Welcome To The New Luminous-Landscape

[fdisilvestro]

Chrome allows changes to the font style however these fonts are embedded in the site . Otherwise there'd be people out there trying to read sites in Bodoni Poster! It's not that big a deal except that there's so much counter-comprehensible site design all over the place (LL is not one of the principle offenders). The worst symptom is lines of text that spread out over 100 characters - mercifully absent here.

In Firefox you can use the add-on Readability with a few options that the user can control, even change to white letters on dark background, which I find useful when reading in a dark environment.

[Dale Villeponteaux]

Congratulations on Luminous Landscape v. 2. Things settled down quickly after the initial shake-down and now we have a better looking and much more functional site.

Regards,
Dale

[michael]

......and now we have a better looking and much more functional site.

Regards,
Dale

And that friends, is what it's all been about.

Among the many complaints ( some legit, and which will be taken under advisement) there have been a few from nasty people who lack the wit to express their ideas without barbs and sarcasm. But most comments have been from members who really care abou the site and who consider it a sort of home base, and to those we say thanks for your input. We'll continue to improve LuLa and to listen to your input.

Michael

[kers]

That's partly correct. But there is also, over at the right, a link to "Luminous Landscape Home," which does just what you want.

Maybe this is new, but it works just fine.

Ah, missed that one... ! thanks!

PK

[jjj]

When I originally pointed out that white-on-black body text was known, by the 1950's at the latest, to be inherently difficult to read there was the inevitable chorus of denial; it's the interweb after all...

I loathe websites that use reverse text. It's really hard on your eyes and when you go to another site of programme, the after image of the site hangs around on retina. Yuk!

"Good typography and the web" are words rarely seen in the same sentence due to the limitations of the medium.

[jjj]

Chrome allows changes to the font style however these fonts are embedded in the site . Otherwise there'd be people out there trying to read sites in Bodoni Poster! It's not that big a deal except that there's so much counter-comprehensible site design all over the place (LL is not one of the principle offenders). The worst symptom is lines of text that spread out over 100 characters - mercifully absent here.

When reading LuLa articles prior to redesign, I would reduce width of my browser window to make line length acceptable and sometime reverse screen colours to make text a more user friendly black on white. The new site is so much better.

[jjj]

BTW the favicon seems to be absent when on a forum page, but can be seen on the main website.
Chrome OSX, 10.8

[John Camp]

Roy does your web browser not allow you to change the fonts that you see in a web page? Firefox does. If you have a problem with fonts get a browser that allows change. As the old saying goes....you can't please all of the people all of the time. The site owners should be allowed to pick the fonts?

I think Oldroy has been pretty much on the mark with his comments about typography, and they're not at all offensive if you accept them as advice rather than demands, or information rather than arguments. Of course the site owners have (the right) to pick the fonts, but that's like saying a store owner gets to pick his location and merchandise. He does, and he should do it very, very carefully if he doesn't want to go out of business. The website is not really built to maximize the pleasure of Michael and Kevin, but rather to attract viewers (customers) to Michael and Kevin's website. I think Oldroy may also be suggesting (not to put words in his mouth) that the actual selection of designs and fonts was probably done by web designers, rather than by Kevin and Michael personally, rather as a well-off person may leave the decoration of his office to a designer, rather than do it himself.

[stamper]

Your analogy is a poor one. A store owner is in business to make money. This site isn't in business to make money but takes some in to cover costs which I suspect runs at a loss. The site is clearly a labour of love which is valuable to tens of thousands of photographers. The problem with Roy's statement is if Michael was to change the font then whatever he chooses will bring a reaction from someone else. stating they don't like it? Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[BJL]

A lot of this agonizing over font styles and shades of gray might be avoided if those people who are highly sensitive to such things were to use a web plug-in like Readability, or the Reader mode of Apple's web browsers (including Safari for Windows AFAIK).  Then you can get black text on white, fonts apparently chosen for readability, and an easy option for choosing font size --  and as a bonus, the advertising and other side-bar clutter vanish!

That would let Michael, Kevin and the rest of the LL team concentrate on what they are best at, and what most of us come for: the content!

[John Camp]

A lot of this agonizing over font styles and shades of gray might be avoided if those people who are highly sensitive to such things were to use a web plug-in like Readability, or the Reader mode of Apple's web browsers (including Safari for Windows AFAIK).  Then you can get black text on white, fonts apparently chosen for readability, and an easy option for choosing font size --  and as a bonus, the advertising and other side-bar clutter vanish!

