Problem reading the Forum listings

At first blush, I don’t like this new design as much as the old one, but I’m willing to give it a chance. The main problem for me ( and perhaps others ) is that the size and color of the fonts used on the Forum’s titles, listings, statements, etc. is very hard to read. There are some of us who do not have microscopic vision. I have a 17 inch monitor, set for wall-to-wall window and cannot make out much of the writing. I had no problem reading the font size and color on the old site. Please adjust this. I’m not using this large font as a way to scream my message----I just wanted to make sure I can read my own post. [(-D] [(-D][(-D][(-D]

Thank you.

Thank you for giving it a chance and letting us work out issues like this.

As soon as I roll my chair back to my desk… [;)]

We’ll be looking at the code for the font sizes a bit closer and most likely be making some adjustments. I know we’ve found where it’s an issue on one of our Windows 2000 computers.

In the meantime, if you update your profile, there is an option for adjusting font size (under the Site Options section). The options are small, normal, large, largest. Perhaps by changing it to large or even largest it will be sufficient.

Thank you for checking this out. Because of a detached retina in my right eye that didn’t fully correct, I have trouble reading very small print----especially when it’s color makes it seem washed-out. As I mentioned, the font size and color used on the old site was useable. I didn’t know those adjustments are available at the profile site. I’ll try it.

Thank you for your very fast reply. [:D]

Thank you, David Voss. I went to my profile page and selected the LARGE font, saved the change, and can now actually read the listings again. The lettering still seems washed-out, but at least I can read it. [:)] Maybe, after the dust settles a bit, you can increase the weight of the lettering, but that isn’t such an emergency now. [(-D]

Strangely, Mozilla Firefox does not seem to have the same problem with the site. I’ve noticed similar problems on a few sites. For me Accurate Armour’s site always displays in a tiny font on IE but is easily readable on Firefox.

I have set ‘Largest size’ in my profile so I can view this site comfortably.

As far as I know, everyone who’s complained about tiny fonts was using IE. I’ve never had a problem with Firefox in regards to fonts.

One thing I liked about this forum was the ability to adjust font sizes from your profile. If the default is too small, there is the option to increase it. In regards to the lettering appearing washed out, it might be the font. Notice any difference between the following?

Test Font - This should be “Garamond”.
Test Font - This should be “Georgia”.
Test Font - This should be “Tahoma”.
Test Font - This should be “Verdana”.
Test Font - This should be “whatever the default is”.

YEEECH!
This is horrible!
I have no clue as to what is going on! Mr. Thompson says there is a code in the, dare I say it? newsstand issue for December. Where? Then when I go to get signed up I cannot because there is NO CODE in the December issue! (The January 06 issue is shown, but I doubt even subscribers have this one yet.)
So now I am signed in as the lowest of the low, temp member.
I ask you, is this the way a “loyal” reader since '87 is to be treated?

Don

i cant find the code in december issue ?

None of the test fonts you used seemed washed-out. Of course, I had previously returned to my profile page and selected the largest font size and that seems to have taken care of my problems. I can blame the rest on my own eyes. Thank you very much, David, for working with me on this in such a timely way-----very professional on your part. I forgot to specify my browser. It’s IE of course.

No, it isn’t and I do apologize for the situation … you were told there would be one and there wasn’t.

Since it’s already been discussed in another thread, I would like to direct your attention to that particular thread for more information. – What secret code?

As for temp members being “the lowest of the low”, nobody has or should classify temp members as such. Perhaps it’s folly to think in such a manner, but we’re all modelers here (most everyone) and should treat each other equally with respect. [:)]