Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >
Aug 18, 2014 06:55 AM

Read threads vs. unread threads

The lack of visual contrast between read and unread threads (in desktop view) is still an issue. I know that folks have brought this up in the larger "feedback" threads about the redesign, but I don't think there's an independent thread about it. After a week of reading CH on my tablet and phone, I'm back on the desktop and having a terrible time distinguishing threads I've read from those with new posts. PLEASE make sure that this is on the list to correct. Thanks!

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Agreed. It would make a big difference.

    1. What Allstonian said. I think the read threads are a hair darker since the change has happened but it's still extremely difficult to discern the difference on a desktop.

      Is there a reason why the powers that be choose to not use the color gradations before this latest update? That was so much easier to differentiate between the read and unread threads. Some clarification would be helpful and appreciated.

      1. Registering my disappointment with the "lack of visual contrast".

        1. Thanks for the feedback guys.

          With the bold font for unread posts, as well as the color change for the name of the poster, we feel like there's a lot of contrast between read and unread posts aside from the background color, but we'll keep this in mind for the future.

          7 Replies
          1. re: patsully

            In other words, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?" :-)

            I know you folks have a lot of stuff on your plate but when you get a change please restore the old color scheme to distinguish read from unread threads. It worked fine - no one ever complained about it.

            1. re: patsully

              "we feel like there's a lot of contrast...."

              So yet again, it's a case of "we're going to do what we want and whatever the users say doesn't matter." :-/

              patsully, I'm not sure if you were around the last time the site went through a major overhaul, but the contrast (or should I say the lack thereof) was a HUGE issue back then....not everyone has 20/20 vision. Your users' age range varies a LOT - and with that age range comes varying degrees of ability to see. Sharpening up and making more distinctive the gradient range in the grays helps everyone - including those young'uns who will start to strain their eyes.

              1. re: LindaWhit

                Thanks for chiming in, LindaWhit. I've been trying to formulate a response to patsully's comment, but "we feel like there's a lot of contrast...." feels like a slap in the face and I've been too upset by that to be able to argue the point coherently.

                For the record, the "bold font" for unread posts is NOT as distinct from the read-posts font (which, to me, also appears to be bold) as the designers seem to believe it is.

                1. re: Allstonian

                  I so glad Both of you responded because the only reply I came up with was "once again we get stuffed."

                  1. re: Gio

                    And not in a tasty Chowhoundish way, Gio.

                    1. re: LindaWhit

                      No, not in the Chowhound way, in the British way.

                  2. re: Allstonian

                    Part of the issue is the tendency of so many websites (including CH) to now use a medium gray font text vs. black, or at least a DARK charcoal grey-black to allow for greater contrast.

                    So we're left with a pale whitish-grey background upon which a medium-gray text is overlaid, with pale gray "side bars" when viewing your own profile or within a thread, making everything more difficult to read. Pale-on-pale just fades away and eye strain (and frustration) becomes more prevalent.

              2. +1. It was something I frequently asked about as a beta tester. No reply was ever given, that I can recall.