Everything looks different!

[Kat Haylock]

As much as we loved our old, colourful site (special mention to the user who told me our registration page made them feel drunk), it’s long been time for a refresh.

For the last few months, we’ve been working to create a site with a bit less fuss. We wanted something that was clear, bold and straight to the point - much like the UKBF audience.

I don’t like it.

Making changes to a site that’s so familiar isn’t an easy task, especially when several members have been coming here for 10+ years. But if we want the site to last another 10 years, these updates are important every now and then.

Why mess around with the site colours when XYZ needs fixing?

There’s a mammoth list of changes and fixes we want to make on the site, but these things take time and, obviously, money. The publishing industry hasn’t been easy for a while, and in our market there isn’t much room for sites that don’t grab people (whether that’s users or clients) from the get-go. This is the first step to getting UKBF where we want it to be.

Is XXXX still meant to be blue/green/yellow/rainbow?

Nope. There were a few things that could only be updated when the site was live, so I’m doing my best to get around to everything now. Please tell me if you come across something that’s part of our old branding and I’ll make sure it’s on my list.

I can’t access XXXX on the site

None of the functionality should’ve changed with our recent work, but if you suddenly can’t access something that you used to be able to, please let me know.

Where can I give my feedback?

Shatter my hopes and dreams in the comments below.

But seriously, this site is here for the community - you lot. Take a few days to familiarise yourself with the new look, and let me know if there’s anything that’s really problematic for you.

 

[Noah]

Aversion to change is natural - we're conservative creatures by habit. Having said that, I quite like the new version, but like you I am unconvinced about the serif fonts; will see if they settle in...

 

[Kat Haylock]

My view is that once the initial "newness" passes (give it a week?) we can make edits to things that people still have problems with. Like the font.

 

[arnydnxluk]

In addition to my comments in this topic (short version: I like the new design), I would like to say that I personally do like the font so please take this as a vote to retain the current font I still wish the border-bottom on links would be removed though... text-decoration: underline would be more appropriate!

 

[Ian J]

You know who will complain as he always does

 

[Ashley_Price]

Love the new design!

I guess there will be people complaining. I think lots of people complained when the site was last refreshed some years ago... but I think "most" of them are still here.

If I had ONE comment to make, however, with the new font, letters in bold can look a little indistinct. Maybe harder for those with vision problems to be able to see clearly?

 

[Newchodge]

My eyesight is not brilliant. I cannot see notifications and when I open them they are all one continuous spiece of prose so I cnanot differentiate between the person and the thread. No problem with the colour change, but really not sure about the fonts.

 

[Kat Haylock]

My eyesight is not brilliant. I cannot see notifications and when I open them they are all one continuous spiece of prose so I cnanot differentiate between the person and the thread. No problem with the colour change, but really not sure about the fonts.

Thanks for the feedback! We can change this no problem.

 

[Deleted member 226268]

Everything looks different...
Yes..... it's crap.

Who chose that God-awful .... nerve-jangling ... eye watering ... Dentist drill .... orange colour ?
ANY colour but that.
Hows about a nice relaxing pastel light green, or a serene sea blue ?

And why have we gone default to this prehistoric Times Roman font ?
Let's have our nice Arial back.

It wasn't broke......Don't fix it.
.

 

[Gecko001]

 

[KM-Tiger]

but really not sure about the fonts.

It's the fonts that are the problem, the rest is neither here nor there.

As one of the older ones here, who also suffers from glaucoma, I really am struggling to read, where I had no problem before this change.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

New look is amazing, but I would agree with the comments above about fonts. The text in bold looks fuzzy, and I have very good eyesight...

 

[Kat Haylock]

I know there's a particular problem with New Posts at the moment, in terms of indistinct fonts - it was one of the things that I could only change when the site was live, so I'm working on it!

 

[BusterBloodvessel]

I actually like it. Clean and clear. The orange isn't exactly easyJet orange and splashed everywhere, in fact once you're scrolling down a thread and lose the top banner there is no orange even on screen?

Agree about the fonts, fine for me as standard but when in bold they do appear to be blurry..

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I don't mind the new design. I'll adjust to it.

More work is definitely needed on text formatting, however. The readability is poor in a number of ways:

1). What really doesn't work, bordering on a cardinal sin of typography, is small, bold text with a serif font. The article titles in the "UKBF Stories" section is a good example. Many of the letters end up touching and blurring together to make the text difficult to read.

2). The text seems unusually small being 17px. Perhaps it's the font. But serif fonts tend to need a larger font size, particularly on computer screens, as that font style doesn't work as well compared to when it's used on printed media. It's never as smooth and just isn't that good at being represented by pixels in a lower resolution.

3). I would consider removing the serif font entirely. There's a lot of theory about why serif fonts are better for readability, but the problem is that behaviours have changed in the modern age. The vast majority of people have far more exposure to sans-serif fonts and have adjusted to those, so it can be a jarring experience to read serif-heavy typefaces.

 

[tony84]

I like it but I have to zoom out on some of the pages (the pages with the posts on) and then in on the category pages...although I seemed to have settled on 85% of the normal page size.

 

[fisicx]

Font sizes should never ever ever be in pixels.

Set a base font size in % or em and make everything else relative.

 

[Kat Haylock]

Thanks for your feedback everyone, it's been really useful. I've switched out the serif in favour of something a bit more readable, given the volume of people who were having problems.

