Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fuzzbucket

Default Lite Skin, please

Recommended Posts

I know I am not alone in liking the LOOK of the new default skin (I even use it as wallpaper !) but being unable to use it in play - it moves and makes for nausea in the eye of the beholder and it also hangs and slows loading, making hunting with it impossible. (I am only glad I am not still on dialup...!)

 

I am NOT alone: from Help:

 

So I was using the old Blackout skin for color and speed purposes (because that giant background image of the default skin just won't keep itself in the darn cache when cave hunting dry.gif ).

 

So I use St Pat's. It doesn't FEEL right, but it is light on resources and doesn't MOVE around the page.

 

I note that someone has accidentally just been forcibly shoved off Blackout when she hid her scroll - I know that skin is retired, but now I fear for St Pat's - I REALLY dislike the look of the only other light-ish one.

 

I know we will never get the LOVELY old default skin back sad.gif - but PLEASE could we have some kind of default lite skin - that doesn't move and doesn't hang when we're hunting ? A nice sort of Valkemarian appropriate one - not wildly colourful (even St Pat's is a bit green, but at least it WORKS !) and more or less image free ?

 

Please, pretty please *offers cookies, muffins and even grown up whisky* ?

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed, the asynchronous scrolling of the default background was also one of the reasons I'm not using that skin ...

Share this post


Link to post

I 2nd this suggestion.

 

I love the new artwork, but the way it moves around makes me nauseous... and it makes my antique computer slow down even more than usual.

 

I've been using the St. Patrick's Day skin too, and since green is my favorite color it's wonderful. What would be nice tho, is if the St. P specific graphics could be removed in favor of just a plain generic light green/dark green theme.

 

Other nice color combos would be..

beige/dark brown

light blue/dark blue

light gray/dark gray or black

 

Just using nice plain colors and plain text with NO graphics.. and including the new clock feature.

Share this post


Link to post

I use the 1960s skin, but being able to use Blackout again would be nice. I was using the default at the time Blackout was retired and didn't realize how amazing Blackout was. I just want something simple and image free so that loading takes less time. My computer and net connection is fast, but it still isn't as fast as it was when using Blackout. 1960s is faster than Default, and Portal is faster than both, but I really dislike the Portal skin. I'm thinking of switching to the St. Paddy skin, but green is one of my least favorite colors. Just a lite default would be amazing. Get rid of the images, keep the nice beige/brown color, and maybe even dark red, but no images. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fine with no clock. I don't CARE about bells and whistles. I just want a skin that works - St Pat's does, but it's not VALKEMARIAN !

Share this post


Link to post

Support. I don't have too much trouble with the new default skin most of the time, but I stongly sympathize with those who do. There should be a neutral sort of lite skin for people who have trouble with the default.

Share this post


Link to post

Support. I use the St Pat's one too because I can't handle the movement of the (beautiful) default background.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm more interested in investigating the reasons behind this, rather than doing something that's more of a stop-gap measure to work around potential problems.

 

1. Blackout missing

That was unintentional (the list of people with access got cut off accidentally) and should be fixed now.

 

2. Size concerns

I did some investigating; a page load of a biome is a total size of 670 KB, most of which is cached. Loading google.com is 1105 KB, though it's probably similarly-cached.

 

If elements of the page aren't caching properly for you, that's something I'd really like to hear more about, because that's fairly bad. Switching to a different skin wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, just make it less noticable (e.g. SPD has a background that is the same as the background color, and is way smaller in filesize, so a redownload is simply less noticable).

 

3. Movement of the background

I'm hesitant to disable said movement, because it means the vast majority of people won't see the bottom of the background (including the eggs and Nakase's signature.

Would a version in which the background scrolls 1:1 with the page but then locks itself as you keep scrolling when you reach the bottom of the image be better?

Share this post


Link to post

Anything that stops it MOVING would be better.

