Skip to main content
Topic: Ugly design (Read 3230 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ugly design

First off, sorry, as I understand it took a lot of work and that jazz, but I can't stand the new designs, they both look like 1.0 while the previous ones were more like 1.1.
(Using Be Social, I can't even look at Light) It looks quite a lot retro, especially the "new topic" buttons, the font used for them, the menu boxes thingy... No, sorry, big thumbs down for me on this one. Not to mention the buggy hover effect while hovering on usernames, as another example. Or the missing "home" button in the linktree?
Why the borders on top, too?! (#top_section) ew, try to remove them and I dare you to tell me it looks worse without both of them.
At least I like the page number links... But that's pretty much it.
~ SimplePortal Support Team ~

Re: Ugly design

Reply #1

It's not just username. Seems something off on sizes in the whole mini-profile.

However, I do agree the new look is not all that smooth and easy on the eyes, as it used to be.

Re: Ugly design

Reply #2

BeSocial or Light ?

We know we have quite a few cough rough spots on this pre-beta, that's part of why we put it up ;) 

But please doi your best to be specific with the issues you are having .. e.g. which variant, page, action, what its doing, what it was, what you want, etc ...

Thanks

Re: Ugly design

Reply #3

Quote from: Flavio93Zena (#OpIsis) – (Using Be Social, I can't even look at Light)
I just can't understand why you changed it so much, the design was very modern and intuitive, while this feels like a step backwards...
I'd commit some changes to GitHub, if it was easier to use and if I had the time (currently at my gf's, so my time is super limited).
~ SimplePortal Support Team ~

Re: Ugly design

Reply #4

I agree to Flavio. I did not install the 1.1 beta right now, so I can only talk about what I see here in this support board. And I don't like it too. The house icon in the breadcrump is way too big and kind of like another style then the other icons used around the board. The greenish filled board icons look kind of cheap. Everything is green, but the small icons are blue, why?!? Just some quick found examples...

I really appreciate your work. I am so glad for ElkArte, thankful for the help you are offering using it. But please, the design goes backwards. So much the wrong way, I don't want to use it.  :-X

If you need help with the design things, let us know. Some of us will be glad to help!

Re: Ugly design

Reply #5

I wonder if people understand the meaning of testing... from your posts it looks like we are throwing crap at everybody just for the sake of it. ::)

And if all the problems are the size of an icon and a couple of drop shadows: removed.
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Ugly design

Reply #6

Quote from: emanuele – ...from your posts it looks like we are throwing crap at everybody just for the sake of it. ::)

No, I don't think that's your intention. But if you are throwing a 1.1 Beta out to the world with such changes to the design, allow me two questions:

1. Did you describe anywhere that these design changes are to be discussed and not final (if they are)?

2. Why are you not using the old, better looking design? As for the board icons for example, 1.0 uses an graphic file, 1.1 uses FontAwesome icons, right? If your goal was to use icons all over the board, less graphic files, why didn't you communicate this?

Quote from: emanuele – And if all the problems are the size of an icon and a couple of drop shadows: removed.

I see a lot of small things that are different and in the actual state not as good looking or/and working as they did in 1.0.

We, the users who are not informed about why you changed some of the things we mention, wish to be involved and informed about such things as you do with new functions and ideas you have for the future of ElkArte. We are spoiled in a way.  ;)

So can we please keep calm? No need for harsh feelings, no one wants to attack you or anyone from your team! You all do an amazing job!

Re: Ugly design

Reply #7

I think, it is too early to discuss about the design and it is not helpful at all in the temporary situation.

The design seems  less important to me, it is not finished yet and it is always a question of personal taste. I also think, it could be changed, if someone don't like it at all?

Re: Ugly design

Reply #8

BeSocial is currently completely broken.. That was reported at least two times and will be fixed soon.. The Light variant wasn't changed that much, just some button and icon changes IMO..
Thorsten "TE" Eurich
------------------------

 

Re: Ugly design

Reply #9

BeSocial is completely broken because of how extensive the changes to Light are, and I'm only half done with Light.

Also, this forum seems to be using an older build? There are a few things I know I fixed.

Some of the most drastic changes have gone completely unnoticed, so I consider this overall a win : p

Quote from: Ruth – I think, it is too early to discuss about the design and it is not helpful at all in the temporary situation.

The design seems  less important to me, it is not finished yet and it is always a question of personal taste. I also think, it could be changed, if someone don't like it at all?

This is entirely the point. The ability to, with ease, swap out everything.

Right now theming in SMF/Elkarte is such a pain. There are dozens of bespoke systems for icons. After I'm done (took a bit of a break for a few weeks >>) there will be three

1) The Logo

2) Smileys

3) Everything else

The pure SVG version is unavoidably going to be a bit flatter, though you can embed gradients into svgs, along with multiple colors. I just don't have the time for this.

Someone could also chop up the sprites and embed or link them directly, as has been discussed.

In any case, the end result is more accessible, more responsive, and more customizable.

This is a theme system refactor, and we're still in the middle of it. Can work on some of the worst offenses, though. >
>