Bionic Rooster
Well-known member
The out of focus screens are hard on the eyes trying to adjust
Upvote
44
Some would. But that's the problem; you don't know how many would leave never saying a word about it, never to come back because of it.
I’m sort of losing sight of what the issue is now
The default behaviour of XF 2.1 is now the same as 2.0 so really that should be the end of the matter.
If an admin decides to add some sort of blur filter, well that’s up to them regardless of whether it’s a good or bad idea.
It’s just CSS at the end of the day. There’s not a lot we can do about it if an admin decides to use some CSS that some of their users don’t find preferable.
This can be applied to any style decision. (replace *** with any style decision you don't like)The issue is still there to begin with lets say i visit XF or when TAZ go to 2.x and you have *** because the site admin likes that then i still have an issue.
You took my post out of context. It was a reply to wedgar's question:If you are worried about this, as mentioned, why not just keep it set to the default 0 blur?
The same users who you don't know how many would leave never saying a word about it, never to come back because of it, may not even realise they could just turn it off. So you could lose either way whether there was user control or not.
None of my posts advocated the use of a member option. I did mention/suggest an option in the ACP though. I'm grateful there is now a style property that is defaulted to 0 (no blur). It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that some webmasters don't always listen to feedback from members, or don't care, when it comes to "styling issues." We have already seen the knee-jerk reaction in this and the thread on TAZ concerning what turns out to be an actual health issue. It could be physical or psychological or a combination - I'm no expert, but I do see it causes a reaction. It affects quite a number of forum admins, which is a very tiny percentage of the forum members who could be affected by this. For some, it will be hard to fathom. Maybe it can be compared to the disbelief that a strobe effect can trigger a seizure in some people.Do you think the users would probably speak up if the blurred screens bothered them?
You took my post out of context. It was a reply to wedgar's question:
This can be applied to any style decision. (replace *** with any style decision you don't like)
Basically, you can't control the design of a site. It is created by other people and you may not like some decisions. If so, you can either speak with admins/creators OR use custom css code in your browser.
If you look at XenForo user preferences, you will not find any styling options there except of chosen style.
I don't see a reason to over complicate this, if an admin activates the blur (which I doubt you'll see anyhow) then the user's of that site need to speak out if it becomes an issue.
It has been dealt with. The default is no blur.So instead of dealing this at the source who created this we need to talk to all site owners that uses XF2.x and then hope they remember people that have to deal with getting negative impact because of a blur. Its faster to implement this for the usercp then to talk to x website owners not to use a blur, also by making this a usercp people can learn how to do this and give people more choices in the UI.
Initially they did code the forum without a means for owners to change the blur customization. Thankfully as you saidAre the XenForo devs supposed to code the forum software so that site owners cannot in any way customise their sites in this way?
and I am great-full for this as personally it allows me to use other functions without the risk of eye strain and resulting migraines. Also I am personally not at risk of subjecting my users to this visual abuse.It has been dealt with. The default is no blur.
That is incorrect.Initially they did code the forum without a means for owners to change the blur customization.
The CSS option was not made available or clarified until after dislike was noted. Simple for you or others who know CSS or the code to put wherever. So thanks to @Russ for thatThat is incorrect.
It was a simple line of CSS to change/remove it.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.