Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cunningham

New Site Design

Recommended Posts

Hmmm. Doing a search just now, there was no longer an option to search titles. Not a big deal, but makes it a touch more clunky.
When you click on "Search" you'll see a "More Search Options" option -- click on that and you'll find what you need.

I don't see it. The "More search options" options seem to be highly abbreviated -- just a list of the fora and a recent/relevant sort. No radio buttons for searching thread titles only versus whole threads (essential, as Darrel says, for finding established threads dedicated to specific films). Also no searching by user name, which I know I use all the time when I'm looking for something specific. Am I missing something, or can we get them back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you click "Search," which gets you the drop down.

Then you click "More search options," which gets you the abbreviated search page.

THEN you click "More options" at the bottom and get the full deal.

I don't particular like this system -- I'll investigate if the process can be simplified.

Hmmm. Doing a search just now, there was no longer an option to search titles. Not a big deal, but makes it a touch more clunky.
When you click on "Search" you'll see a "More Search Options" option -- click on that and you'll find what you need.

I don't see it. The "More search options" options seem to be highly abbreviated -- just a list of the fora and a recent/relevant sort. No radio buttons for searching thread titles only versus whole threads (essential, as Darrel says, for finding established threads dedicated to specific films). Also no searching by user name, which I know I use all the time when I'm looking for something specific. Am I missing something, or can we get them back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a Google search window that we could use as an option. It seems to have disappeared. It was a useful alternative, and sometimes found things that the regular search window didn't find.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We had a Google search window that we could use as an option. It seems to have disappeared. It was a useful alternative, and sometimes found things that the regular search window didn't find.

The only downside to this approach is that Google's results would sometimes take you to an alternate display mode of the thread in question, and it could be a pain to change it back to your preferred mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can still be done on regular google (including toolbars). Just add "site:artsandfaith.com" to your existing search term.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the new look but I HATE the logo at the top.

It looks like something has been smeared across the top of my screen, and the logo is far too dogmatic. As usual, I object to the term 'faith' being used to mean 'Christian', which is certainly the implication of the heavy King James Bible-esque font.

The rest, though, is pretty. I always liked the sky blue. Whoever thought that poo brown was a match for sky blue clearly doesn't watch 'What Not To Wear'. Seriously, though, ick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you feel poo is being smeared on your screen.

Color is always tricky on the internet -- your poo is my pink.

But we're probably going to be making some adjustments to the color scheme.

Any more comments like yours and I'm going to go out and get poo-faced tonight....

G

Like the new look but I HATE the logo at the top.

It looks like something has been smeared across the top of my screen, and the logo is far too dogmatic. As usual, I object to the term 'faith' being used to mean 'Christian', which is certainly the implication of the heavy King James Bible-esque font.

The rest, though, is pretty. I always liked the sky blue. Whoever thought that poo brown was a match for sky blue clearly doesn't watch 'What Not To Wear'. Seriously, though, ick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New issue:

Trying to update my film journal, it doesn't like it because it has too many emoticons. I'd hate to have to go through all those films and backspace over all the ratings. Could you just eliminate the star rating emoticons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any more comments like yours and I'm going to go out and get poo-faced tonight....

Come on over, I've got some microbrews in the fridge, and the wife is going to see Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's odd. It's the same colour on my pc and my mac. Poo schmoo.

More seriously, the logo really bothers me. I find it turgid, and I really AM concerned about the implications of 'faith'. Especially as, has been noted above, the font adjustments make the letters 't' interpretable in specific Christian-centric ways. I appreciate that most board members are Christians, but to exclusively label the board as such through subtle design? I don't know if this is deliberate, but it makes me uncomfortable.

Furthermore, am I the only one to think that the font is too serious? It makes us look...well... like a bunch of white middle aged priests. And it makes the board appear to be a dull place.

I'm a font nut too, and get irked by these things, so apologies if I'm being blunt but my experience with design has been the more honest you are with your opinions the more useful an exercise feedback can be. It certainly looks professional, very slick, just... maybe it's that I don't fit in with the demographic here and this is a prickly reminder of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially as, has been noted above, the font adjustments make the letters 't' interpretable in specific Christian-centric ways.

