Topic: Welcome To The New Luminous-Landscape (Read 19346 times)

stamper · « **Reply #40 on:** February 17, 2015, 03:57:21 am »

Kevin you have a big problem. One that was anticipated. Are you going to hack off the members who like the new look by making changes to suit the members who don't like it, or are you going to hack off the members who don't like the new look by not making changes that they want? Or are you going to man up and tell everyone that you are doing it your way and upset all of the members?

dreed · « **Reply #41 on:** February 17, 2015, 06:49:19 am »

Quote from: alansky on February 16, 2015, 02:29:15 pm

To my eye, the new site design is not only boring but significantly reduces the impact of the images displayed there. The site designer has also borrowed a page out of Jony Ive's playbook by switching to a medium gray, light-weight font on a light gray background. Anyone who thinks this new low-contrast design is easier to read should think again.

There is fairly well established research that dark text on a light background is easier on the eyes and to read than light text on a dark background. So I'd say that this website isn't copying Jony Ive rather they're both using the same basic research as the foundation for their design.

Whether they use a dark grey or black should not be of concern.

Kevin Raber · « **Reply #42 on:** February 17, 2015, 07:08:30 am »

Quote from: stamper on February 17, 2015, 03:57:21 am

Kevin you have a big problem. One that was anticipated. Are you going to hack off the members who like the new look by making changes to suit the members who don't like it, or are you going to hack off the members who don't like the new look by not making changes that they want? Or are you going to man up and tell everyone that you are doing it your way and upset all of the members?

No, I don't have a big problem. The NEW site is what it is. It was long overdue and we made the decisions on design, type, layout and functionality based on feedback from readers (not members) that we have received over the years. We spent a lot of time with the Swellfire guys to make sure we made a good design without all the fancy stuff that could have been added just for the sake of doing so. We kept the simplicity of the site, the content, and made it easy to find things. We didn't add pop ads, we didn't add google sense ads or other stuff that so many other photo websites have done. We are Luminous-Landscape and we are three guys who are passionate about photography and did our best to deliver a website for you to enjoy, read good content, learn good things and share with your fellow photographers. We worked hard for months to bring this new site to you and we believe we did just that. So, for the few that have issues with change and our new site I suggest you learn to adapt. And, for all of those that have sent a very positive thumbs up both in private emails and on the forums, Thank You!

We have a long list of ideas and you'll see new small changes as we move forward that will make it even a better site with even more functionality.

Now that I have so called manned up, I don't think I will upset all the readers (members). I do believe most will do what they have for years, enjoy Luminous-Landscape for what it is and always has been.

Kevin Raber

michael · « **Reply #43 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:03:57 am »

Kevin...

All I can say is that your reply is much more mature and polite that mine would have been.

Michael

john beardsworth · « **Reply #44 on:** February 17, 2015, 09:31:07 am »

I like the new site - it's so much more legible. Welcome, LL, to the 21st century

I do have a problem with the slideshow at the top of the home page. When I click on the zoom-in icon at a picture's top right (the square with two arrows), the popup window is initially a zoomed in crop of the picture. But as I move the cursor around, parts of the popup window seem to be other parts of the image, as if they are loaded in other layers and following the cursor's position. It's a bit like you see in Bridge or Lightroom where you can move the cursor around a thumbnail to change which part of the zoomed-in main image is displayed. This is in Firefox 35 on a 13" Mac Air OSX 10.10.1. I don't get the problem using Chrome.

JeanMichel · « **Reply #45 on:** February 17, 2015, 09:44:53 am »

Hi,
Just a note to repeat a thank you to Chris, Kevin and Michael for giving me, and to so many others, an amazing place to read about a vast array of information on photography, and a place to sometime contribute something useful to other readers. Complainers about the site or anything else for that matter consume too much energy from people who do the very best they can - the 80/20 syndrome.
Thanks again,
Jean-Michel

janus · « **Reply #46 on:** February 17, 2015, 12:07:50 pm »

Blah looking to me.

Real appeal is created by contrast of yang and yin, it's not really there. Everything is kind of flat looking, and grey fonts on an off-white background is hard to read. Regular text font size should be at least 1/2point bigger.

Overall not terribly impressed. It doesn't have any "wow" effect at all !

It's very bland....

Alan Goldhammer · « **Reply #47 on:** February 17, 2015, 12:47:06 pm »

I spend 95% of my time on the forums so the front page is neither good, bad or indifferent to me. I did have the login problem reported on the other thread but it's resolved know in Firefox.

Alan

kers · « **Reply #48 on:** February 17, 2015, 05:04:31 pm »

Hello Kevin,

I think it looks better for sure..
I have a question ... I am in the forum right now and want to the homepage...

Both

"THE LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE" title

and

'THE DISCUSSION FORUM"

above

refer to the forum: maybe not intended ?

cheers PK

PS is notice now that also the HOME- button refers to the forum page

so 3 buttons refer to the forum page and none to the home page...

