This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Not liking the new UKC layout, kind of like a school project. What are peeps thinking? More difficult to navigate through menu's etc
6
8
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I like it, it's taking some getting used to but I like most of the changes.
I say keep up the good work.
I like it, it's taking some getting used to but I like most of the changes.
I say keep up the good work.
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I seem to need two clicks to navigate between discussion areas whereas previously only one was needed. Otherwise it's OK.
I seem to need two clicks to navigate between discussion areas whereas previously only one was needed. Otherwise it's OK.
In reply to Tony the Blade:
It's mobile friendly! UKC format had been the same for at least 10 years. Although it felt like a comfortable pair of slippers, an update is long overdue.
It's mobile friendly! UKC format had been the same for at least 10 years. Although it felt like a comfortable pair of slippers, an update is long overdue.
4
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Maybe it's an IPad thing ,but I found logging on almost impossible.
'Sign in' box doesn't work ,and merely takes you to 'profiles'
Logged in after being redirected to I don't remember what page.
Maybe it's an IPad thing ,but I found logging on almost impossible.
'Sign in' box doesn't work ,and merely takes you to 'profiles'
Logged in after being redirected to I don't remember what page.
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I'm reserving judgement for a few days until I've got more used to it on my desktop. It does seem slower to respond after opening a topic though, resulting in having to wait a few seconds before I can actually scroll down through the posts, which is a tad annoying.
I'm reserving judgement for a few days until I've got more used to it on my desktop. It does seem slower to respond after opening a topic though, resulting in having to wait a few seconds before I can actually scroll down through the posts, which is a tad annoying.
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I don't have any problems with it either.
If I had one grippe then it would be all the white space.
And this would only be because the phone's battery would be used more for the bright screen. No science to back this up though.
I don't have any problems with it either.
If I had one grippe then it would be all the white space.
And this would only be because the phone's battery would be used more for the bright screen. No science to back this up though.
2
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I like it except for that it needs an option to reduce the font size for when using on a PC.
Neil
I like it except for that it needs an option to reduce the font size for when using on a PC.
Neil
1
1
In reply to andymac:
Seems to be a iPad thing. Struggling to access different drop down menu options as the text appears behind the current page. Why are users the victim of software writers inability to test things properly before rolling out?
Seems to be a iPad thing. Struggling to access different drop down menu options as the text appears behind the current page. Why are users the victim of software writers inability to test things properly before rolling out?
In reply to 808neal:
This.
> Seems to be a iPad thing. Struggling to access different drop down menu options as the text appears behind the current page.
This.
In reply to 808neal:
As a web developer testing is a nightmare these days, there are so many devices, and so many versions of operating systems and so many versions of browsers, it fairly impossible to check all of them, even if you have dedicated test teams. It not really he software writers fault.
As a web developer testing is a nightmare these days, there are so many devices, and so many versions of operating systems and so many versions of browsers, it fairly impossible to check all of them, even if you have dedicated test teams. It not really he software writers fault.
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Its a bit like when you go into a supermarket and they've moved everything around, really annoying until you get used to it. I know there were always complaints it was horrible to use on mobiles but now its horrible on PC's. The font is too big, the big space down the right hand side is unpleasant to look at and I feel like I need to put my sunglasses on, its too blindingly white.
Then there's the bloody like buttons. They tried them a few years back and got rid of them because they're for vacuous morons who can't express an opinion in words.
Fortunately you get the old site if you're using an older version of Internet Explorer which I still have so I've stopped looking at it on firefox and reverted to IE just for UKC so its all nice and familiar.
Its a bit like when you go into a supermarket and they've moved everything around, really annoying until you get used to it. I know there were always complaints it was horrible to use on mobiles but now its horrible on PC's. The font is too big, the big space down the right hand side is unpleasant to look at and I feel like I need to put my sunglasses on, its too blindingly white.
Then there's the bloody like buttons. They tried them a few years back and got rid of them because they're for vacuous morons who can't express an opinion in words.
Fortunately you get the old site if you're using an older version of Internet Explorer which I still have so I've stopped looking at it on firefox and reverted to IE just for UKC so its all nice and familiar.
5
4
Looks horrible to me, much prefer the old layout. But like most things i'm sure everyone will get use to it. The like/dislike buttons seem a bit pointless to me as well.
Post edited at 23:24
1
4
In reply to pec:
Being a vacuous moron I could have just pressed the 'dislike' button, but as the buttons don't actually do anything on UKC I am forced to use words. Bugger!
> Then there's the bloody like buttons. They tried them a few years back and got rid of them because they're for vacuous morons who can't express an opinion in words.
Being a vacuous moron I could have just pressed the 'dislike' button, but as the buttons don't actually do anything on UKC I am forced to use words. Bugger!