It hasn't been "noted." It has been alleged -- by you -- with, well, no substantial supporting evidence. Granted, it's a Roman font similar to the one used for the original edition of the KJV (and many subsequent ones) -- but a Roman font could just as easily signify a connection to, for example, the pagan cult of the emperor in pre-Christian Rome. If you think there is something particularly Christian about the enlarged T, you will have to explain what it is, because it certainly isn't obvious to me.

I appreciate that most board members are Christians, but to exclusively label the board as such through subtle design? I don't know if this is deliberate, but it makes me uncomfortable.

Again, what's "exclusive" about a Roman font as opposed to the old sans serif font? I have a copy of The Meaning of the Glorious Koran on my shelf, set in -- egad! -- a serif font. And even if the new logo somehow were supposed to be understood as a Christian symbol -- which, I submit, it isn't -- I should think you know the personalities here a little better than to suppose that we'd be cowed by someone claiming that an expression of Christian faith made her uncomfortable. Are we somehow expected not to acknowledge the fact that most participants are Christians?

Furthermore, am I the only one to think that the font is too serious? It makes us look...well... like a bunch of white middle aged priests. And it makes the board appear to be a dull place.

It might be dull without the enlarged T's, ligatures, artistic kerning, collapsed leading, broken horizontal line, and other typographic embellishments. It's much more aesthetically pleasing than the previous logo, and more whimsical, at least to my eye.

I'm a font nut too, and get irked by these things, so apologies if I'm being blunt but my experience with design has been the more honest you are with your opinions the more useful an exercise feedback can be. It certainly looks professional, very slick, just... maybe it's that I don't fit in with the demographic here and this is a prickly reminder of that.

Have you considered the possibility that you are reading into the design things which are not really there?

I'm reminded of a couple of minor controversies concerning Christian rock artists in the 1980s, which won't be familiar to you but might ring a bell for some other members. Conservative Christian rock critics took issue with design elements on two album covers in particular: Michael W. Smith's The Big Picture had some text in a font that looked like Viking runes, which the critics alleged were Satanic symbols. Steve Taylor's I Predict 1990 had a sort of Aubrey Beardsley-ish pseudo-art-deco cover, which the critics alleged was a visual reference to tarot cards.

Anyway, if you've got something to support the idea that enlarged T's are meant to be understood as some kind of exclusive Christian symbol, I'd sure like to know what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would leave the board because of a logo?

Gosh, when we took over the board I was told there were some prickly types here but now I guess I'm finding out.

With the greatest of respect, there ain't no monolithic "demographic" here.

I've been a lurker long enough to know that much. And no logo is suddenly going to change that.

We've got all types here -- lovers of watercress sandwiches and wolfers of double bacon jalapeno cheeseburgers.

Apparently we've also got people who don't know the difference between bluntness and snottiness.

(I believe I'm beginning to grow into my avatar....)

As to the notion that the logo is emphasizing the Christian symbol of the cross -- cross schmoss. That's your hyperactive imagination.

And I'm sorry that the professional, award-winning organization known for its exquisite typography is getting you down -- and looking too...professional.

But just so you know -- I don't like watercress sandwiches.....

GW

That's odd. It's the same colour on my pc and my mac. Poo schmoo.

More seriously, the logo really bothers me. I find it turgid, and I really AM concerned about the implications of 'faith'. Especially as, has been noted above, the font adjustments make the letters 't' interpretable in specific Christian-centric ways. I appreciate that most board members are Christians, but to exclusively label the board as such through subtle design? I don't know if this is deliberate, but it makes me uncomfortable.

Furthermore, am I the only one to think that the font is too serious? It makes us look...well... like a bunch of white middle aged priests. And it makes the board appear to be a dull place.

I'm a font nut too, and get irked by these things, so apologies if I'm being blunt but my experience with design has been the more honest you are with your opinions the more useful an exercise feedback can be. It certainly looks professional, very slick, just... maybe it's that I don't fit in with the demographic here and this is a prickly reminder of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shift in the color scheme doesn't bother me much at all. Could it be refined and tweaked a little bit? Of course it could -- personally, I think it looks a little too washed out in some places, but that's only because red is a tricky color to work with in lighter shades (make it too light, and you end up with weaker shades of pink) and not because red is a "bad" color that shouldn't be used.

