New SKins

[YoCard]

Everybody loves new skins.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Everybody loves new skins.
[right][snapback]86520[/snapback][/right]

I refute you thus: I am a member of the group 'everybody' and I *don't* like unnecessary change. :)

Seriously, I think Bolty et al. have done an excellent job on the looks of this site. It doesn't put you to sleep, it's not garish, and everything is legible (although some might not be 'readable'). If it ain't broke . . .

--Pete

[Bun-Bun]

Hi,
I refute you thus: I am a member of the group 'everybody' and I *don't* like unnecessary change. :)

Seriously, I think Bolty et al. have done an excellent job on the looks of this site.  It doesn't put you to sleep, it's not garish, and everything is legible (although some might not be 'readable').  If it ain't broke . . .

--Pete
[right][snapback]86524[/snapback][/right]

I think you may have missed the point of YoCard's posts. It appears he is simply posting trivial messages to get his enlarged sig-link seen. His first two posts were just links to his site; the latest two are only marginally more subtle.

[Bolty]

While the original post isn't worth responding to - Pete, what would you think of a forum skin based on the main page's look?

It would certainly be more readable than this, I suppose. If skinning an Invision Board forum didn't take 20 hours to do, I'd have done it a long time ago.

-Bolty

[LochnarITB]

Pete, what would you think of a forum skin based on the main page's look?
[right][snapback]86554[/snapback][/right]

Well, nobody would ever mistake me for Pete, but I'll throw my $.02 anyway. I would think the main page skin would be much harder on the eyes. I find it much less stressful to read light type on a dark background. Do people actually have problems reading the current forum? I find it very easy to read, even for extended visits.

[Tal]

Everybody loves new skins.
[right][snapback]86520[/snapback][/right]

You won't be skinning me!

*runs*

[Yrrek]

Seriously, I think Bolty et al. have done an excellent job on the looks of this site.  It doesn't put you to sleep, it's not garish, and everything is legible (although some might not be 'readable').  If it ain't broke . . .

--Pete
[right][snapback]86524[/snapback][/right]

I agree, The LL has a very nice look to it. It is easy on the eyes and has a good layout, I never have trouble finding my way around.

[--Pete]

Hi,

While the original post isn't worth responding to - Pete, what would you think of a forum skin based on the main page's look?

It would certainly be more readable than this, I suppose.  If skinning an Invision Board forum didn't take 20 hours to do, I'd have done it a long time ago.

-Bolty
[right][snapback]86554[/snapback][/right]

They both look great to me. Pretty much every version of the LL has looked great after the first two :) IIRC, that was when someone (AngleStar3?) became your fashion coordinator. :)

So, if you break a leg and have to spend twenty hours in traction, go for it. But as long as you've got better things to do, leave it as it is.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

While the original post isn't worth responding to - Pete, what would you think of a forum skin based on the main page's look?

It would certainly be more readable than this, I suppose.  If skinning an Invision Board forum didn't take 20 hours to do, I'd have done it a long time ago.

-Bolty
[right][snapback]86554[/snapback][/right]

I'd prefer it as long as the background behind the text was a solid colour instead of the slightly textured one you have going on there. I disagree with my dear friend Lochnar; I find dark-on-light easier on my eyes. You get used to books, magazines, and newpapers that way. Light-on-dark is unnatural.

Or, you could freak us all out and skin it like an early 90's style BBS.

[LochnarITB]

This is not a reply to the actual thread (nor a comment about DeeBye's utter lack of understanding of the way a glaring bright background causes eye strain on old-fart eyes such as mine :P ), but rather a hijack regarding your (Pete) avatar. Assuming it is a RL photo of our beloved curmudgeon, I have to say that the Pete I had always pictured is very close to the reality. I didn't have the glasses and the face was a little thinner, but otherwise very accurate. Is that just a result of you being so naturally handsome or me being so intelligent and insightful - maybe a little of both! :lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

This is not a reply to the actual thread (nor a comment about DeeBye's utter lack of understanding of the way a glaring bright background causes eye strain on old-fart eyes such as mine  :P ), but rather a hijack regarding your (Pete) avatar.  Assuming it is a RL photo of our beloved curmudgeon, I have to say that the Pete I had always pictured is very close to the reality.

It is indeed a RL photo of me in one of my better moods. ;)

I didn't have the glasses and the face was a little thinner, but otherwise very accurate.

Well, used to be that I didn't have the glasses, either. And the face (not to mention the waist) was a good deal thinner. But that was then, this is now.

Is that just a result of you being so naturally handsome or me being so intelligent and insightful - maybe a little of both!  :lol:
[right][snapback]86726[/snapback][/right]

I would judge both of those statements as being somewhat humble of pure truth. ;)

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Pete has more hair than I imagined. :huh:

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete has more hair than I imagined.  :huh:
[right][snapback]86740[/snapback][/right]

Not right now I don't ;) But it's growing back. I actually have to comb it now ;)

--Pete

[DeeBye]

Hi,
Not right now I don't ;)  But it's growing back.  I actually have to comb it now ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]86806[/snapback][/right]

Here, let me help.



A shave and a haircut will cost you two bits.

[Lady Vashj]

While the original post isn't worth responding to - Pete, what would you think of a forum skin based on the main page's look?

It would certainly be more readable than this, I suppose.  If skinning an Invision Board forum didn't take 20 hours to do, I'd have done it a long time ago.

-Bolty
[right][snapback]86554[/snapback][/right]

Wood! I love wood!

[LochnarITB]

Wood!  I love wood!
[right][snapback]89477[/snapback][/right]

Are you using Firefox for your browser? If so, check out the Walnut theme. Very woody, but would need to be darker to actually live up to the title Walnut. I was using that up until someone here recommended Brushed which gives a very nice brushed aluminum theme.

[Lady Vashj]

Are you using Firefox for your browser?  If so, check out the Walnut theme.  Very woody, but would need to be darker to actually live up to the title Walnut.  I was using that up until someone here recommended Brushed which gives a very nice brushed aluminum theme.
[right][snapback]89483[/snapback][/right]

If I could, I would...The only browser allowed on the network is IE6.

[Quark]

If I could, I would...The only browser allowed on the network is IE6.
[right][snapback]89494[/snapback][/right]

Is this a "not your computer" restriction, or a restriction just over the network?

Either way it's stupid, but it's incredibly stupid if it's your computer.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is this a "not your computer" restriction, or a restriction just over the network?

Either way it's stupid, but it's incredibly stupid if it's your computer.
[right][snapback]89521[/snapback][/right]

You're looking at it all wrong. It's a job security issue. The IT department is forcing everyone to use the worst possible software so that they will have a lot to fix. If they forced everyone to use a real OS with real software, they'd be out of business, not least because their total knowledge of computers is reinstalling Windoz and installing the fifty or so security patches that that Prime Operating System requires each week.

--Pete

[LochnarITB]

Prime Operating System
[right][snapback]89526[/snapback][/right]

Wow, do I feel stupid! That is not what I thought people meant when they called Windows a POS. :blush: :D