3
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I think it's a vast improvement on the old format, especially for mobile use. I don't seem to have the ipad issues either.
I think it's a vast improvement on the old format, especially for mobile use. I don't seem to have the ipad issues either.
1
In reply to 808neal:
They did get lots of users to test it, listened to suggestions and made lots of changes.
I have been using the new version for nearly a month, and in that time occasionally I landed back on the old version. See the two side by side made me realise how much nicer this new version is.
They did get lots of users to test it, listened to suggestions and made lots of changes.
I have been using the new version for nearly a month, and in that time occasionally I landed back on the old version. See the two side by side made me realise how much nicer this new version is.
1
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I still have the old format on my PC but the new mostly white space version on my Mac
I still have the old format on my PC but the new mostly white space version on my Mac
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
It is miles better. For a start you can now view things on mobile in a useful format and the layout of quoted text is much easier to read. It is new. It will taking a bit of getting used to, but when you look back you will see how dated old UKC was.
Good effort UKC!
It is miles better. For a start you can now view things on mobile in a useful format and the layout of quoted text is much easier to read. It is new. It will taking a bit of getting used to, but when you look back you will see how dated old UKC was.
Good effort UKC!
1
In reply to JoshOvki:
Agree with this.
> They did get lots of users to test it, listened to suggestions and made lots of changes.
> I have been using the new version for nearly a month, and in that time occasionally I landed back on the old version. See the two side by side made me realise how much nicer this new version is.
Agree with this.
Post edited at 08:28
1
In reply to Sally Bustyerface:
I'll give you a thumbs up for your honesty
> (In reply to pec)
> Being a vacuous moron ..... >
I'll give you a thumbs up for your honesty
In reply to JoshOvki:
I was looking at the 2 yesterday, one on IE the other on Firefox. Tho old one is far easier to look at, the new one is too bright, too much white space, the coloured borders on the old one tone it down so you don't feel like you're being interrogated by blinding light shining in your face.
> See the two side by side made me realise how much nicer this new version is. >
I was looking at the 2 yesterday, one on IE the other on Firefox. Tho old one is far easier to look at, the new one is too bright, too much white space, the coloured borders on the old one tone it down so you don't feel like you're being interrogated by blinding light shining in your face.
2
1
In reply to pec:
What you might be experiencing may not be that the page is too white - it's that the font is not consuming enough of the space which is leaving you with a feeling of excessive white.
Previously the font was very small, hence the distance on each character between black sections of the font would be small. This would make it seem "darker" even although the background itself was still white. The use of Open Sans as the font means that is seems spacier resulting in it seeming whiter.
The majority (nearly all) of the websites and applications which I work with on a daily basis use a white background with black text on it and have never experienced any issues.
There's also this function on most phones and monitors where you can turn the brightness down.
What you might be experiencing may not be that the page is too white - it's that the font is not consuming enough of the space which is leaving you with a feeling of excessive white.
Previously the font was very small, hence the distance on each character between black sections of the font would be small. This would make it seem "darker" even although the background itself was still white. The use of Open Sans as the font means that is seems spacier resulting in it seeming whiter.
The majority (nearly all) of the websites and applications which I work with on a daily basis use a white background with black text on it and have never experienced any issues.
There's also this function on most phones and monitors where you can turn the brightness down.
1
In reply to pec:
You can hide it if you want to - there is a button to do so at the top.
> the big space down the right hand side is unpleasant to look at
You can hide it if you want to - there is a button to do so at the top.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
It's like going to the library (I know, how quaint) and finding all the books have been replaced with the large print versions for the visually impaired.
It may look good on phones and tablets but not desktop, for me.
It's like going to the library (I know, how quaint) and finding all the books have been replaced with the large print versions for the visually impaired.
It may look good on phones and tablets but not desktop, for me.
2
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Call me thick, but what has changed? I access it from a PC at work and it doesn't look any different. Is it just on mobiles that it has changed?
Call me thick, but what has changed? I access it from a PC at work and it doesn't look any different. Is it just on mobiles that it has changed?
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
My guess is that you are using an old version of Internet Explorer, 8 or earlier.
This is such a terrible browser that we can't develop for it any more so we are running the old site in mirror form through that. This won't continue for ever though.
Alan
> Call me thick, but what has changed? I access it from a PC at work and it doesn't look any different. Is it just on mobiles that it has changed?
My guess is that you are using an old version of Internet Explorer, 8 or earlier.
This is such a terrible browser that we can't develop for it any more so we are running the old site in mirror form through that. This won't continue for ever though.
Alan
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
it will not let me access my logbook since it changed,it just keeps redirecting me to the "login"page even though i am all ready logged in??
it will not let me access my logbook since it changed,it just keeps redirecting me to the "login"page even though i am all ready logged in??
