5 minutes' work for one person, and no one needs to see this old dead horse get flogged on the forums again! Surely it's worth it? Smile

Anyway, happy new year, folks! AdBlock continues to be neat - with any luck, more people will be able to read about it soon. Smile
Back to top
Makali



Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, didn't notice I wasn't logged in. That travesty was my fault ^.^
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

it's fixed 4 me
Back to top
Makali



Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5
Location: London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
it's fixed 4 me

This is readable to you? (36k PNG)

I can only just see the "Adblock" in "The Adblock Project" unaided, and "What is it?" is only visible if I squint and move to within a few inches of the screen. I hope that clears things up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

rue is blind and his screenreader doesnt support colours
Back to top
Benoit
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I liked reading your post, Makali. It's very informative, and doesn't hesitate to go into detail while still being clear. There's one thing I would like to object to, though:
Quote:
when we used to have to design sites to work at 640x480

Everyone should still do that. Evil or Very Mad People with poor eyesight commonly use that resolution, as well as people surfing with their video game console, or older PCs. I still use 640x480, not because I have a bad eyesight, but because things get too tiny on 800x600 and above. Also the fact that it was the default in the first place on my PC.
Quote:
This is readable to you? (36k PNG)

It's readable to me, though it's not so comfortable on the eyes. Smile
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group