BJL · « **Reply #49 on:** February 17, 2015, 05:26:37 pm »

I am impressed by the overwhelmingly positive response from forum veterans, with the worst being some suggestion for fine-tuning and bug reports. Indeed, the only overall adverse reactions I have seen come from two groups:

- Users who are so new or who post so little that I do not recognize their screen names.

- Isaac and Slobodan.

Jim Pascoe · « **Reply #50 on:** February 17, 2015, 06:40:15 pm »

Quote from: michael on February 17, 2015, 08:03:57 am

Kevin...

All I can say is that your reply is much more mature and polite that mine would have been.

Michael

It's funny how people read and comprehend things in different ways. I read Stampers comment and saw no negativity in it - just a lighthearted paragraph about the difficulty the site owners have in trying to please everyone.

Anyway, despite liking the old site, I have to say I like the change!

Jim

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #51 on:** February 17, 2015, 07:52:14 pm »

Quote from: kers on February 17, 2015, 05:04:31 pm

Hello Kevin,

I think it looks better for sure..
I have a question ... I am in the forum right now and want to the homepage...

Both

"THE LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE" title

and

'THE DISCUSSION FORUM"

above

refer to the forum: maybe not intended ?

cheers PK

PS is notice now that also the HOME- button refers to the forum page

so 3 buttons refer to the forum page and none to the home page...

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.

Slobodan Blagojevic · « **Reply #52 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:26:36 pm »

Quote from: BJL on February 17, 2015, 05:26:37 pm

... the only overall adverse reactions I have seen come from two groups:

- Users who are so new or who post so little that I do not recognize their screen names.

- Isaac and Slobodan.

Huh!?

Eric Myrvaagnes · « **Reply #53 on:** February 18, 2015, 12:30:36 am »

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 17, 2015, 08:26:36 pm

Huh!?

Betcha didn't know that you and Isaac were a "group."

John Camp · « **Reply #54 on:** February 18, 2015, 02:01:43 am »

I've seen so many webpage designs that I'm not overly sensitive to them anymore, and as far as I'm concerned, the new one is mostly just fine.

I have two minor problems with it, and it's possible that they are something that I just don't know enough to fix myself.

1. The thumbnails on the featured photo at the top of the home page...they sort of damage the aesthetic experience of the photos. For example, on Michael's Red Mountain, the third thumbnail pretty well takes out the "red." I didn't know where the title came from until I took the photo to full size. I like the thumbnails, just not there.

2. I think the forum would be more readable if the background were a couple of shades lighter -- just a bit -- the type a couple of shades darker -- doesn't have to be absolutely black. I also think the type could be a couple of points bigger.

Basically, I think it was a pretty good job.

stamper · « **Reply #55 on:** February 18, 2015, 03:53:46 am »

Quote from: Jim Pascoe on February 17, 2015, 06:40:15 pm

It's funny how people read and comprehend things in different ways. I read Stampers comment and saw no negativity in it - just a lighthearted paragraph about the difficulty the site owners have in trying to please everyone.

Anyway, despite liking the old site, I have to say I like the change!

Jim

I agree with both statements. My post was a light hearted jest, trying to counterbalance the nitpicking. I am happy with what Kevin and Michael do with the site because it belongs to them and is free to view. If I don't like what I see then I am free to move on to another. Can anyone point me in the direction of a "perfect" site that I can view where nobody complains.

Manoli · « **Reply #56 on:** February 18, 2015, 04:04:09 am »

Quote from: stamper on February 18, 2015, 03:53:46 am

My post was a light hearted jest, trying to counterbalance the nitpicking ...

And quite a humorous one too ...
It's a sad day when one has to 'explain' humour !

OldRoy · « **Reply #57 on:** February 18, 2015, 04:06:01 am »

Quote from: dreed on February 17, 2015, 06:49:19 am

There is fairly well established research that dark text on a light background is easier on the eyes and to read than light text on a dark background. So I'd say that this website isn't copying Jony Ive rather they're both using the same basic research as the foundation for their design.

Whether they use a dark grey or black should not be of concern.

Groan...
It's a waste of time trying to make points about typography here. I tried earlier - on this thread and previously. The biggest problem on the "editorial" section is the use of a sans serif, slightly condensed, typeface in an unsuitably light stroke weight. This reads (or otherwise) as grey-on-grey. The decision to use this typespec is typical of designers who have little or no experience of print media - where the psychological effect of different typography has been conclusively and objectively established for at least a century. There's no reason to assume that type appearing on a screen necessitates radically different criteria. But these people are now influenced, to put it crudely, by the notion "it looks kwool". When I see the words "Jony" Ive I usually reach for my delete key.

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...

stamper · « **Reply #58 on:** February 18, 2015, 04:26:20 am »

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?

OldRoy · « **Reply #59 on:** February 18, 2015, 04:51:56 am »

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.

Author Topic: Welcome To The New Luminous-Landscape (Read 19346 times)