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
You should redirect anyone whose identifier is IE to the Firefox download site.
You should redirect anyone whose identifier is IE to the Firefox download site.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I only ever go on UKC on my Windows PC, never my mobile.
I'm struggling a bit - things are taking longer to find but I suppose I'll get used to it. I'll try not to be a Luddite :/
The forums down the LHS with labels seemed really easy and sensible in the old format so I'm not sure why they have been made tiny and icons only across the top? That does seem a step back as there's acres of white space down the LHS?
Someone said you can get rid of the white space but I've been into the user options and couldn't find it.
Hey ho. Time is a great healer....
I only ever go on UKC on my Windows PC, never my mobile.
I'm struggling a bit - things are taking longer to find but I suppose I'll get used to it. I'll try not to be a Luddite :/
The forums down the LHS with labels seemed really easy and sensible in the old format so I'm not sure why they have been made tiny and icons only across the top? That does seem a step back as there's acres of white space down the LHS?
Someone said you can get rid of the white space but I've been into the user options and couldn't find it.
Hey ho. Time is a great healer....
In reply to tlm:
Where, I can't see it?
> You can hide it if you want to - there is a button to do so at the top.
Where, I can't see it?
In reply to Babika:
The rest of the site had been moving slowly to a RH sidebar for a couple of years. This is just for consistency. There is no space on the LHS any more, I think you are just looking at the site on a wide screen which has space to the side due to us using a fixed width site design. We do this since it is much easier to make a site that works with smaller monitors and tablets. If we put content in that space then it would make the fixed width site too wide. Try resizing your browser window to see what effect the new responsive site has as the screen size get smaller.
We removed the button yesterday since it was giving problems. It will be added to user options but that may take a week or so.
Alan
> The forums down the LHS with labels seemed really easy and sensible in the old format so I'm not sure why they have been made tiny and icons only across the top? That does seem a step back as there's acres of white space down the LHS?
The rest of the site had been moving slowly to a RH sidebar for a couple of years. This is just for consistency. There is no space on the LHS any more, I think you are just looking at the site on a wide screen which has space to the side due to us using a fixed width site design. We do this since it is much easier to make a site that works with smaller monitors and tablets. If we put content in that space then it would make the fixed width site too wide. Try resizing your browser window to see what effect the new responsive site has as the screen size get smaller.
> Someone said you can get rid of the white space but I've been into the user options and couldn't find it.
We removed the button yesterday since it was giving problems. It will be added to user options but that may take a week or so.
Alan
In reply to Toerag:
Once you go into a forum you can see it. You can't turn it off on the front page, but you can after that.
Arrrrghhhh!!!! I played around with it to give you the full wording, and am now stuck with the sidebar showing! They must have changed it! I did quite like the changes, but with that one thing, I now hate them.
> Where, I can't see it?
Once you go into a forum you can see it. You can't turn it off on the front page, but you can after that.
Arrrrghhhh!!!! I played around with it to give you the full wording, and am now stuck with the sidebar showing! They must have changed it! I did quite like the changes, but with that one thing, I now hate them.
Post edited at 15:50
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Bugger, just spent a very frustrating few minutes looking for it, before I read on to the bottom of the thread I must admit to struggling with all the white, but maybe I'll get used to it.......
> We removed the button yesterday since it was giving problems. It will be added to user options but that may take a week or so.
> Alan
Bugger, just spent a very frustrating few minutes looking for it, before I read on to the bottom of the thread I must admit to struggling with all the white, but maybe I'll get used to it.......
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I like the new look on pc as well as Android. I like the cleanness and my old eyes like the brightness.
I like the new look on pc as well as Android. I like the cleanness and my old eyes like the brightness.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
One thing I do miss is the thumbnails for the headlines so I could choose which ones to read, now I have to cycle through them all to find new ones that I haven't already read. Likes & Dislikes annoy me as well so won't be using them.
One thing I do miss is the thumbnails for the headlines so I could choose which ones to read, now I have to cycle through them all to find new ones that I haven't already read. Likes & Dislikes annoy me as well so won't be using them.
2
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I miss logged on or off bit at the top right of the old screen, I used to check that as soon as I switched my laptop on to see if I remembered to log off.
I miss logged on or off bit at the top right of the old screen, I used to check that as soon as I switched my laptop on to see if I remembered to log off.
In reply to deepstar:
The User Menu on the right says Login instead if you're not logged in btw
> I miss logged on or off bit at the top right of the old screen
The User Menu on the right says Login instead if you're not logged in btw
In reply to goldmember:
It was tested on the Android stock browser from Jelly Bean to Kit Kat and Android Chrome.
What browser/handset are you on?
