Although if we are in a position to make requests, I would like to have the ability to know if a comment I have made, has had a response. I have no idea if typepad allows that - but it would relieve me of the task of going back and looking at comments I have made (assuming that I can do that).
And I guess this might be a perfect opportunity as well to tell you that I really appreciate the information and insight you make available, both from you as well as the posters and commenters who also use this site.
Yes! Mainly because this isn't white on black- that's actually really hard to look at. Light gray on dark gray is fine, actually what I prefer to anything.
I immediately found it easier to read. I don't know if it's just a larger font or the absence of glaring white field on the screen, but it is definitely easier to read. Like Mike C said, a light gray on a dark gray background is fine.
I find it more difficult to read. I have 71 year old eyes (the same age as the rest of me). This may influence my troubles with the white on black format. I can read it and if it were acceptable to most, it is tolerable.
I would prefer: black on white, a readable font such as calibri or century schoolbook...
love the content no matter what the delivery format...
JTS in PHL
Hi Pat,
I agree with TTG's comment. Also, I can copy white text to black text in e-mails (aol) with no problems. I would vote to keep it for a while at least.
Russ
I've been looking at computer screens since the late '70s and like many others, I'm finding it harder and harder to read the information on them.
The best color scheme for text I ever used was the old "bright" grey on blue used by WordPerfect way back in the DOS era.
That being said, Lighthouse International provides excellent recommendations backed up by years of experience working with accessibility issues for the vision impaired.
The Trebuchet MS font used has subtle curved embellishments that may decrease the readability of long passages of text. Verdana is another san-serif font that is available on 99% of all computers in use and is said to be more readable than Trebuchet MS.
In a typically Microsoft move, the name "Trebuchet" comes from one of the famous unexpected questions posed to employment candidates during their interview.
"Trebuchet MS is a humanist sans-serif typeface designed by Vincent Connare for the Microsoft Corporation in 1996. It is named after the trebuchet, a medieval catapult. The name was inspired by a puzzle question that Connare heard at Microsoft headquarters: "Can you make a trebuchet that could launch a person from main campus to the new consumer campus about a mile away? Mathematically, is it possible and how?" Connare "thought that would be a great name for a font that launches words across the Internet".
The most famous of these "unexpected questions" is "Why is a manhole cover round?"
Too much contrast flicker for me. The darker gray reply/date postscript reads easier than the text itself. The rest of the layout - bright color accents/front liners/avatar on various shades of gray is boldly graphic, assertive, and yet a tad lyrical.
FWIW, I am not a fan of white type on black background.
Posted by: Nick | 21 November 2011 at 04:35 PM
I find this scheme more readable...
Although if we are in a position to make requests, I would like to have the ability to know if a comment I have made, has had a response. I have no idea if typepad allows that - but it would relieve me of the task of going back and looking at comments I have made (assuming that I can do that).
And I guess this might be a perfect opportunity as well to tell you that I really appreciate the information and insight you make available, both from you as well as the posters and commenters who also use this site.
Thanks.
Posted by: PeterHug | 21 November 2011 at 04:35 PM
Yes! Mainly because this isn't white on black- that's actually really hard to look at. Light gray on dark gray is fine, actually what I prefer to anything.
Posted by: Mike C | 21 November 2011 at 04:39 PM
I think it would be more racially harmonious if it was all grey and no color on top of the other.
Posted by: eakens | 21 November 2011 at 05:22 PM
I prefer the old style.
Posted by: Ingolf | 21 November 2011 at 05:28 PM
I'm with Ingolf. Give me that old SST look, which I've liked for so long.
Posted by: Jackie | 21 November 2011 at 05:56 PM
The new colour scheme is certainly more striking. But the older one was much more reader-friendly. I would prefer the latter quality to the former.
Posted by: FB Ali | 21 November 2011 at 05:59 PM
I find light text on a dark background to be easier on the eyes. I vote to keep it, Colonel.
