New Branding / Cosmetic Reforms

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am in tears laughing Dennis. I am with Vic, What Do all those new terms and phrases mean? Are they in the nomenclature catalogue? I was just learning what it meant to be user-friendly! LOL

The first paragraph was everything trendy that I could think of in the church work field. It helps that one of my kids pastors a large church with a coffee bar in the lobby and big screen televisions featuring the rockin rifs of the worship band.

The second paragraph with the marketing jargon consisted in stringing together all of the things I have to listen to from our web consultants. And, yes, they really talk like this. It is everything I can do to keep from laughing at them.
 
Who needs change when we have just received refurbished black and white Theologian Portraits? Isn't that enough? Besides, while the desktop version of the site has black and blue options, Tapatalk has me covered with an additional black or red theme on my iPhone that goes well with my fair-trade Macchiato. Macchiato? Scratch that. I've moved on to the mocha pot for the home brew cheap-o. If I add a little pumpkin spice for a seasonal flare, all my concerns about themes goes away anyway, but I wouldn't be opposed to a well done update. Hey! Can we have our own church sign too? Of course, the sign would need to be edited by our PB moderators who already govern the threads very well (has anyone seen the present chaos of other web forums? Run away now!). We wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that Jesus is frantically searching for Facebook likes.
 
I wouldn't have expected a notion as updating PB to have gone any differently than it has, considering our Reformed heritage, but it is interesting to see how quickly a connection was made from technological user-friendliness to seemingly liberal ideology?

What exactly is cluttered about the main section? Do you mean the front page or the forum list? I find PB to be very attractive compared to many other forums!

User-friendliness is sometimes subjective but I see some areas that I think could use improvement if there was an opportunity and context to seriously consider a "clean up" or revision. In my opinion, technology, unlike theology, does not always work best conservatively or traditionally -- even though there is nothing necessarily wrong with a horse and carriage, I'm sure most of us drive an automobile? I appeal to the logical inference of the illustration, nothing more :)
 
User-friendliness is sometimes subjective but I see some areas that I think could use improvement if there was an opportunity and context to seriously consider a "clean up" or revision. In my opinion, technology, unlike theology, does not always work best conservatively or traditionally -- even though there is nothing necessarily wrong with a horse and carriage, I'm sure most of us drive an automobile? I appeal to the logical inference of the illustration, nothing more :)

I'm hardly one against change or updating of technology. But perhaps you could be specific as to the changes you'd like to see? Mostly what I hear is that what we have seems to be working, so unlike a church website (which should be regularly updated and reflect current technology if possible), the forum is laid out in an easy to use manner. I similarly just use the "New Posts" feature to check things here.

But if you gave some specific examples or a sample somewhere else online, perhaps PB members would be more interested in the idea.

:2cents:
 
If you wanted to do something helpful, you might work on the plug in for the 'Helpful' button. In the old days, it would show who clicked it and give credit for a post. That was lost in one of the upgrades to the underlying software, and it's certainly beyond my skill level.
 
If you wanted to do something helpful, you might work on the plug in for the 'Helpful' button. In the old days, it would show who clicked it and give credit for a post. That was lost in one of the upgrades to the underlying software, and it's certainly beyond my skill level.

I thought that was disabled on purpose?
 
I like the site the way it is: forums sensibly listed and posts listed within them. No sudden graphics or sound clips.

Sudden graphics or sound clips? I haven't seen those on sites since the early 00s.
When you enter the site of one of my competitors, a pink butterfly flits across the screen. "Flit" is being optimistic - takes for ever to load.
 
I would agree with Philip that the board could use a bit of redesigning.

And I don't mean it needs anything flashy and colorful; I mean mostly with regard to typography.

The main content of this board is words, and I have to admit, with the current typography of the board design, it was very hard for me to read through and follow long posts and discussions.

After a while, I actually installed a browser plugin called 'Stylish' which let's us on your own computer restyle websites the way you want, and I've tweaked a few things to help the readability for me personally.

I'll try to post pictures of what I mean with regard to readability; it may be better to show than tell in this case =)
 
Anish,

I will say that your layout looks easier to read. Sometimes I shrink the width on my browser because if there are really long posts I have a hard time reading (lines are too long). Looks like you've got it down to about 60 characters or so?
 
So, as an example, see if this is easier to read / skim.

Before:
Imageshack - vtg8.png
or
http://imageshack.us/a/img43/9093/vtg8.png


Updated typography:
Imageshack - msh5.png
or
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/4449/msh5.png


Then again, maybe I'm just spoiled and a bit too picky =)

For one and 3 I get two white rectangles with a vertical bar between them; for two and four, the rectangles are black.

They may be using some sort of scripting that I block.
 
For one and 3 I get two white rectangles with a vertical bar between them; for two and four, the rectangles are black.

That's 'cause they are images. Screenshots, essentially.

It is a personal preference situation. I don't like Anish's improved versions, but I'm sure it is simply personal preference. It's the same reason I could never warm up to Firefox as a browser over the years. The font layout bothered me too much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top