 

[fisicx]

That transforms the site - looks a zillion times better. Just need to fix the inconsistent font sizes. They are all over the place.

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Thanks for your feedback everyone, it's been really useful. I've switched out the serif in favour of something a bit more readable, given the volume of people who were having problems.

Looks a lot better in the New Posts section etc, but still the notifications area isn't great. Number is too small, and everything bold within the notification means poster and thread run in to one.

 

[Gecko001]

The light orange colour is fine and is trending at the minute on some graphic design sites. It is the "new light blue".

The dark green/brown used in the footer and as a contrasting colour for text in a background of the light orange is sickly. Plain white text on the light orange background works well and is just as easily read if not more easy to read.

 

[fisicx]

Because you use orange for everything you don't now what's clickable and what's not.

And you need two colours for buttons: primary (eg post) and secondary (eg preview).

 

[DG web consultancy]

I personally like it. Blue is a too conservative and boring even though I like it as a colour.

Haven't seen much of it in detail but seems like a better direction I think.

Agree about two colours for buttons, maybe this for example. Design by committee is generally a bad idea though.

 

[Noah]

May just be me : In the forum thread list, threads that I have read are indistinguishable from unread threads; the thread title used to be unemphasised, and bold, respectively.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Using chrome and Header and Menu's look so basic , if i was a new member looking ,i would immediately move to the next site. you have a big advert on top and than a header that says nothing about you except you like Black bold and orange. To me you have lost your identity and that's a major problem

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

May just be me : In the forum thread list, threads that I have read are indistinguishable from unread threads; the thread title used to be unemphasised, and bold, respectively.

Not just you!

 

[Paul Murray]

I guess we'll get used to it, but what was wrong with the old theme? The new one feels like it's lacking contrast in certain areas, and I'm also finding the posts harder to read now for some reason. I think it's the white boxes around the avatars, it's distracting. The grey background also becomes a little overpowering when you're staring at a white box.

 

[Gecko001]

I agree with Chris that someone coming to the site will just see the advert on the header and not realise that it is actually a business forum. You have got rid of the logo icon and replaced it with what is effectively a wordmark and not a logo. There is nothing inherently bad about that, as most very large businesses do not actually have logos but wordmarks. But I think if it is a wordmark it should be big enough to be recognised as the name of the website.

 

[Kat Haylock]

May just be me : In the forum thread list, threads that I have read are indistinguishable from unread threads; the thread title used to be unemphasised, and bold, respectively.

Good spot! I'll make sure that goes back in - it's just a bug/error, I'm not trying to get you to read the same threads over and over again I promise...

To me you have lost your identity and that's a major problem

Believe it or not, the reason we wanted to embark on this change was to actually give UKBF a bit of an identity. With so many people working on the site over the years, it had become a bit of a mish mash of colours and styles, and it was impossible to find what the original designer had intended the site to look like: was our defining brand colour meant to be blue? Or was it the red/yellow/green/blue combination of our logo? Or was it the rainbow image on our registration page? We put a lot of thought into whether we wanted to keep anything, but the natural option seemed to be to strip everything right back and start with something new. I hope you come to like it in time!

You have got rid of the logo icon and replaced it with what is effectively a wordmark and not a logo. There is nothing inherently bad about that, as most very large businesses do not actually have logos but wordmarks. But I think if it is a wordmark it should be big enough to be recognised as the name of the website.

Thanks for your feedback! You make a good point - I'll take a second look at sizing.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Trouble is it looks like a 1990's web site from a university with no need to do anything apart from display information
Today we are in 2018 and most people who are new will not give it one seconds look, I have never seen a web site looking so basic of identification.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Thanks for your feedback everyone, it's been really useful. I've switched out the serif in favour of something a bit more readable, given the volume of people who were having problems.

Much better.

 

[sirearl]

Has something changed?

I thought it was me new bins that made the text clearer.

 

[STDFR33]

The website looks cheap, and when opening up the website it looks like landing page to a website that intends to ask for your bank details to enter you into the Nigerian lottery. I'll have numbers 6, 19, 27, 39, 32 and 47 please.

It is bland and has no character.

The font is an improvement, but the notifications are still horrible.

The adverts stand out more though, which is presumably what you wanted to achieve.

 

[Dan Izzard]

I like it. Although the column on the left is a legacy that will probably follow me to the grave. I'll be explaining it to my grandkids I reckon.

 

[money road]

I love the way forum looks now.

 

[NewGardenStyle]

Can't say I'm a fan of the orange and black colour combo. Makes me think of Bianca from EastEnders.

 

[Jay Shields]

wow.. amazing look! more minimalistic and clean. definitely like it more than the previous one

 

[Gordon - Commercial Finance]

Number on notifications much clearer, but still the text within the notifications dropdown not great, and no fix as yet for read/unread post distinction as far as I can see?

 

[Kat Haylock]

and no fix as yet for read/unread post distinction as far as I can see?

This will be fixed, but I'm a one person team at the moment.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

If you lose the clear identity, of any site due to having no real title, and giving premium place of impact to a advert, then I cannot see new comers ever stopping at the home page

We all know that visual impact in the first few seconds is all the stops people quickly moving on

Maybe I am wrong, as I appear to be the on;y person who would never suggest other sites follow this practice.