 

And I know you have posted before about the image size not being as big as we think - but it is unquestionably the case that St Pat's loads MUCH faster - even when just refreshing. At least for a lot of us.

 

Another (separate) issue with the pretty one is that is IS image heavy in looks-terms - and can be very distracting. I'd much rather HUNT, at least, without PICTURES all over it. Maybe the biomes/AP could be image-less ?

 

ETA from someone passing behind me: it can also be hard on people with sight problems (he doesn't play, but has cataracts...)

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Stopgap suggestion for those having issues with the site background: throw it into the adblocker. You'll end up with a simple black background behind your scroll.

Share this post


Link to post
Stopgap suggestion for those having issues with the site background: throw it into the adblocker. You'll end up with a simple black background behind your scroll.

When I need to go that far I just turn off page style biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, what I would love is a utilitarian(fairly bare bones) skin that you can choose the colors on, to make it comfortable for whatever the user prefers.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Blackout missing

That was unintentional (the list of people with access got cut off accidentally) and should be fixed now.

Thank you smile.gif Serves me right for choosing a username that's so far at the end of the alphabet xd.png

 

2. Size concerns

I did some investigating; a page load of a biome is a total size of 670 KB, most of which is cached. Loading google.com is 1105 KB, though it's probably similarly-cached.

 

If elements of the page aren't caching properly for you, that's something I'd really like to hear more about, because that's fairly bad. Switching to a different skin wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, just make it less noticable (e.g. SPD has a background that is the same as the background color, and is way smaller in filesize, so a redownload is simply less noticable).

Well, I don't quite know why sometimes my browser cache seems to like invalidating its contents at the worst of times. Thing is, I'm using my browser a lot, it's grown and "seasoned" and not like a fresh, clean installation that would be a web developer's dream. For most sites I'm visiting (including google) I couldn't care less about loading times - only DC is somewhat critical in that regard, and only when hunting the cave or the AP.

I've enabled scripts for DC, cookies as well of course (which also enables local storage in case you're using it), and I have that ad removal thing purchased, so I basically see "pure" DC. What can I say - Blackout makes hunting faster for me than Default does, though that might be a purely subjective observation.

I do like the Default skin for lineage screenshots - it's prettier smile.gif

 

3. Movement of the background

I'm hesitant to disable said movement, because it means the vast majority of people won't see the bottom of the background (including the eggs and Nakase's signature.

Would a version in which the background scrolls 1:1 with the page but then locks itself as you keep scrolling when you reach the bottom of the image be better?

That sounds like a method I've seen a couple of times on other sites. I think it would "fix" the issue with 2 elements moving at different speed, which is what's been feeling icky for me.

Share this post


Link to post
3. Movement of the background

I'm hesitant to disable said movement, because it means the vast majority of people won't see the bottom of the background (including the eggs and Nakase's signature.

Would a version in which the background scrolls 1:1 with the page but then locks itself as you keep scrolling when you reach the bottom of the image be better?

Sounds good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm more interested in investigating the reasons behind this, rather than doing something that's more of a stop-gap measure to work around potential problems.

 

1. Blackout missing

That was unintentional (the list of people with access got cut off accidentally) and should be fixed now.

 

2. Size concerns

I did some investigating; a page load of a biome is a total size of 670 KB, most of which is cached. Loading google.com is 1105 KB, though it's probably similarly-cached.

 

If elements of the page aren't caching properly for you, that's something I'd really like to hear more about, because that's fairly bad. Switching to a different skin wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, just make it less noticable (e.g. SPD has a background that is the same as the background color, and is way smaller in filesize, so a redownload is simply less noticable).

 

3. Movement of the background

I'm hesitant to disable said movement, because it means the vast majority of people won't see the bottom of the background (including the eggs and Nakase's signature.

Would a version in which the background scrolls 1:1 with the page but then locks itself as you keep scrolling when you reach the bottom of the image be better?

