BTW, @coxford_lou , your screen does look more bold than mine. See here:
And here:
(Note I changed my mention colours).
BTW, @coxford_lou , your screen does look more bold than mine. See here:
And here:
(Note I changed my mention colours).
Interesting. Iām in Safari. I think itās just a dud font.
Donāt want to speak for @pap , but it looks like the font we will use will be one of the following:
āpersansā,
āPerspectiveSansā,
āOpen Sansā,
Arial,
Helvetica,
sans-serif;
The browser will use the first one of those fonts that it finds (from top to bottom).
Mine appears to be using Open Sans (i.e. the third font on that list), which is a really nice and readable clean font.
See hereā¦
It could be that if youāre on a Mac, you have either āpersansā or āPerspectiveSansā installed?
And perhaps that accounts for the difference?
Iām guessing, though.
But surely if itās a webfont, you donāt need it installed? Iām confused
Seriously design gripers. Unless you come up with something demonstrably fucking fantastic, Iām not changing shit on that front. Donāt mind minor tweaks, as I did yesterday. If theyāre quick and easy, Iāll do them.
Iām not entertaining redesigns. Iām trying to build structure. We can pick our wallpaper once the house is built.
In the meantime, marvel at how good it does look compared to all the other Saints forum shit shows out there, or bravely step up and tell me how TSW, UI or IBO are the football forum equivalents of Prada.
I think I may go back to reading books.
Hmmm, suddenly the brief doesnāt seem quite as clear as it first did. Iāll pass on that then!
Thatās certainly what I would have thought, @coxford_lou .
And also being a web font it SHOULD appear the same/very similar on each platform.
omg bill gates vs steve jobs
This is more like Alan Sugar vs Sir Clive Sinclair
I donāt wanna get stuck in a power struggle! Iād rather watch Taboo!
Originally posted by @saintbletch
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Hmmm, suddenly the brief doesnāt seem quite as clear as it first did. Iāll pass on that then!
Sorry about that, @coxford_lou .
Heh, thatās OK.
i usually agree with beltch, and go for something that looks good even if it doesnāt work, but tbh sheās getting on my nerves at the moment
Hilda Ogden v Ena Sharples
I donāt know why I acknowledged Sir Cliveās knighthood but not Sugars. Possible anti-semetism rearing its ugly face on sotonians again.
And there-in lies the problem. The interminable squabbles over what often comes down to subjective opinion. A lot of designers have a shit life for precisely that reason - a coderās job is easy by comparison. As long as our stuff works, weāre golden. Designers have to put their stuff out there knowing that even if itās the best work they can produce, someone will still call it shit.
Thatās why I donāt want to get into this shit. What some will love, others will hate, and weāll be bogged down with subjective bollocks when I could actually be fulfilling objectives.
As most will have seen yesterday, changing the aesthetics of this place is not a biggy from a technical point of view. Fonts were made bold, then lighter again. We muted the appearance of the tags pretty easily too. From a cultural point of view, itās massive. I know some have wanted to get away from this design since day one. Personally, Iād love a version of the site in roughly the same colours as the away kit, but I know that the further we get from what weāre established as, the more people will complain.
People fear and resist change. That is something I cannot control. What I can do is kick the cornflower blue can a long way down the road while we map it out.
Thatās a far cry from the āeverything just worksā refrain of Mac owners in the '90s.