You ignored the answers to the questions you asked in the post before you asked. It is entirely on you for being clueless.
Insults? Where? Seriously, where was an insult? Accusing you of white knighting is an insult? Oh boo hoo. You are being dismissal without any substance/reason and that’s not white knighting? Yeah, I too like more horses instead of an automobile cause it’s a “better” solution. rolleyes Preview panes are unnecessary crap that WYSIWYG editors fixed long ago. Blizzard can take premade forum software but they can’t take premade WYSIWYG editors?
Except I literally proved that and you continue to prove me right about that. The whole point of saying I understand how these systems are built means I can understand the amount of complexity it takes to build them. Which is far better than being someone who ignorantly claims how complex it is or what UI patterns are. Like you.
Opinion =/= dismissal of every argument without reason.
You said you liked the preview pane because it “Shows me if I’ve linked something correctly or used formatting the way I meant to.” which is what a WYSIWYG editor does IN THE EDITOR without yet another pane. You think typography doesn’t matter and “what did it remove” when again, I made a list.
But yes, keep saying how your failure to use the forum properly is somehow a better experience than the old one.
The biggest negative is the random toon it picks to use as the ‘default’ toon on every login. Not something so complex that someone setting up the software could miss or be unable to understand.
By forcing us to reset the toon we get forum credit and post on after every single login, I’m guessing it’s Blizzard’s forum techs nudging us to not have so many alts in game. Sorry, but it won’t work on me.
Anyway, this forum software isn’t a perfect replacement for the previous one but getting on the forums is optional. I can pick and choose when to read or post so I fallback on the old adapt or die dictum.
What exactly did I ignore? Because I went through point by point what I was addressing.
Point proven.
I gave you reasons… did you read?
Which is meaningless when this is about people who who use the system and not those who built it. I don’t care what’s in the backend coding. I care about the layout and ease of use. And to me, the layout and ease of use is simple. Especially on a phone.
Again… I’m a user, not a programmer. Like most people. I used to be a programmer. About a decade ago. But even then, I looked at how the customers reacted and what they liked or disliked. Had nothing to do with what I thought was best for the code complexity. If they liked the UI and I thought it was a dumb layout, well… not my place to judge. Thus, I gave my thoughts on how I felt about the layout and ease of use of this place.
You don’t even know how to have a discussion about differing opinions. It’s either your way or none at all.
You’ve proven in this thread that you don’t (the preview pane dismissal is proof). Your responses are just dismissal one liners. You are just white knighting by defending each point without any constructive reason and I don’t want to waste more time with your looping “arguments” that ignore what has already been answered.
Yeah, these are totally well held opinions and perfect for debate. Oh right, it’s dismissive one liners with no substance, my bad!
Maybe you should take the hint in the other threads where people are calling you bitter.
The font being used is a standard. These forums are significantly better and more advanced then what we had before. You not knowing how to use them is a you problem.
Tell me how a preview pane is better than a WYSIWYG editor.
No it’s not. Learn UX principals. Body and smaller sizes are less legible as thin. It looks faded. There’s other people in here (and a like count) that say that.
You can hide the preview pane if it bothers you so much, but it’s better in many ways.
For example, You can see how the post be formatted and aligned before it is posted. When using html and mess up the code you’ll see it in the preview pane. It will show you dimensions of images/videos before posting, giving you a chance to change both should the video/images size be absurd.
There are so many ways the preview pane is an improvement over just having a wysiwyg editor.
That sounds like something your browser is doing, or perhaps your eyes. The font being used is a standard used through out the internet.
Do you know what a WYSIWYG editor is? It shows you how it’s formatted while you edit it. Microsoft Word is a WYSIWYG editor. So alignments, text formatting, images, etc appear IN the editor. The old forums didn’t have a WYSIWYG editor and the new ones aren’t much better and instead add a useless preview pane instead of a real solution.
No, it’s not a standard. Thin font isn’t a standard as body text AT ALL. This font is 300 weight, which is THIN. Regular weight is 400. Bold is 600. And no, the 300 to 400 isn’t a small leap. It’s also “Open Sans” which isn’t a standard, hence why it needs to be imported by the browser instead of using your OS font. So, you’re just completely wrong.
Nope, you’re just wrong. Completely wrong in fact. Your troll game is obvious but effective in getting a reply at least.
I dunno, but according to your activity feed, you’re well ahead of me.
Yes I know what a wysiwyg editor. The preview pane is still better.
“Open Sans”,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; is the font family, which is used almost everywhere. The only font family that gets used more is times new roman.
San-serifs are used all around the internet from Google to Amazon.
100 font weight is thin, 300 is a the base bold for the font family being used. It needs to be imported by the browser because they have it linked rather then embedded/internal.
Linking the font through css makes it easier to use in templates and when standardizing a network of websites. This is a common tactic used by a lot of big businesses.
Do you really? Cause your whole defense of a preview pane is exactly what a WYSIWYG editor does. Except, you know, it happens in the editor and not in some second pane. It’s redundant.
Sigh…
Yes, it’s a family of san-serf fonts. But Open Sans is what you’re seeing right now, cause it’s imported into the browser. Google uses Roboto and Amazon uses “Amazon Ember” which both are their own custom fonts. Arial and Helvetica are the most popular fonts, which New Times Roman being the common browser default. But none of this matters cause at no time did I say the issue is the font family. I’m talking about weight.
No, 400 is “normal”, 100 is lightest and 900 is boldest. These forums use 300, which is thinner than normal. Using thin font as body text is not recommended because it cause be harder to read, which at least one other person here admitted to. It’s also more of an issue on higher pixel density screens, which will be more common for phones.
Open Sans (select and choose “customize” to see numbers): fonts[dot]google[dot]com/specimen/Open+Sans?selection.family=Open+Sans Weights: htmldog[dot]com/references/css/properties/font-weight/
Standardizing a network of websites? You mean reusing the same font-face import in CSS instead of putting a tag in each battle.net site? Ok and? How does this relate to font-weight which, you know, is the whole point of what you’re replying to?
Not for the font family that’s being used. Bold is weighted differently based on the font family being used. 100 is the lightest, but could appear thicker/thinner depending on the font being used. For the font family in question 300 looks normal.
If you’re having a hard time reading the text again that sounds like a you problem.
Check the “Open Sans” font on that Google link (Google made the font). They specifically say 400 is normal, not 300. And if you compare the two, there is a noticeable difference.
No, that’s an actual accessibility problem that has studies to back it up. Just cause I can read it doesn’t mean it’s right nor that everyone can on every device. Cause again, high pixel density screens will show it as really faint.
![:face_with_raised_eyebrow:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/face_with_raised_eyebrow.png?v=6" ":face_with_raised_eyebrow:")
I gave you reasons… did you read?