Default Lite Skin, please

[TJ09]

80% of the US may well have those speeds. I can PROMISE you that neither the UK nor Canada does.

I can promise you that if you actually had dial-up, the site is definitely unusable. And even with dial-up, the difference as far as your connection pertains to things is imperceptible.

 

Regardless, you're right about the US vs Canada/UK. The average Canadian has 30 Mbps (535x more throughput than dial-up), while the average for rural areas of the UK is 248x more throughput than dial-up—both better than the US average (latency is a bigger issue for the UK than throughput, but given that the extra data can fit into a single packet, the latency affects both layouts equally).

 

And actual user experience must count for something; When I load St Pat's, I can actually catch things at the hourly drop. When I try with the default, by the time it has loaded - seconds, not milliseconds - and I can click on any egg - the good ones are all "sorry someone else got it"ing.

 

And I have a decent processor and not bad internet. I'm VERY rural and it's actually faster than in several big cities, because we cannot get broadband AT ALL through the phone line, so I have to rely on a radio mast.

User experience is important but not the same thing as accepting anecdotes as evidence. I'm sure whatever slowdown you're seeing can be quantified in some way. Data loading numbers are certainly only one part of the picture, and there are many other factors that would be measured in a "proper" analysis of when the page is usable (more formally known as TTI, or Time-to-Interact); the quote I responded to talks specifically about "loading."

 

I've already recently done a bunch of behind-the-scenes things to reduce fluctuations in server response time (i.e. reduce perceived "lag"), and the reload changes I mentioned will likely help from the browser side of things, but there's more analysis+work to be done.

 

But are you saying there will never be a basic vanilla skin ? That's a shame. It doesn't need to be as fancy as the one predatorfan has just posted - and I really don't like the yellow letters on there, BTW. Just the scroll against a plain background (annoyingly as far as I can tell, blocking the background doesn't seem to speed things up anyway.) Just the option to "show background/not show background". Then on the days we aren't hunting we could see it, but at other times, no.

I said no such thing. My previous post was completely un-opinionated on the matter, and I will continue to remain so for the time being. But if there's going to be discussion on the merit of such a thing, it should not be based on hearsay ("the default skin ... sucks for loading things, period"). when less ambiguous information is available.

[Fuzzbucket]

I can promise you that if you actually had dial-up, the site is definitely unusable. And even with dial-up, the difference as far as your connection pertains to things is imperceptible.

 

Regardless, you're right about the US vs Canada/UK. The average Canadian has 30 Mbps (535x more throughput than dial-up), while the average for rural areas of the UK is 248x more throughput than dial-up—both better than the US average (latency is a bigger issue for the UK than throughput, but given that the extra data can fit into a single packet, the latency affects both layouts equally).

 

User experience is important but not the same thing as accepting anecdotes as evidence. I'm sure whatever slowdown you're seeing can be quantified in some way. Data loading numbers are certainly only one part of the picture, and there are many other factors that would be measured in a "proper" analysis of when the page is usable (more formally known as TTI, or Time-to-Interact); the quote I responded to talks specifically about "loading."

 

I've already recently done a bunch of behind-the-scenes things to reduce fluctuations in server response time (i.e. reduce perceived "lag"), and the reload changes I mentioned will likely help from the browser side of things, but there's more analysis+work to be done.

 

I said no such thing. My previous post was completely un-opinionated on the matter, and I will continue to remain so for the time being. But if there's going to be discussion on the merit of such a thing, it should not be based on hearsay ("the default skin ... sucks for loading things, period").  when less ambiguous information is available.

When I joined I had dialup. Which dropped a lot, too. I occasionally caught silvers in those days...

 

I do realise that large areas of the US have rubbish speeds - and in Canada too, I have to say. But there are constant rows about internet in the UK - all the investment is in cities, and anyone outside a big city (and it seems BRISTOL isn't a big city) gets shafted. Also I don't know where your figures come from, but the ads for speed in the UK are under heavy investigation by advertising regulators, as a huge number of people cannot actually manage to get the speeds they claim - they were forced to add the words "up to" last year, and now they are going to be forced to be even more honest...