Ok, for myself:

 

2. Ok, did a bit of testing with this using FireFox's extended status bar thing, because I thought the same thing: that the background image was causing slow re-load. I did find one reload method that was much faster but it didn't have to do with what was or was not blocked. I'm on Windows 10, it has all updates, internet is a 3g tethered phone, and its the latest FireFox.

I also purchase the ad-removal service.

My cache is currently at 345 MB, and I let FF manage the cache. I used ctrl+F5 before I started testing.

 

With the background blocked:

- Using the link "Desert", the reload time was a fairly uniform 1.5 seconds

- Using F5, or the page reload button next to the address bar, or right click - reload, the reload time ranged between 3.5 and 7 seconds using all 3 methods.

 

With the background image:

This showed the same behavior: using the link at Desert, it reloaded in 1.5 seconds. Using any "reload current page", it took 3.5 to 7 seconds.

 

With Styles Off:

- Using F5, it was a fairly uniform 4.5 seconds

- Using the Desert link, it was the 1.5 seconds

 

I'm rather surprised at these results, I wasn't expecting that the Desert link would reload so much faster. And I'm surprised that for me, the loading times with and without the background were the same. Anyone have any ideas on why?

 

 

3. That would make it *much* better.

 

Cheers!

C4.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, for myself:

 

2. Ok, did a bit of testing with this using FireFox's extended status bar thing, because I thought the same thing: that the background image was causing slow re-load. I did find one reload method that was much faster but it didn't have to do with what was or was not blocked. I'm on Windows 10, it has all updates, internet is a 3g tethered phone, and its the latest FireFox.

I also purchase the ad-removal service.

My cache is currently at 345 MB, and I let FF manage the cache. I used ctrl+F5 before I started testing.

 

With the background blocked:

- Using the link "Desert", the reload time was a fairly uniform 1.5 seconds

- Using F5, or the page reload button next to the address bar, or right click - reload, the reload time ranged between 3.5 and 7 seconds using all 3 methods.

 

With the background image:

This showed the same behavior: using the link at Desert, it reloaded in 1.5 seconds. Using any "reload current page", it took 3.5 to 7 seconds.

 

With Styles Off:

- Using F5, it was a fairly uniform 4.5 seconds

- Using the Desert link, it was the 1.5 seconds

 

I'm rather surprised at these results, I wasn't expecting that the Desert link would reload so much faster. And I'm surprised that for me, the loading times with and without the background were the same. Anyone have any ideas on why?

 

 

3. That would make it *much* better.

 

Cheers!

C4.

On your first non-cached page load, or when you press Ctrl+F5:

  • Your browser sees references to the files, checks cache, and sees they're missing.
  • Your browser sends requests for all of the files.
  • The server responds with the file content, and a few bits of metadata: The time the file was last modified, a "signature" of the file (will change if the file changes, but will return back to the original value if the file is changed back, even if the modified time always move forward), and an "expiration time" (e.g. don't bother checking back for ~1 year).
When you load the page again (without pressing F5):
  • Your browser sees references to all of the files, checks cache, sees that the expiration time from the server is in the future.
  • The browser loads the file from cache and doesn't bother talking to the server at all.
When you press F5:
  • Your browser sees references to all of the files, checks cache, sees that the file is there.
  • The browser sends requests for all of the files that say "send me the file if it's changed since (last modified time) and its signature isn't (signature of cached version)"
  • If the file hasn't changed, the server sends back an empty response.
This saves time/bandwidth over the uncached version, but is still slower than the normal load since you need to wait for the server to confirm that the file hasn't changed.

Share this post


Link to post

Just thought I'd throw in that I experience similar problems with the default layout. It goes really slow at the most inconvenient times, mostly when the cave gets that refresher every 5 minutes and I'm trying to hunt for eggs. My internet speeds and computer are definitely not the problem, but when I switch to the 1960's layout it runs much smoother.