It was tested on the Android stock browser from Jelly Bean to Kit Kat and Android Chrome.
What browser/handset are you on?
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
an S2 on jelly bean.
its much better to view but not nice to reply too
an S2 on jelly bean.
its much better to view but not nice to reply too
In reply to goldmember:
I like the 'like' buttons, but it is more difficult to log in and switch between areas (not as informative to use). Agree too much white screen and font is not as easy on the eye! I'm on a mac too.
It's a bit like windows going to windows 8 - s**t to start with, but hopefully it gradually evolve and 'soften'. Good that kits now better on mobile devices. I now realise how used to (?comforted!) by the old version..
I like the 'like' buttons, but it is more difficult to log in and switch between areas (not as informative to use). Agree too much white screen and font is not as easy on the eye! I'm on a mac too.
It's a bit like windows going to windows 8 - s**t to start with, but hopefully it gradually evolve and 'soften'. Good that kits now better on mobile devices. I now realise how used to (?comforted!) by the old version..
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
Is there any chance of adding a custom colour option for those who find the background to white, so they can make it off-white?
Is there any chance of adding a custom colour option for those who find the background to white, so they can make it off-white?
In reply to Timmd:
That sounds like a fun idea that could be very easily achieved. Whereby, via a simple form, you could select a background color out of dozens/hundreds, that would then create an instruction that would override the background:color directive on the standard CSS stylesheet. Or, it could tap into a separate background:color stylesheet, pre-created to allow all these options. I've never seen that option on the internet before, but can't see that it would be at all difficult. Of course, what it would enable you to do is make UKC's website look v odd - not perhaps something that they would like, however much it fulfilled your own tastes.
> Is there any chance of adding a custom colour option for those who find the background to white, so they can make it off-white?
That sounds like a fun idea that could be very easily achieved. Whereby, via a simple form, you could select a background color out of dozens/hundreds, that would then create an instruction that would override the background:color directive on the standard CSS stylesheet. Or, it could tap into a separate background:color stylesheet, pre-created to allow all these options. I've never seen that option on the internet before, but can't see that it would be at all difficult. Of course, what it would enable you to do is make UKC's website look v odd - not perhaps something that they would like, however much it fulfilled your own tastes.
1
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Its free and does what it does well. I hardly feel inclined to moan about it.
Its free and does what it does well. I hardly feel inclined to moan about it.
1
I really like it.
I access the site almost exclusively via phone or tablet and it is much nicer to navigate and cleaner.
I like the like buttons too
I access the site almost exclusively via phone or tablet and it is much nicer to navigate and cleaner.
I like the like buttons too
2
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I'm on internet explorer 7 here at work and UKC shows exactly the same as it always has done, not even got any like buttons on it.
If anyone wants me I'll be over here in the past...
I'm on internet explorer 7 here at work and UKC shows exactly the same as it always has done, not even got any like buttons on it.
If anyone wants me I'll be over here in the past...
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I thought the old staid UKC was actually the model of an easy to access and easy to read website, very well laid out and uncluttered. I don't think this is an improvement, but then I'm using Win 7 on a laptop, so I guess I'm a dinosaur. Perhaps it looks better on a Raspberry PI?
I thought the old staid UKC was actually the model of an easy to access and easy to read website, very well laid out and uncluttered. I don't think this is an improvement, but then I'm using Win 7 on a laptop, so I guess I'm a dinosaur. Perhaps it looks better on a Raspberry PI?
1
In reply to wilkie14c:
Similarly, I'm on IE8 at work and it's still old skool - only seen the new version on the iPad (no major gripes, but it's all a bit squashed up on the left to make room for the ads...)
Similarly, I'm on IE8 at work and it's still old skool - only seen the new version on the iPad (no major gripes, but it's all a bit squashed up on the left to make room for the ads...)
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
You mean it's so crap that MS give in and change a lot of it back to the way it was and corporates don't buy it anyway.
> It's a bit like windows going to windows 8 - s**t to start with, but hopefully it gradually evolve and 'soften'.
You mean it's so crap that MS give in and change a lot of it back to the way it was and corporates don't buy it anyway.
In reply to iPad owners:
Tested the new site on my old iPad (1st generation - 2010) and it doesn't function well on that. The menus drop behind things as mentioned by a few people above and the resizing is inconsistent. This iPad can only run iOS 5. It is unlikely that we will make the site work with iOS 5 since it is pretty obsolete except on these old iPads, and very old iPhones.
All iPads since the 1st generation can run iOS 7 and iOS 8 so if you are having the menu problems, and you have an iPad 2 or newer, then you should upgrade to iOS 8.
