Quote Originally Posted by Cameron View Post
I am not sure why, with this obvious consensus, that the text issue hasn't been changed. I can't see how leaving the colors like this makes any sense.
While it might appear that these comments are falling upon deaf ears, the truth is somewhat more complex. The adoption of new/upgraded software made it necessary to alter the theme of the site, and while we are generally pleased with the appearance of this one, it is not an especially simple matter to go back and redefine text field color schemes. We have conducted various experiments along these lines, but most have revealed a host of complications, since a change in one template often has a negative cascading effect upon others. Naturally, none of this is very straightforward, and most of our server/troubleshooting time has gone into making sure that the new coding is stable, and in integrating new features that were not present in our previous format.

We're concerned about readability, of course, and not challenging the science; that said, there are some other considerations in play that may be somewhat less obvious. I don't want to make too much of this, but per our original charter, open discussion boards really only constitute about one-third of the site, with the balance being devoted to informational content and review features. In this, the fact that the revised scheme is atypical for a discussion forum is not entirely a bad thing, as it does give some of our reviews, how-to's and guides a bit more aesthetic prominence than they have had in the past. I would stop just short of suggesting that we're looking to emulate the format or appearance of an online magazine, but the greater integration and visual re-branding have been done along fairly deliberate lines. Among other things, we wanted to do something to lend even greater visual impact to the images that we work so hard to produce, and the new scheme would seem to deliver in that sense.

All well and good, you say, but to what end if I can no longer even read the site? I'm not sure that we have a one-size-fits-all answer for that at the moment, but we are continuing to work on it. None of the earlier comments have been discounted, but some were from newer members who might not yet understand WeVo's larger aims. Some might simply reflect the need to get through an adjustment period, as certain members were taken aback by the sudden change. Some are more likely tied to individual equipment and display issues over which we have no control. Some (and Cam, this likely includes your remarks) don't fall neatly into any of these categories, but are nevertheless the thoughts of members left with the impression that the evolution of the site has actually served to make it less usable.

We're listening, and we've obviously made incremental changes already to attempt to deal with some of your challenges; that said, I'm not sure that we can say with any sincerity that we're looking to roll the site back to an earlier point in time, visually. WeVo remains a work in progress, and we're obviously not happy that the step forward has left some feeling ambivalent -- or even openly disappointed -- but I would expect to see a succession of small adjustments from this point forward, rather than anything too revolutionary all at once. This theme, or some permutation of this theme, is our current baseline, and that is not something that we can easily change.

We have no wish to be inflexible or unresponsive, but the most effective comments at this point will be those which tell us how we can make the existing scheme better, rather than those with call for the return of what might have gone before. I'm not suggesting that anyone has ventured too far down that path, but the challenge now is to look ahead, and not back.

AC