Personally, I'd never describe the dark red color as "poo brown" -- which just goes to show that color, like so much in design, is entirely subjective. Yes, there is a science to color, and there are certainly ideal guidelines to go by. But when dealing with color in web design, there are so many variables -- e.g., monitor calibration (or lack thereof), ambient light in the room, type of display -- that trying to get it absolutely perfect is an exercise in futility.

As for the logo, there are certainly a few things that I think could be tweaked and adjusted (but again, they are more personal preferences than anything else). However, saying that the use of a serif font in the word "faith" automatically labels the forum as a "Christian" forum... well, that seems like a stretch to me. Again, to show how subjective this is, when I first saw the logo, it struck me as professional, elegant, and refined.

While the logo might communicate Christianity via the use of a serif font, is that an inherently bad thing? For one thing, there's never been any sort of official policy of exclusivity to the best of my knowledge, either in the "Rules" or in the "Registration Terms & Rules". There's nothing to keep someone from another faith from participating in the forum, other than their own perceptions -- which are not trivial, to be sure. We've had some wonderful exchanges -- in the "Religion" forum, not surprisingly -- that involve people who are most decidedly not Christian. And personally, I'd like to think those will continue, "Christian" logo or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the logo is classy and elegant. And the color works for me. It reminds me of wine. *And* of Seattle Pacific, where that kind of burgundy is the school color (in spite of the fact that wine is not permitted on campus.)

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently we've also got people who don't know the difference between bluntness and snottiness.

I guess it's time to say goodbye to Gigi, one of our two female posters here at A&F.

Maybe she didn't take your comment personally.

If Nardis flees again, we change the logo by adding the words "for boys."

Edited by Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have at least 4 female posters, dang it. Isn't that enough? [/satire]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I failed the Facebook color vision test. I thought the site was still blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of this color, but to my mind the objection isn't worth raising.

More seriously, the logo really bothers me. I find it turgid, and I really AM concerned about the implications of 'faith'. Especially as, has been noted above, the font adjustments make the letters 't' interpretable in specific Christian-centric ways. I appreciate that most board members are Christians, but to exclusively label the board as such through subtle design? I don't know if this is deliberate, but it makes me uncomfortable.

Oh, come on gigi, don't leave yet. Look at it this way. For sake of argument I'll grant the christian semiotics. Please remember that, of the world's great religions, Christianity is one of the more proselytizing of them. Note the non-violent (most of the time) proselytizing, as opposed to some that prefer swordsmanship in an evangelistic context. The fact that the "T" is an upper case "T", though, is a problem for this POV. An upper case "T" is not quite the cross-like symbol that would offend some. This "cross" has the top cut off. Further, if I am not mistaken, most religions who's works are published in English do not forsake the use of this particular letter for the reasons that bother you. "T" is an indispensible letter to the English language. At the very least, its most commonly and constantly used article begins with the letter, most often in lower case.

I submit that just about every religion relies heavily on what seems to bother you in all its English communication. Why would one deny christians this particular necessity?

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And please guys, don't take this the wrong way, but the "for boys" part has been there all along. ;) It would be cool if we had more women posting!

So, you know of any chicks, uh, women who'd like to join? What would be a good strategy for bringing 'em in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for cross-like shapes, there's the Tau cross, which looks exactly like our letter T.

Ironically, though, the Tau cross derives from the Greek alphabet and is nearly always rendered as a sans serif T, not a Roman T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have at least 4 female posters, dang it. Isn't that enough? [/satire]

Wait, you're forgetting stef! That's 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's interesting how things can be inferred which were never intended, even in typography.

I work for an international adoption agency, and at times my job duties have included designing newspaper ads. Just after 9/11, if you'll recall, there was something of a nationwide spike in people committing to do important things they had been putting off, e.g., going back to school or starting a family. This spike extended into our bailiwick at the adoption agency, as interest in adoption dramatically increased for a time. My boss wrote a new slogan for our ads to reflect this change in the zeitgeist: "In times like these, children matter." We ran these ads for several months. Then we got a cranky letter: "Saying children matter in these times suggests that they don't matter at other times." Which, of course, was hogwash, but it does suggest that almost anything is open to misconstrual.

Edited by mrmando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×