Alan
Tested the new site on my old iPad (1st generation - 2010) and it doesn't function well on that. The menus drop behind things as mentioned by a few people above and the resizing is inconsistent. This iPad can only run iOS 5. It is unlikely that we will make the site work with iOS 5 since it is pretty obsolete except on these old iPads, and very old iPhones.
All iPads since the 1st generation can run iOS 7 and iOS 8 so if you are having the menu problems, and you have an iPad 2 or newer, then you should upgrade to iOS 8.
Alan
In reply to Carolyn:
Just WHY is anyone on this planet still using IE7 or 8? We all knew/found out to our great pain (anybody working on with web design) that IE 6-8 were total crap 10-15 years ago. Didn't we? Surely everyone knows that Chrome, Firefox and Safari are light years ahead, being totally web-standards-compliant?
Just WHY is anyone on this planet still using IE7 or 8? We all knew/found out to our great pain (anybody working on with web design) that IE 6-8 were total crap 10-15 years ago. Didn't we? Surely everyone knows that Chrome, Firefox and Safari are light years ahead, being totally web-standards-compliant?
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
It's usually down to workplace IT departments, they are very conservative (with a small 'c') and they won't upgrade their systems until they are sure that everything works with it. My last company only upgraded to Windows 7 last year for example. As an employee you weren't allowed to install *any* software that wasn't cleared by them (IT).
The next largest group are those users who aren't tech savvy and don't realise that you can upgrade your browser or any other software. Firefox and Chrome have regular (possibly too regular) updates whereas MS didn't upgrade IE for nearly 6 years and their upgrade path is still a twelve month cycle (again to placate IT departments). With tying IE in to the OS, users of older hardware might not be able to upgrade as the PCs won't be capable of running the OS and therefore the newer browser.
It's usually down to workplace IT departments, they are very conservative (with a small 'c') and they won't upgrade their systems until they are sure that everything works with it. My last company only upgraded to Windows 7 last year for example. As an employee you weren't allowed to install *any* software that wasn't cleared by them (IT).
The next largest group are those users who aren't tech savvy and don't realise that you can upgrade your browser or any other software. Firefox and Chrome have regular (possibly too regular) updates whereas MS didn't upgrade IE for nearly 6 years and their upgrade path is still a twelve month cycle (again to placate IT departments). With tying IE in to the OS, users of older hardware might not be able to upgrade as the PCs won't be capable of running the OS and therefore the newer browser.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Public sector for you (actually work for a charity, but our IT is through a local council)......and locked down so far I can't add anything!
> Just WHY is anyone on this planet still using IE7 or 8? We all knew/found out to our great pain (anybody working on with web design) that IE 6-8 were total crap 10-15 years ago. Didn't we? Surely everyone knows that Chrome, Firefox and Safari are light years ahead, being totally web-standards-compliant?
Public sector for you (actually work for a charity, but our IT is through a local council)......and locked down so far I can't add anything!
In reply to Skyfall:
Just whilst it does the upgrade, I think? Guy in the Apple shop (trying to solve a different problem for me) seemed to imply you could get round that by having it connected to your computer whilst you did the upgrade, but I didn't need to.
> Requires almost 6GB of storage.
Just whilst it does the upgrade, I think? Guy in the Apple shop (trying to solve a different problem for me) seemed to imply you could get round that by having it connected to your computer whilst you did the upgrade, but I didn't need to.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Internet Explorer 7/8 ooh you young people today, you don't know the half of it! When I were a lad (actually about 18 months ago) we were still on ie6 thanks to the company it department who wouldn't validate any in house browser based tools with more recent browsers. This was a very large and profitable multi national and I would be surprised if they were alone in that practice.
Internet Explorer 7/8 ooh you young people today, you don't know the half of it! When I were a lad (actually about 18 months ago) we were still on ie6 thanks to the company it department who wouldn't validate any in house browser based tools with more recent browsers. This was a very large and profitable multi national and I would be surprised if they were alone in that practice.
In reply to Skyfall:
Do you know it only requires the space for the upgrade 'process'. Once it's finished upgrading you get most of that space back for app use.
It was a hassle cleaning out the space on my iPad but well worth the effort.
Do you know it only requires the space for the upgrade 'process'. Once it's finished upgrading you get most of that space back for app use.
It was a hassle cleaning out the space on my iPad but well worth the effort.
In reply to Bob:
Yep, I have IE8 for exactly this reason. Ironically, at least one important company portal I need to use won't work with the only software with which I'm authorised to access it (I have Chrome as a back-up)
Actually the constant (and automatic) Firefox updating was the reason I stopped using it. I deliberately loaded a recently superseded version because various things I needed wouldn't work with the very latest version (but I wanted to update from the archaic IE version I had). It was a pain to get everything set up, and the next time I logged on it had updated to a version I couldn't use. I couldn't find any way of preventing this, so I gave up.