 

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/...h-28-9mbps.html

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-broadband-aver...nternet-1472626

 

As for Canada - the other thing there is that most internet is very expensive (the most expensive of all first world countries according to the campaign to improve thins that I joined last year !) and - crucially - capped. So anything that adds any data hurts. (Hunting there used to take me over the limit in no time flat with my last provider, so I try and do that in the local coffee shop !)

 

I didn't say you DID say no vanilla, BTW. I just asked, as you seemed to be suggesting that the current default is/should be fine for all. I have no idea what makes it take an age to load compared to St Pat's - but it does, for me and others here.

Edited February 6, 2017 by fuzzbucket

[Predat0rs]

How about an even more basic version of my layout? https://i.imgur.com/1U90PyS.png

I went with scroll colors + browns instead of the dreaded orange. I didn't even like it, but I was tired after 4 hours of coding, and didn't want to fiddle with the colors. The above only uses one image: The DC logo (which can be changed to plain text if desired). The rest is all hex (color) codes.

[Fuzzbucket]

The only issue is the new backgrounds. The scroll is much as it always was with the old default skin, which is no longer an option. All we need is a skin that doesn't use that background, basically. (I even hunt using no page style, these days.)

[Predat0rs]

Ah, okay. Yeah, the new backgrounds are nice looking but they're a drag on speed. Thus I don't use the default skin.

[Fuzzbucket]

I use St Pat's routinely - and hunt with no page style....

[cyradis4]

TJ, I don't think the problem is with raw load times, I think the problem is how *distracting* the default is as it loads, making the time-to-eyes-on-egg of the user much longer.

 

 

 

My test:

 

Ok, just compared the load times of the St Patricks and the Default, and I must say the blinking of the default one was highly distracting!

 

The blinking happened when I'd switch from biome to biome, the background image vanished and then came back, distracting my eyes. It was really, really hard to keep focused on the eggs, so while the page did seem to load just as fast, I could only flip two or three biomes before the blinking caused me to loose focus. After sitting in one biome refreshing (using F5), in short order *it* started blinking, too. It started with the background being vanishing to black at the start of the refresh, then coming back as the page finished. Then, it changed again. One refresh would have a background, the next wouldn't, then the next would. Also, I noticed that the eggs shifted up and down on the page when refreshing. Not much but enough to be distracting and enough to cause people to miss-clicks. The contrast between background there and the black screen was stark and very hard on the eyes. It also took me longer to process what I was seeing. I could see "writing stayed the same" but it was simply took longer to recognize what the writing was, because of the distraction.

 

For the St Patrick's day one, flipping to biome to biome didn't cause the background to do anything, it was the same page to page (rock steady. When I refreshed many times fast, the sides and very bottom would go from light green striped to solid light green, which was easily ignored because both were the nearly-same color. There was a tiny big of egg shifting, but it was less noticeable than with the default. If I refreshed often enough, the clover also started oscillating in and out, but again, the change between "there" and "not there" was so subtle that it wasn't distracting. It was very easy to see both "stayed the same" and "change" and I was picking out words much better than I was on the default screen.

 

All in all, I'd have a far easier time hunting in St Patricks because it was less visually distracting. The load times seemed the same.... when I could maintain enough focus on the Default.

 

I ran this test on the latest Chrome browser, on a fast computer on a T1 connection. Clicking on F5 and the Biome Links seemed to have the same affect on the blinking mess.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[Dragon_Arbock]

I'd be curious to see a map of that 80% of the US.. because it's probably only the big city areas like New York, Austin, California- kinda like how only those places have Google Fiber. Where I live I'll never see that.

 

Also, those stats are for Chrome. I use neither Chrome, nor actual Firefox anymore, I use a browser called Pale Moon.

But I will say the Saint Patrickt's Day theme really doesn't make a difference for me. Most of the lag I notice has to do with the site operations itself, such as when the eggs in the biomes change at the top of the hour.