That would let Michael, Kevin and the rest of the LL team concentrate on what they are best at, and what most of us come for: the content!

I wasn't agonizing. I haven't thought about it for more than a couple minutes, and, basically, I don't care what they do. I can read the site just fine, and I like the redesign just fine, as I mentioned in an earlier post. But, Oldroy provided some information. If they don't want to use it, that's also fine with me, but I think he's probably right. A little bigger font, and little more contrast, would be good, if not really necessary. As for plug-ins, I don't want to hear about plugins or adjustments to my browser. I have enough crap on my computer without something like that. If I find a site unreadable, I just won't go to it. I don't find the LL unreadable at all, and will continue coming to it. As Michael said, most comments come from people who really care about the site, without barbs or sarcasm. I'm one of those.

[bokehcambodia]

One feature i feel would make it easier to start a conversation on each article posted would be a link at the bottom of the article to the forum thread where an automatic entry/topic is posted. Right now users have to create article topics and sometimes we might open more then one for the same article.  My $0.02

[Kevin Raber]

Good idea, but the forum software is hard to interface into from the site.  Two different beasts.  We are looking at a few things and we'll see if we can eventually pull something off that will be cool.

Kevin Raber

[dreed]

One feature i feel would make it easier to start a conversation on each article posted would be a link at the bottom of the article to the forum thread where an automatic entry/topic is posted. Right now users have to create article topics and sometimes we might open more then one for the same article.  My $0.02

+1

Or should it be its own forum board with a topic created for each posting in that board regardless of if there is any comments? And limit topics in that board to just those with an attached/linked article?

That would of course not prevent people from starting threads in this or other boards about a topic but might provide an appropriate container aside from "About this Site".

[janus]

to BJL:

? What nonsense!

The web designers should make sure the site is readable, and pleasant on the eyes, the soul, etc.

We come here to read. We don't come here to take photographs. We come here to educate ourselves,and even to argue....

What Kevin and Michael do, photography wise, is a separate activity.

Presentation is as important as content.

You don't put great food on paper plates.

I still find the new design very bland, like a paper plate.

[stamper]

to BJL:

? What nonsense!

The web designers should make sure the site is readable, and pleasant on the eyes, the soul, etc.

We come here to read. We don't come here to take photographs. We come here to educate ourselves,and even to argue....

What Kevin and Michael do, photography wise, is a separate activity.

Presentation is as important as content.

You don't put great food on paper plates.

I still find the new design very bland, like a paper plate.

Most readers, so far, find it readable?

[HSakols]

I've enjoyed watching how this site has evolved and appreciate all the good information.  I'm not surprised to see that now the site is done with Wordpress.  I'm wondering if there is any purpose anymore for HTML editors such as Dreamweaver.  So now that your viewers are on all sorts of devises including high resolution monitors and tablets, are you tempted to export your images with higher resolution than say 800 pixels?  Again what really makes this site is the generosity of the experts outs there who regularly answer our questions on the forums.  The big negative of this site is that I always want a new lens or piece of software.  Keep up the good work.

Hugh

[BJL]

to BJL:

? What nonsense!

The web designers should make sure the site is readable, and pleasant on the eyes, the soul, etc.

I agree that a site should accommodate the readability desires of the great majority of its visitors, and so widespread complaints should be acted upon, but since instead the great majority of comments on the readability of the new LL are favorable, I suspect that it is a relatively few highly sensitive guests who are bothered by it, and if that is the case, I stand by my recommendation to them of "assistive technology".

Also, I for one prefer the slightly less high contrast of a "black on very pale gray" display to the most extreme "(0, 0, 0) on (255, 255, 255)" that some seem to be advocating.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I for one prefer the slightly less high contrast of a "black on very pale gray" display to the most extreme "(0, 0, 0) on (255, 255, 255)" that some seem to be advocating.

Indeed.

Apple's own reader uses 251 for the "paper" background, 75 for the "black" fonts and 230 for the sidebars.

[fdisilvestro]

I agree too!  0,0,0 to 255,255,255 is too much in most modern monitors; its a recipe for a headache. (even the readability add-on does not use that extreme contrast)

One suggestion I have about the new site is to increase the font size of the sub-menu under "Articles" , which I think is too small (see attached screen capture)

Regards,