I don't really like Chrome. It seems difficult to get it to do what I want it to do, it's clunky and too integrated with Google (not surprisingly) and yet for some reason it won't let me access my gmail account. I keep it in reserve for those sites that won't work with IE.
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> It's usually down to workplace IT departments, they are very conservative (with a small 'c') and they won't upgrade their systems until they are sure that everything works with it.
>
> It's usually down to workplace IT departments, they are very conservative (with a small 'c') and they won't upgrade their systems until they are sure that everything works with it.
Yep, I have IE8 for exactly this reason. Ironically, at least one important company portal I need to use won't work with the only software with which I'm authorised to access it (I have Chrome as a back-up)
> Firefox and Chrome have regular (possibly too regular) updates
Actually the constant (and automatic) Firefox updating was the reason I stopped using it. I deliberately loaded a recently superseded version because various things I needed wouldn't work with the very latest version (but I wanted to update from the archaic IE version I had). It was a pain to get everything set up, and the next time I logged on it had updated to a version I couldn't use. I couldn't find any way of preventing this, so I gave up.
I don't really like Chrome. It seems difficult to get it to do what I want it to do, it's clunky and too integrated with Google (not surprisingly) and yet for some reason it won't let me access my gmail account. I keep it in reserve for those sites that won't work with IE.
Post edited at 08:35
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
This still hasn't appeared? (being able to hide the side bar).
> It will be an option in your User Options tomorrow (afternoon).
This still hasn't appeared? (being able to hide the side bar).
In reply to iPad owners:
Further to my reply above; if you have a 1G iPad then you may be able to install Chrome on the iPad which is a much more robust browser than the version of Safari running in iOS5. Try going to the App store and downloading. Usually you will get a prompt saying that this version requires iOS 7 or later, do you want to install an earlier version. This earlier version should work. Unfortunately sometimes you don't get the earlier version option (I didn't) in which case there is a work round here - http://whatisgon.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/installing-new-apps-on-an-old-ipa... - but it is a bit of a faff and I haven't tried it.
Alan
Further to my reply above; if you have a 1G iPad then you may be able to install Chrome on the iPad which is a much more robust browser than the version of Safari running in iOS5. Try going to the App store and downloading. Usually you will get a prompt saying that this version requires iOS 7 or later, do you want to install an earlier version. This earlier version should work. Unfortunately sometimes you don't get the earlier version option (I didn't) in which case there is a work round here - http://whatisgon.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/installing-new-apps-on-an-old-ipa... - but it is a bit of a faff and I haven't tried it.
Alan
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I agree
I understand making it work better on a variety of devices, but why shuffle the buttons?
the forum button has walked across the screen, this is change for no point (bit like windows upgrades)
i'll get used to it
though if it is an upgrade for all devices, why is it so horribly bright on my laptop? (the only device I'll be using)
I agree
I understand making it work better on a variety of devices, but why shuffle the buttons?
the forum button has walked across the screen, this is change for no point (bit like windows upgrades)
i'll get used to it
though if it is an upgrade for all devices, why is it so horribly bright on my laptop? (the only device I'll be using)
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
The only things i have a problem with are the 'like-dislike' buttons, far too teenage girl and rather a sad addtion, and it took me ages to work out where i was supposed to type a reply to a thread! when you click on reply the box appears at the extreme bottom of the page, but you are redirected to the top of the page, which can be a major inconvenience with a really long thread as you have to scrole a vey long way! inconvenience aside, at first i assumed there was a problem and the reply box was disssapearing so i kept clicking reply again and again trying to find the box so i could type, in the end i gave up and only found it when replying on a short thread. i cant be the only one to have had this problem.
The only things i have a problem with are the 'like-dislike' buttons, far too teenage girl and rather a sad addtion, and it took me ages to work out where i was supposed to type a reply to a thread! when you click on reply the box appears at the extreme bottom of the page, but you are redirected to the top of the page, which can be a major inconvenience with a really long thread as you have to scrole a vey long way! inconvenience aside, at first i assumed there was a problem and the reply box was disssapearing so i kept clicking reply again and again trying to find the box so i could type, in the end i gave up and only found it when replying on a short thread. i cant be the only one to have had this problem.
1
In reply to Webster:
Could you tell me what browser/OS you're using please?
The [Reply] to post is the same as before (just under the post). The [Reply to Topic] is the same as before (at the top) but obviously not on your system.
Could you tell me what browser/OS you're using please?
The [Reply] to post is the same as before (just under the post). The [Reply to Topic] is the same as before (at the top) but obviously not on your system.
Post edited at 11:37
In reply to yeti:
> I understand making it work better on a variety of devices, but why shuffle the buttons?