Posted by: frogspawn | 21 November 2011 at 06:12 PM
I immediately found it easier to read. I don't know if it's just a larger font or the absence of glaring white field on the screen, but it is definitely easier to read. Like Mike C said, a light gray on a dark gray background is fine.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 21 November 2011 at 06:27 PM
I find the white on black si harder to read.
Posted by: Matthew | 21 November 2011 at 06:51 PM
dark text on light background for me...
Posted by: Rob Waddell | 21 November 2011 at 06:58 PM
Don't mind the way it looks, but white type can't be copied into an e-mail, and I frequently find myself sending choice posts to friends that way.
Posted by: Larry Kart | 21 November 2011 at 07:27 PM
I find it more difficult to read. I have 71 year old eyes (the same age as the rest of me). This may influence my troubles with the white on black format. I can read it and if it were acceptable to most, it is tolerable.
I would prefer: black on white, a readable font such as calibri or century schoolbook...
love the content no matter what the delivery format...
JTS in PHL
Posted by: JTS in PHL | 21 November 2011 at 07:31 PM
I prefer the old style, though this does have a certain pizzazz.
Posted by: Redhand | 21 November 2011 at 07:39 PM
I was presently suprised with this new look. It works for me.
Posted by: TR Stone | 21 November 2011 at 08:04 PM
Hey try it after eating some psilocybin mushrooms! Whooa! :-)
Posted by: Jake | 21 November 2011 at 08:58 PM
Black on white = paper with writing/typing/printing = good
Posted by: MChampney | 21 November 2011 at 09:41 PM
No. Black print on white background is more legible.
Posted by: Trent | 21 November 2011 at 10:47 PM
Hi Pat,
I agree with TTG's comment. Also, I can copy white text to black text in e-mails (aol) with no problems. I would vote to keep it for a while at least.
Russ
Posted by: Russ Wagenfeld | 21 November 2011 at 11:48 PM
Nice redesing overall, but emphatically dislike the white on black text. I'll keep reading regardless, but...
Posted by: Bill H. | 22 November 2011 at 12:51 AM
COL,
I've been looking at computer screens since the late '70s and like many others, I'm finding it harder and harder to read the information on them.
The best color scheme for text I ever used was the old "bright" grey on blue used by WordPerfect way back in the DOS era.
That being said, Lighthouse International provides excellent recommendations backed up by years of experience working with accessibility issues for the vision impaired.
http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/
The Trebuchet MS font used has subtle curved embellishments that may decrease the readability of long passages of text. Verdana is another san-serif font that is available on 99% of all computers in use and is said to be more readable than Trebuchet MS.
In a typically Microsoft move, the name "Trebuchet" comes from one of the famous unexpected questions posed to employment candidates during their interview.
"Trebuchet MS is a humanist sans-serif typeface designed by Vincent Connare for the Microsoft Corporation in 1996. It is named after the trebuchet, a medieval catapult. The name was inspired by a puzzle question that Connare heard at Microsoft headquarters: "Can you make a trebuchet that could launch a person from main campus to the new consumer campus about a mile away? Mathematically, is it possible and how?" Connare "thought that would be a great name for a font that launches words across the Internet".
The most famous of these "unexpected questions" is "Why is a manhole cover round?"
Posted by: Richard Armstrong | 22 November 2011 at 12:59 AM
I prefer white background with black text. The other way 'round forces the use of reading glasses.
Posted by: Pirouz | 22 November 2011 at 01:08 AM
I find it more difficult to read.
Posted by: johnf | 22 November 2011 at 02:13 AM
Too much contrast flicker for me. The darker gray reply/date postscript reads easier than the text itself. The rest of the layout - bright color accents/front liners/avatar on various shades of gray is boldly graphic, assertive, and yet a tad lyrical.
Posted by: anna missed | 22 November 2011 at 02:25 AM
Either way is fine with me. It bugs me when a comment runs over the edge. And why does Jake look like a Slinky?
Posted by: optimax | 22 November 2011 at 02:33 AM