New site design being tested!

This new font/colour scheme may have scored well for readability but it strains my eyes, that did not happen before. Just looked on Mumsnet, it is as clear as day, why does that site get preferential treatment? Obviously whatever I think will not matter, if it did is Gransnet big enough to hold up its hands and say "sorry, we got it wrong, as you were". Some hope.

Just adding my pennyworth, I don't like the font, would prefer Ariel or similar and the page is too white for comfortable reading. As Indinana demonstrated, the numbers are very difficult to read too.

They're listed at the top of the page, jollyg (as they were before on the desktop site)

WHY OH WHY, does not your new font make this look shouty!

I digress why no last hour/last day at the bottom of the page.

It all gets worse and worse

Why is it 'extremely old fashioned'? I've just looked through a pile of fairly newly-published books I'm waiting to read, and they're all using serif fonts.

I don't like the font at all. I don't find it easy to read and it's extremely old fashioned. There are so many fonts out there - surely a better one can be selected to try?

Gosh, I think I am easily pleased.
I cannot get too upset about layout and font changes to be honest.

I like the larger font (maybe a tad TOO large) but (and it might just be my device settings) there seems to be a bit more glare, a very strong contrast between the background and text. I have altered the brightness settings but it makes very little difference.

It's all a bit bright for me, but I am sure I'll adjust. It's easier to read, for sure.

Away for couple of days and it's all change! I'm not keen on white background, tires my eyes after a while. The site now looks a bit insipid I think.

Sorry HQ but the white and grey is just not a clear enough definition I don't have a problem with the font I can't see any difference myself but take the word that others do, the size I can make bigger or smaller myself, but the white/grey look is not very acceptable very unattractive, wish washy and without clear margins
Logo different but no better than the original
Why change it and if a change was in need why not consult the users, we re not in our second dotage Surely our opinion of any differences wanted would have be the best way forward instead of imposing this 'exciting' change (and judging by the 300+ posts we are definitely not finding it exciting) on us

Why not look at Monica's Bookerly suggestion?
No problems with kindle font!

I'm having to reread sentences far more than I ever did.

I find it hard to credit that regulatory tests have shown such an old-fashioned font rates higher than clear new modern ones - like Arial as Varian suggests or any one of the modern serif free fonts.

If the majority of your users dislike the change - and that certainly seems to be the case - why would you opt for the opinions of non-users who are concerned with the theoretical tests rather than ease of use for GNetters?

How about showing us some of the tests?
Giving references?
Asking some real users to test and give relevant opinions?
Offering a survey/poll?

GNHQ is giving the impression of digging in their heels and saying 'we know best so take what you get!'

"Why spend money on these superficial changes when we only really come here for the content? "
Exactly, JackieB.
But perhaps it's to save money too - changing to a cheaper provider. They don't run these forums for free.

Just tried to do a search, got bored waiting..

Question.

If an individual requires bigger print surely that would be across the board for 'all' of their reading .

Surely given you can customize your chosen equipment eg lap top, tablet, phone it is for the individual to do so and not GN to suppose it is better for all.

It comes down to the fact for me a long post takes up the whole of my 10" screen and some. If I do as I do not do as I say and customize my print size I cock it all up for my reading/use of my tablet for anything outside of GN.

Not being snotty HQ but why did the print size require changing. Did anybody ask for it ?

The lack of definition due to the colour brightness has caused me on occasion to misinterpret a poster as I had not noticed their post had ended and another had started.

How about using Arial, which is clear, easy to read and much more modern?

The search facility does not seem to be working as it did. I tried to pick up an old thread but just got a very long list of threads, not the particular one I clicked on.

I didn't say 'regulatory' tests, but researchers, over time have done extensive tests with varied groups of people to find out how readable different fonts, colours and designs are. This has led them to develop guidelines and advice on website design.

Anyone who uses the internet will know how some websites are easy to read and navigate while others you give up on because either they are difficult to read or difficult to navigate.

The Kindle font, Bookerly, was specifically designed to be easy to read on that medium and will have been extensively tested with all kinds of readers before being officially launched. I changed to it when it was launched to give it a trial, and then stayed with it because it was easier on the eye. Obviously in these situations you will not find 100% of readers like it, but the majority do.

I have always been fascinated by verbal graphic language - putting the language we use in speech onto paper - and how different designs can make the same text work in different ways and how our ideas of good design, while changing over time, still obey the same underlying rules to do with readability and engagement.

What exactly are these regulatory tests? Who says this font fares much higher on readability?

I thought the same about the 3s and 8s.

I just don't understand why there had to be any changes at all other than perhaps the logo which I don't think many people liked.

"And the new design and font has been through all the regulatory tests and fares much higher on readability."

Well sorry to disappoint you Lara, but I have just been struggling on another thread to decide whether the OP had typed 30 or 80.

The serifs do not improve readability, they hinder it.

"NanKate

Thanks Nina

Don't really notice much difference other than colour scheme, new logo and different font. "

Quite. Why spend money on these superficial changes when we only really come here for the content?

If they improve the functionality, fine, that would be icing on the cake, but it seems they haven't.

Wow, what happened! You go away for a weekend and everything changes. I do not like the very 'greyness' of the site now. Also I don't really get why we need an edit button. Sorry. If you Preview , before posting, surely you can edit before Posting Message ?? Am I really missing something here. I will go back and read through all the comments, later on. But the way it looks now, makes my eyes tired. (Poor old soul).

Thanks Nina

Don't really notice much difference other than colour scheme, new logo and different font.

There is no edit button and to my knowledge nothing new to click on such as a Forum for places around the UK and beyond that GN members would like to visit. Anyone else got any ideas for new forums?

I've just come back from holiday and wondered what on earth had happened to Gransnet. I don't like the new lstyle at all and can't imagine why it was felt necessary to make this change.