It's to sort site content vs. user content. It didn't take me long to get used to it.> though if it is an upgrade for all devices, why is it so horribly bright on my laptop? (the only device I'll be using)
They' be some User Options to change the background colour, base font-size and font in the near future. Or just reduce the brightness on your laptop and save yourself some battery In reply to Carolyn:
XP was fine, never got on with Win7.
To Dave Garnett:
I used to use Firefox a lot on my home machine but there is/was a memory leak, possibly in a plugin, which meant that over time all the memory was being used up and the machine began to crawl. (I leave my machine on "permanently", it goes in to standby mode pretty quick and starts up quickly). I now use Chrome on my home machine but use Firefox at work. I can't remember the last time I used IE.
XP was fine, never got on with Win7.
To Dave Garnett:
I used to use Firefox a lot on my home machine but there is/was a memory leak, possibly in a plugin, which meant that over time all the memory was being used up and the machine began to crawl. (I leave my machine on "permanently", it goes in to standby mode pretty quick and starts up quickly). I now use Chrome on my home machine but use Firefox at work. I can't remember the last time I used IE.
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
windows internet explorer of some description. must be a pretty up to date version as i am looking at the new website (it still happended this time so not a temporary glitch).
windows internet explorer of some description. must be a pretty up to date version as i am looking at the new website (it still happended this time so not a temporary glitch).
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Despite what I have said in other areas, it is definitely a move in the right direction, I think it's drastic to say the old version is better....
I just don't think the new one is as good as it could/should be, its all crying for a couple of decent designer and developers with a love of climbing.
Despite what I have said in other areas, it is definitely a move in the right direction, I think it's drastic to say the old version is better....
I just don't think the new one is as good as it could/should be, its all crying for a couple of decent designer and developers with a love of climbing.
In reply to Webster:
Grrr, good old IE :o/ It works fine in IE11.
If you let me know the version you're on then I'll try and sort it out.
Grrr, good old IE :o/ It works fine in IE11.
If you let me know the version you're on then I'll try and sort it out.
In reply to Bob:
I think Firebug used to mess mine up. It wasn't uncommon for Firefox to creep up to using 1.5GB of RAM.
> I used to use Firefox a lot on my home machine but there is/was a memory leak, possibly in a plugin
I think Firebug used to mess mine up. It wasn't uncommon for Firefox to creep up to using 1.5GB of RAM.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
It's pretty easy to make a calculated decision as to whether it's viable to maintain support for old browsers.... for some companies it's potentially a multi-million pound decision though.
When a big company I just did a load of work for made the decision, it was quite tense, but it had very positive effects... it's not always as simple as saying 'I have a new browser, why haven't you?!'
It's pretty easy to make a calculated decision as to whether it's viable to maintain support for old browsers.... for some companies it's potentially a multi-million pound decision though.
When a big company I just did a load of work for made the decision, it was quite tense, but it had very positive effects... it's not always as simple as saying 'I have a new browser, why haven't you?!'
Post edited at 15:34
In reply to Blake:
I was talking about most individuals who might be using UKC, not big companies, and several people here have explained why they are forced to use IE. I, too, have designed web sites for some quite big companies, and in those cases have made them web-standards compliant and used hacks to make IE6-8 work.
I was talking about most individuals who might be using UKC, not big companies, and several people here have explained why they are forced to use IE. I, too, have designed web sites for some quite big companies, and in those cases have made them web-standards compliant and used hacks to make IE6-8 work.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Apologies for the presumption - I was just trying to be helpful. For a number of reasons, it's not always so easy; whether it be financial, geographical, piracy, corporate, outdated user demographic etc etc.
Apologies for the presumption - I was just trying to be helpful. For a number of reasons, it's not always so easy; whether it be financial, geographical, piracy, corporate, outdated user demographic etc etc.
Post edited at 16:31
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
it might be version 9, if not then i have no idea and no idea how to find out. ether way it doesnt matter as i know where the box is now.
it might be version 9, if not then i have no idea and no idea how to find out. ether way it doesnt matter as i know where the box is now.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I'm using IE because I'm f*cking clueless about IT and know no better!! )
> (In reply to Blake)
>
> I was talking about most individuals who might be using UKC, not big companies, and several people here have explained why they are forced to use IE. I, too, have designed web sites for some quite big companies, and in those cases have made them web-standards compliant and used hacks to make IE6-8 work.
>
> I was talking about most individuals who might be using UKC, not big companies, and several people here have explained why they are forced to use IE. I, too, have designed web sites for some quite big companies, and in those cases have made them web-standards compliant and used hacks to make IE6-8 work.
I'm using IE because I'm f*cking clueless about IT and know no better!! )
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
IE6 was the killer... i literally had a desk party when I stopped supporting that one.... 7, 8 and 9 are significantly better, but looking back from the current ideal, they're pretty crap.
