Bug Reports

[Amaltea]

I think this is a good place to have a thread where you guys can post with any bug finds.

We already know of the portrait/avatar upload. We are also running into a problem with new memberships. These, hopefully, will be fixed tonight or tomorrow.

But if you find any other problems, please let us know. Thanks.

[Morgan le Fay]

The ability to be able to read with a light background and dark text seems to be missing. Light text on dark background is very *unfriendly* on eyes, especially when reading long posts. Please give users the option to choose their preferred view.

[Amaltea]

Creating a new template means creating a new template for the whole site. Not just creating a new template but maintaining two different templates. Regular templates will not work with this site. This is a custom template with many modifications.

I'm sorry, but a different template is not an option at the moment.

[Deluthan]

I always thought light text with dark background was easier on your eyes. Because the background takes up more area on the screen than the text, that's less light that is bombarding your eyes.

[Morgan le Fay]

Basic web design 101: dark background/light text may look "cool" in a trendy way, especially with the younger set, but over time it is hard on the eyes and the text looks blurred.

Don't sacrifice someone's eyesight in the name of fitting some artistic style point. People should have the choice on how they want their message boards to look.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/usability/colorcss.html

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/109.htm

http://www.webreference.com/dlab/9704/backgr.html

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalwe ... adults.htm

http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/acce ... color.html

http://www.k-state.edu/tools/design/tips.html

http://graphicdesign.about.com/cs/desig ... _rules.htm

That's what a simple Google search brings up.

I'd hate to have to write off RoH because of a stubborn refusal to consider at least giving readers a choice on how they want to read boards. Reading the brief snippets on the front page is one thing (and easily ignored), but reading posts is another, especially the longer posts. Why would you intentionally made a decision that could chase off people RoH really can't afford to lose? This light text/dark background literally gives me a headache. I can't even get away from it when I'm composing within the message box!

PHP gives readers the options on how they want to view things. It is frustrating when a designer specifically overrides this very helpful FEATURE in the name of vanity.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

I don't want to see this turn into a pissing contest..

Yes, I may upset a few with my choice of words, but it's blunt, and simple.. and how I put things.

Personally, I find that the darker background is *easier* on the eyes than the lighter. But again, that is how I feel, as do many others.

Yes, there are some that feel the opposite. And I will not argue the point of which is better.

What is important is:
a) the site is back up
b) the site has a new look
c) there should be mad props to all those who have worked hard to make both happen

Changes can be made later, I am sure. But first is first. Get rid of bugs that are currently here, and to get everyone ajusted to the new look.

~Tass

[Amaltea]

We had problems with the server and tonight we had problems with the database.

Keep in mind this thread was created to report bugs and technical problems with the site. Thank you for your cooperation.

[PslyderFTA]

It's still not quite getting the avatar pix. . .ah well. . .I'll try again tomorrow.

[Deluthan]

I found a number of sites through Google that provide arguments for light text on dark background. This is one example I liked because it brought up the example of credits at the end of movie:

http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0600.htm

I should say that I agree that we should be able to have a choice of either; I'm just arguing that having light text on dark background can be just as practical and easy to read as the opposite.

[PslyderFTA]

Technical junk now, asthetics later.

On a side note, where's the junk I just bought for Psly? Did that get jacked along with the crowns? ::insert slightly annoying whine here:: Got those for his city guard job. . .

::heavy sigh:: Ah well. . .no biggie, I guess. It did seem kinda odd that on the DM/RDI board you started with 100, while this one got you 600. I mean, I've got a pretty good handle on inflation, but dang. . .::cheesy grin::

[Amaltea]

I think so, the stuff we bought got lost when the database hiccuped. Along with the crowns and the avatars and everything else that is missing.

Just a quick reminder: Please make sure to backup your posts.

[Amaltea]

It looks like the database is ok now. As a thank you we awarded everyone 800 silvers. So go shopping.

If you still have problems, make sure to post it here.

Thank you for your patience.

[Raevyx_Araya]

::: hugs all of the admins who have been working with the new site and helping make our time here more enjoyable! :::

[Billy]

Unfortunatly, a choice of colors and backgrounds is not something we can provide at this time, as it will require more than just uploading a simple template to the boards. We are going to be experimenting with some new ideas that may help provide this functionality in the future, but please remember we do not have unlimited resources at our disposal to work with.

Please be patient while we work out some of these issues, but please don't hesitate to give us feedback so we know what direction we need to head in next.

[Goldglo]

I think I found a bug in the DoF Histories section. Under the individual Opal histories, the history seems to end early. For instance, with ShadoWeaver, the last entry is from "11-18-03" and for IceDancer, the last entry is "4-29-04". The bottom of the page indicates that the last update was made by Jake on July 20, 2005, and I know everything was current when he made the last update. Are the histories spread across multiple pages and I'm just not seeing the link for the next page?

The rest of the DoF sections look ok (we do need to make a couple updates to the Special Titleholders page though).

The DoS Histories seem to be fine; there's no entry for the Talon of Redwin specifically under DoS but I'm not sure if one ever existed, and there's a separate link for it anyhow.

DoM looks solid, also, at least from what I can tell.