There is a window of a few hours in which you can edit posts, and then the post gets "locked in." By this time tomorrow you won't be able to edit your reply, either.
-Amber S.
The text was a little difficult, but not impossible, to read in spots.
I think it's the pattern, not so much the intensity of the background, that's disconcerting. Tough call, cuz the arabesque pattern jives with the feel of the piece.
I thought the flying monkey was cool. Haven't quite figured out how to fit the clockwork eunuch into game play, though. (No one in my game needs to be ANYWHERE in the vicinity of a harem).
It must just be one of those things that bothers some people and not others, like how some people have a hard time looking at first person shooters and get motion sickness. I haven't really had a problem with them at all.
I'm curious to hear if many other readers had this same problem with this article specifically.
--Erik
I didn't, (Indeed, I didn't notice it until I saw this topic) but I see his point.
Looking at it again, solid colors, or less "busy" patterns work far better for backgrounds... At least from my point of view.
Frankly, I'm just happy you're using backgrounds again, as I missed them sorely...
Frankly, I'm just happy you're using backgrounds again, as I missed them sorely...
Viva la background.
Don't know if you were reading D&D texts back during its second edition but it was an aesthetic atrocity of simple black font on white paper, nothing but the facts and pitiably few illustrations. Every time I try to read something from second edition it feels like an eye strain threshold test.
Sorry it should read Please use solid colors for the background in future issues.
P.S. Why can I only edit my reply to posts and not the original post itself?
I'm not sure but I think I was once able to edit a new post I'd started until it received its first reply. Then it locked in.
P.S. Why can I only edit my reply to posts and not the original post itself?
A new post can be edited for the first few minutes. I think 10. Or it might be what The Jade said -- editable as long as it's the most recent post. I think it's the former.
It's been a year. I can't remember. : ) I'll have to check from the office where I can look at the code.
Either way, the idea is to prevent the thread from getting too confusing due to responses to a post that no longer exists in it's original form.
cheers,
rob
Viva la background.
Don't know if you were reading D&D texts back during its second edition but it was an aesthetic atrocity of simple black font on white paper, nothing but the facts and pitiably few illustrations. Every time I try to read something from second edition it feels like an eye strain threshold test.
I was, and while I did not notice it then, I realize it now, and appreciate- greatly- even simple parchment-like backgrounds that are so faint as to be almost white... But aren't.
The artwork has gotten a lot better as well. Even the "bad" artwork beats the hell out of some of the stuff in 2e.
But, that's all somewhat off-topic.
Again: Backgrounds. Keep them. We love you for it.
|
This particular background page was not too distracting for me. The colors were subtle, and did not contrast strongly with each other. It was a little "busy", so not an ideal background, but generally tolerable.
The backgrounds that I strongly dislike have two strongly contrasting colors. Usually the text then blends with one and contrasts well with the other. Of course, my specific complaints are detailed in other threads regarding backgrounds.
I'm curious to hear if many other readers had this same problem with this article specifically.
--Erik
Just a preface: I've mentioned in the past about having problems reading articles with busy backgrounds.
Now, I haven't had a chance to actually sit and read the article - just skim over. But so far, this particular article isn't giving me any problems. I suspect I'll be getting around to reading it tomorrow night. Tonight's a gaming night. :) I probably won't finish the magazine as a whole until later this week - I'm a terribly slow reader, unfortunately.
|
Terrible looking, messy, text-obscuring backgrounds are hideous wastes of expense, contribute no content, and generally cause me to skip over what content is there (no matter what it is). I do make exceptions, like the Demonomicon articles, because they were good enough to merit the additional effort, but otherwise, not.
How would you know an article is good if you are skipping over it?
I understand the the backgrounds don't appeal to everyone (or more appropriately some of the back grounds don't appeal to some of the reader population). Personally, of the 5 backgrounds used in #333, I was annoyed by 0. I like the Demonomicon, Wormfood, and Noble Born backgrounds, and the backgrounds on the FR and Fear articles didn't bug me. In particular, I thought the bg for Noble Born was visually appealing.
Do I think every article should have some backing? Certainly not, and I do agree that occasionally, some that have been used have made the text a little more difficult (splotchy color areas under the print), but used judiciously, I have no problem with it.
Edit Addendum: I haven't had a chance to do more than flip through a friends #334 for about 5 minutes, so I really don't have a strong opinion for (i.e. didn't really note)the bg use there.
I'm curious to hear if many other readers had this same problem with this article specifically.
--Erik
I've always preferred solid background behind text. Cool graphics can be on another page or portion away from the text. The way you do First Watch works for me. Colorful, yet each block is a standard color with a good contrast on the text. I like that.
It might be relevant that I'm a 50 year old gamer. :) I got a subscription to Dungeon as a Christmas present and I just got a sub to Dragon. I was pleased that it had winged monkeys, but the background was better behind the illustrations than the text.
Keep up the good work, Erik!
I'm a big believer in high contrast between the text and the background. Subtle shading if you want, but honestly the only thing I have outright disliked in Dragon for awhile is the tendancy to have way too much happening in the background behind the text or having dark text on a dark background.
I'm curious to hear if many other readers had this same problem with this article specifically.
--Erik
I thought the Dreams of Arabia article background art was great as a design - but perhaps just a little too dark. Doing a localized fade, with darker contrast around the edges but very light contrast in the main area of the page, would've helped a little.
With the Wormfood article, though (in the same issue, 334) the text near the top of page 68 - but just under the table - was pretty close to the same color as the dark background. Minor quibble, really. Still readable in bright light, but could've been a little better if the fade was closer to the top of the page.