I can see correctly. I don't have any problem with the white background :3
Jan 16 2011, 12:51 am
In response to Moonlight Memento
|
|
Ocean King
 |
|
Good for you. As for "I can see correctly", your need or lack thereof for glasses isn't relevant, as I can see just fine, too.
White is not a good background for a forum if you are forced to see it as the background because you can't change themes, every single free forum maker allows you this, why not BYOND? | |
Well. Yes, a white background is not good for a forum. I would suggest (like most people did) something to change colors.
| |
[link] contradicts that entire post.
| |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Right, no one leaves or reads comments. Says who? Look at conversations going back and forth. People treat Youtube comments the same way you and I treat this forum. There are orders of magnitude more comments on Youtube than on this forum. We're talking about form here, not function- it doesn't matter that they are "blog sites." Regardless of what they are, both contain lots of text in black on white backgrounds. Hundreds of millions of people use these sites every day. Again, you project your own feelings onto other people. For the second time now, Facebook has *five hundred million users*. This is not irrelevant nor random- if they didn't like the way the site looks, they wouldn't use it at all, nevermind spend as much time on it as they do. Sites like Myspace died off for a reason- people got sick of completely different themes every other mouse click. Do you think the average Amazon product description and customer reviews are shorter than the average BYOND forum post? I don't. You talk about random and again go off topic. Your opinion of the quality of Amazon reviews is irrelevant. They exist, people write them, people read them. They are black text on a white background, and Amazon is the most used and most valuable commerce website worldwide. Take a hint. More than just I are being bothered, unless I cloned myself or something. Looks to me like you're in a very small minority, one that, like usual, is going to be loud because people who like the way the site looks have no reason to speak up. I shouldn't have to Wah wah wah. | |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
[link] contradicts that entire post. Seriously? It's not my problem if you have troubles with watching the BYOND Site. If you do, it's your problem. | |
I don't really think YouTube, Google etc. are comparable here.
This website frames white *inside* a grey background - Thats what causes the stark contrast. Notice that all of those websites span white across the *entire* background. | |
Again, you project your own feelings onto other people. For the second time now, Facebook has *five hundred million users*. This is not irrelevant nor random- if they didn't like the way the site looks, they wouldn't use it at all, nevermind spend as much time on it as they do. Sites like Myspace died off for a reason- people got sick of completely different themes every other mouse click. Yeah... No one likes YouTube at all thanks to rules and enforcing of stupid bogus copyright laws, but it has massive users... Logic is um... where? And again, 500 million people may be a lot (where is proof of this that over 1/8th the world uses Facebook?), but a lot of people make dumb decisions daily. You talk about random and again go off topic. Your opinion of the quality of Amazon reviews is irrelevant. They exist, people write them, people read them. They are black text on a white background, and Amazon is the most used and most valuable commerce website worldwide. Take a hint. Point being the FACT of the quality of Amazon reviews is just that - fact. If they are bad, they are pointless to read. Looks to me like you're in a very small minority, one that, like usual, is going to be loud because people who like the way the site looks have no reason to speak up. Wah wah wah. Irony is golden. So golden. The point being though, messing with monitor settings to make ONE site look good and the rest of everything look like garbage is retarded, and anyone "agreeing with this" and calling an alternative whining is a hypocrit, or masochist. | |
I think I have to agree the white isn't nearly as bad when the gray border is gone (it takes up the entire view on my phone and looks much better.)
| |
Moonlight Memento wrote:
Yeah... No one likes YouTube at all thanks to rules and enforcing of stupid bogus copyright laws, but it has massive users... Logic is um... where? Yeah, no one likes YouTube. Not like it's the third most popular website in the world or anything, pfft, that website sucks. Again: it doesn't matter what the site is about or what your perceived notions about how people view the site are: if people didn't like the site, it wouldn't be popular. That's the definition of popularity. And again, 500 million people may be a lot (where is proof of this that over 1/8th the world uses Facebook?), but a lot of people make dumb decisions daily. http://mashable.com/2010/07/21/facebook-500-million-2/ Again: it doesn't matter what the site is about or what your perceived notions about how people view the site are: if people didn't like the site, it wouldn't be popular. That's the definition of popularity. Point being the FACT of the quality of Amazon reviews is just that - fact. If they are bad, they are pointless to read. I'll take your red herring for a minute just to prove you wrong. 1108 people have read and rated this review. How many have read it without rating it is unknown. That's a *single* review on a *single* product on Amazon.com. But no one reads those, right? Because they hurt their eyes, right? Again: it doesn't matter what the site is or what your perceived notions about how people view the site are: if people didn't like the site, it wouldn't be popular. That's the definition of popularity. Irony is golden. So golden. The point being though, messing with monitor settings to make ONE site look good and the rest of everything look like garbage is retarded, and anyone "agreeing with this" and calling an alternative whining is a hypocrit, or masochist. Wah wah wah. | |
Alathon wrote:
I don't really think YouTube, Google etc. are comparable here. Why not- is it for the same reason as below, or just something about Google and Youtube? Do they not entail reading and discussions? Even if you don't count the Google search page (which I read more often than I read this forum), there's still Gmail, Groups, News, Books, and Docs. This website frames white *inside* a grey background - Thats what causes the stark contrast. Notice that all of those websites span white across the *entire* background. I think this is helpful to the site, not hurtful. If the background is full white, an LCD monitor is going to put out *more* light. I understand that the gray sides may make the white appear brighter for some, but there's a difference between "appearing brighter" and being more luminous. Additionally, in a similar fashion to the BYOND site, most PDF readers display gray sidebars (as does MS Word...) and chances are if you're reading a PDF, it's black text on a white background. | |
Yeah, no one likes YouTube. Not like it's the third most popular website in the world or anything, pfft, that website sucks. Again: it doesn't matter what the site is about or what your perceived notions about how people view the site are: if people didn't like the site, it wouldn't be popular. That's the definition of popularity. It's the most popular at what it does because the competition has worse layouts. Uploading to YouTube is essentially pointless, record companies or such will just get your videos taken down, regardless of whether or not their material is in your video. Again, stop saying "my perceived notions of such and such", this is common fact the only reason people use YouTube is their bans aren't IP based whatsoever, and the opposition is painful on the eyes. Again: it doesn't matter what the site is about or what your perceived notions about how people view the site are: if people didn't like the site, it wouldn't be popular. That's the definition of popularity. Your first words were "perceived notions" I believe. That's a *single* review on a *single* product on Amazon.com. But no one reads those, right? Because they hurt their eyes, right? Again: it doesn't matter what the site is or what your perceived notions about how people view the site are: if people didn't like the site, it wouldn't be popular. That's the definition of popularity. This is golden. You've said "your peceived notions" like fifty times. The only reason they are popular is because the opposition is non-existant or uglier. Wah wah wah. These were your second words, I think. Or your signature, I think, going at the end of your post, considering it's not relevant to anything. | |