[Fuzzbucket]

I often use Pale Moon too (didn't I tell you about that ? ) - or Seamonkey. Even so....

[Sundew]

I'd be curious to see a map of that 80% of the US.. because it's probably only the big city areas like New York, Austin, California- kinda like how only those places have Google Fiber. Where I live I'll never see that.

 

Also, those stats are for Chrome. I use neither Chrome, nor actual Firefox anymore, I use a browser called Pale Moon.

But I will say the Saint Patrickt's Day theme really doesn't make a difference for me. Most of the lag I notice has to do with the site operations itself, such as when the eggs in the biomes change at the top of the hour.

Well, 80% is 80%, no matter how it's distributed. So I don't see how distribution is really that important--the majority of people will still have that fast speed. But this was the best map I could find, since you expressed interest in it.

 

I do think Chrome/Firefox/other big name browsers are most important to consider, since that's what the majority of people will be using.

 

I have lag at top of the hour refreshes too.

 

--

 

I personally think the default skin is fine as it is, but wouldn't object to an optional lite skin. I would prefer that it not be the default.

 

I've never had trouble with focusing on the eggs in between biomes (didn't actually notice the 'blinking' until it was pointed out), but yeah it would be good to make that load faster if possible.

Edited February 6, 2017 by ab613

[diaveborn]

Regardless of loading/whatever times, it would be really nice to have a default lite skin for people who are having problems like nausea.

[DuskOfTheStars]

Sure.

 

As LONG as it's higher contrast, like all black text on a tan BG. Why nonwhite BG? Let's face it, white is hard on disabled users' eyes. Including mine. But we also have the problem of needing a fair bit of contrast, too.

[diaveborn]

How does predatorfan4ever's theme work for your contrast needs? Are the links too light? (I'm thinking if we give feedback on that, it might help TJ know what people need/want even if he wants to do his own.)

[DuskOfTheStars]

My isue with PF4E's thing is that there is orange text and dark gold text... which on the BG is a bit hard to see. The dark gold might be fine on white, but there are people with worse contrast issues than mine who'd absolutely need black.

 

Change those text colours to black and underline all links (that's already there but still) and I'd be happy to use it.

 

Edit: One other thing: the tan could maybe be a wee bit lighter, too?

Edited February 7, 2017 by Dusky_Flareon

[cyradis4]

--

 

I personally think the default skin is fine as it is, but wouldn't object to an optional lite skin. I would prefer that it not be the default.

 

I've never had trouble with focusing on the eggs in between biomes (didn't actually notice the 'blinking' until it was pointed out), but yeah it would be good to make that load faster if possible.

I didn't notice the blinking either and have never had trouble getting eggs. But when I ran the St Pat and Default side-by-side, the greater usability of the St Pats became brutally clear, and a reason for the difference between user experiences and what TJ sees presented itself.

 

Again, I did not notice it until I ran one then the other! Try, yourself, doing some intense hunting with St Pats then switch to Default and do the same thing immediately. The St Pats is just more usable when hunting.

 

(Before you jump on me about how "usable" the Default is, note that I said "more usable". The Default is also usable, but its not as good to use as St Pats, IMO).

 

Cheers!

C4.

[Fuzzbucket]

Thank you, cy. Brutally clear says it all.

 

As to predatorfan's mockup - we don't need a whole redesign - just one without all the pretties. Just as the blue skin for this forum is basically invision's default vanilla skin with slight modifications - as TJ pointed out a while ago. I use that as well - the background of the new design is just too much when you are just wanting to read threads. I don't want illuminated margins on books, either

[Zeditha]

Ok, so, here's some things from my experience:

 

- I live in the UK, near a smallish town, which is where I go to college.

 

- I hunt mostly in breaks at college.

 

- I use Internet Explorer or Chrome, and the default site skin.

 

- in IE, which I am currently on, the background doesn't move when I scroll on the biomes or the forums, and moves only slightly on the scroll. I will agree that the movement is off-putting, but only slightly. However, having it move faster, or 1/1, would be way worse - and it has less of an effect than the movement of the scroll's edge anyway.