 

I am using Chrome, so not sure how that would fit in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

When I disable the page style, it also disables the drop down menus. When I use AdBlock on the graphics, it messes up the layout. Not worth the problems the work around causes.

 

That's why I switched the the St P theme. It's simple, I don't have to disable anything and using AdBlock doesn't interfere with anything.

 

But I'd prefer an even simpler theme that uses NO graphics; text based links, light color in/on the scroll area and a dark color on the background.

Suggestions..

light green/dark green

light gray/dark gray or black

beige/dark brown

light blue/dark blue

 

Share this post


Link to post

I use noscript and just go for no style when I need extra speed. With no page style, a hard refresh loads at almost the exact same speed as f5 - even when I open my whole scroll @500 to a page (I think I have.) It's far too much like hard work using a blocker for the background - and when I did (in the days of the firefox black patches) it took AGES AND AGES to load.

 

But If i use the default skin it takes - forever, either way. AND I get to feel sick while it does sad.gif

 

But even if you can fix the nausea and the load speed, TJ, it is still very hard on the eyes of those with ocular problems. I had never thought of that - but now that I have, I also recall the other forum I go to all the time that has a vanilla grey/white option for people who go cross eyed with the nicely coloured pages most of us use (and which load Just Like That - but that IS a forum....) It's the same syndrome that means people who post HERE in lurid coloured fonts get ignored even by people like me, as I simply can't SEE their posts well enough against the background to bother with them sad.gif (And I don't have eye issues; it is just too hard to see them.) With the default skin, that is also the case for many here when hunting etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I use noscript and just go for no style when I need extra speed. With no page style, a hard refresh loads at almost the exact same speed as f5 - even when I open my whole scroll @500 to a page (I think I have.) It's far too much like hard work using a blocker for the background - and when I did (in the days of the firefox black patches) it took AGES AND AGES to load.

What were you blocking? o.o I have

|http://static.dragcave.net/new/bg.jpg

 

in my AdBlock rules. Not too complex, seems to positively affect loadtime for me, definitely somewhat easier on the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
What were you blocking? o.o I have

|http://static.dragcave.net/new/bg.jpg

 

in my AdBlock rules. Not too complex, seems to positively affect loadtime for me, definitely somewhat easier on the eyes.

Exactly that xd.png

 

This is - I think - the issue. NOT all ISPs act in exactly the same way, and TJ CANNOT deal with that ! (I haven't forgotten the time that mine accidentally blocked the WHOLE CAVE !!!! blink.gif)

Share this post


Link to post

I really like the default skin we have now, I really like how it moves as I scroll down my scroll and it doesn't interfere significantly. However, I can support the addition of an optional lite skin for people to use.

Share this post


Link to post

Given that those bothered by the different scrolling between the background and the main page seem to be a minority (I honestly don't even notice it most of the time, and when I do notice I think it's rather slick), scrolling the background at the same speed as the foreground and then locking it once it reaches the bottom seems like a less than optimal final solution on the main skin. I agree that if there are fundamental problems with the current main skin, things should be done to repair it. But since there are more reasons than just the way the background image moves (like not wanting a background image at all for whatever reason) to want a basic appropriately themed skin, it seems to me like the best solution would be to make one.

 

I know it's work, but it seems to me that if the main skin gets fancier, there should be a more basic version of it for those who like to keep things simple (for aesthetics reasons or cruddy internet/computer reasons). Having the only "simple" skin options be a different theme when the main skin can cause problems for some people doesn't sit right with me.

Share this post


Link to post

It shouldn't be that much work as such - surely an option to use the current skin with no images would be easy enough ? Or (my FAVOURITE option) revive the old default - it was nice and plain.

Share this post


Link to post
It shouldn't be that much work as such - surely an option to use the current skin with no images would be easy enough ?

As Cinnamin Draconna notes, I'm pretty sure just disabling all the images screws the site layout. More than likely some adjustments would have to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.