I'd have a lot more respect for Msoft if they just gave in and started using a rendering engine like webkit... another huge web crime of theirs is their constant harm to email rendering.
IE6 was the killer... i literally had a desk party when I stopped supporting that one.... 7, 8 and 9 are significantly better, but looking back from the current ideal, they're pretty crap.
I'd have a lot more respect for Msoft if they just gave in and started using a rendering engine like webkit... another huge web crime of theirs is their constant harm to email rendering.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Just to point out, if you want the old look and haven't got an old IE browser, UKH is still on the old layout. Some of the news stories are different but you can access all the same forums.
Just to point out, if you want the old look and haven't got an old IE browser, UKH is still on the old layout. Some of the news stories are different but you can access all the same forums.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
If you are keeping this new look forum, please tone it down a bit, its to bright, and the thin light blue letters,on a bright white back ground are hard to read, and give me eye strain. Thick black letters on warm white back ground please.
If you are keeping this new look forum, please tone it down a bit, its to bright, and the thin light blue letters,on a bright white back ground are hard to read, and give me eye strain. Thick black letters on warm white back ground please.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Having looked at it for a while now, I think there is a problem with the proportions (however it readjusts with different width browser windows, which is very good). I really think the right-hand column is just too big - it seems to say: this is what matters, the forums are a bit of fun on the side. The problem is increased by the different font sizes. This is very disturbing to the eye, and in web design terms, virtually inexcusable. Just how and why is the r/h column using a font that is some 6-8 font sizes bigger than the main column? The ratio of the r/h column to the left also looks wrong/is aesthetically disturbing. It should surely be 1:4 or even less ? ?
Having looked at it for a while now, I think there is a problem with the proportions (however it readjusts with different width browser windows, which is very good). I really think the right-hand column is just too big - it seems to say: this is what matters, the forums are a bit of fun on the side. The problem is increased by the different font sizes. This is very disturbing to the eye, and in web design terms, virtually inexcusable. Just how and why is the r/h column using a font that is some 6-8 font sizes bigger than the main column? The ratio of the r/h column to the left also looks wrong/is aesthetically disturbing. It should surely be 1:4 or even less ? ?
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
This doesn't seem to happen once you're into a particular thread - all the font sizes are balanced. It's the front page of the forums I'm talking about.
This doesn't seem to happen once you're into a particular thread - all the font sizes are balanced. It's the front page of the forums I'm talking about.
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
Screenshot of what I'm referring to here:
http://www.gordonstainforth.co.uk/images/Screen%20Shot%202014-10-17%20at%20...
Screenshot of what I'm referring to here:
http://www.gordonstainforth.co.uk/images/Screen%20Shot%202014-10-17%20at%20...
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I'll have to say, this new design has a strangely alien feel, mostly because of this imbalance between the main (content) column and the advertising column. So, if fewer people are visiting the site than before, this may be the basic problem.
I'll have to say, this new design has a strangely alien feel, mostly because of this imbalance between the main (content) column and the advertising column. So, if fewer people are visiting the site than before, this may be the basic problem.
TOTALLY agree with Gordon on this. Proportions are terrible. Font is ...well I'm just lost for words!
BUT I'm guessing its all about the ads? SIgh
BUT I'm guessing its all about the ads? SIgh
In reply to pec:
Just clicked onto UKH for a look, a lot better on the eyes, instant no eye strain that the new UKC delivers.
Just clicked onto UKH for a look, a lot better on the eyes, instant no eye strain that the new UKC delivers.
In reply to petegunn:
Thanks, that's like a breath of fresh air!
> Just clicked onto UKH for a look, a lot better on the eyes, instant no eye strain that the new UKC delivers.
Thanks, that's like a breath of fresh air!
In reply to Simonfarfaraway:
I find the new font and colours make a very low contrast read which is very difficult on the eyes.
Also, if you have mobility probs (climbing injury!) or otherwise cannot use a pointer, you can't view different forums by typing or speaking the name of the text link of the forum (firefox browser or other tools), because there is no text link, only an icon (which is also very small and diff to see I might add).
It's hard work on less than perfect bodies, and I must say, easier just to give up.
Appreciate it is good to experiment and try to move on, but for me it is now tough work.
I find the new font and colours make a very low contrast read which is very difficult on the eyes.
Also, if you have mobility probs (climbing injury!) or otherwise cannot use a pointer, you can't view different forums by typing or speaking the name of the text link of the forum (firefox browser or other tools), because there is no text link, only an icon (which is also very small and diff to see I might add).
It's hard work on less than perfect bodies, and I must say, easier just to give up.
Appreciate it is good to experiment and try to move on, but for me it is now tough work.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...