 

- Refreshing constantly in the Forest provides no 'blinking'. The image seems to be cached, and doesn't move at all. The only things that change are the ads (no adblock, no subscription) and the eggs' images/descriptions when there's a change to show.

 

- Similarly, when I refresh the AP, the egg images only refresh and 'blink' when there's been a change in the eggs.

 

- Flipping between the biomes causes a small initial lag, somewhere between 1 and 2 seconds, before the image loads - but the eggs are there in less time than my reaction time, and further refreshes (even after going back to the forest for several minutes) cause no such lag.

 

- a quick flip between the different skins, only within account settings, showed this result for each skin:

- Default was easy to use, with nice response times for the page loads.

- both Portal skins lagged up the computer to the point where I was bored waiting for the 'account settings' page to load back up so I could change to the next. (only 5-10 seconds, but staring at a page that's loading slowly isn't exactly fun.)

- the St Patrick's day one is UGLY. I hate it. It was pretty quick, nicely responsive, about the same as Default, but I just switched out as soon as I could. It's horribly glaring, especially compared to the nice, warm, dark tones of the Default skin.

- the 1960's skin looks fairly nice, and takes about as long as Default. Opening the last page of my scroll on each skin revealed that 1960's took 25 seconds and Default took 30, most of which seemed to be the dragon images. The way the wood image wraps and curves as I scrolled the page was mesmerising, but very distracting.

 

I think I'll be sticking with the Default skin, since the only one that seems to actually be faster in any way (St Pat's) is glaringly ugly to me. It seems to work perfectly fine for every common use of DC.

 

However, if a Lite skin that had the same nice, dark colours as Default (grey/black background, nice tan scroll, black writing, red logos) was introduced, I'd consider switching to it.

(I'd probably stick with default out of laziness - I never switched from the default dragon sorting and it quickly grew on me.)

 

 

Just my experience. The only thing people seem to be complaining about that seems to be true is the scrolling image - it moves differently from the scroll. It'd be nice if it could be smoother, as it seems to jerk around a few pixels every so often rather than moving at a semi-constant rate.

[cyradis4]

Just my experience. The only thing people seem to be complaining about that seems to be true is the scrolling image - it moves differently from the scroll. It'd be nice if it could be smoother, as it seems to jerk around a few pixels every so often rather than moving at a semi-constant rate.

Thank you for calling me a liar.

 

The truth is never so clear cut. Different systems react different ways, and more than one person experiencing the issue means that it does exist, even if you are not experiencing it.

 

So if you had said "the only issue I'm experiencing", I'd have no issue. But you said "that seems to be true" which is a clear implication of lying. I do not appreciate that. And I'm sure those for whom this is a real issue also do not appreciate that.

 

Having said that, the problem is easily fixed: remove the background images from the biomes. I'd prefer a tan a little bit darker than the scroll, but the black works. I love the backgrounds, and would almost always leave them on because for general slow hunting, it doesn't bother me at all. But if I were trying to compete (like at a new release) it'd be nice to not have to deal with the blinking. As it is, if I'm competing.... the first thing I do is turn off page styles.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[Zeditha]

I'm sorry for calling you a liar; it was unintentional! I didn't think that was something you'd think from the phrasing.

 

If you like, I'll edit. I don't want to upset anyone.

 

I was just trying to point out that it's not necessarily bad for everyone - although I am definitely in favour of a simpler skin, reminiscent of the original default (but preferably without the ragged scroll edge - I like it, but it does load pretty slowly).

[Dragon_Arbock]

Thank you, cy. Brutally clear says it all.

 

As to predatorfan's mockup - we don't need a whole redesign - just one without all the pretties. Just as the blue skin for this forum is basically invision's default vanilla skin with slight modifications - as TJ pointed out a while ago. I use that as well - the background of the new design is just too much when you are just wanting to read threads. I don't want illuminated margins on books, either

I still use the old forum default. I honestly forgot we even got that new one. I like the old a lot better.

Just makes me wonder.. since the old forum skin is available, why the old cave isn't.