Person page Font and Typography updates
The person page has been released with a new font and updated spacing. Hopefully, things are easier to read and make better use of the space available.
Please let us know what you think. What you like... What you don't like... Things we got wrong... Things we got right...
Commenti
-
Old vs New
1 -
Old vs New
1 -
Old vs New
1 -
Having complained bitterly at the lost information at one stage of the game in beta, it's only right that I say I'm favourably impressed. I still have my screenshots of the old system (rendered at half the width of my glass) and the old system had lost the odd year or two in the life-dates for the children's section. The new version renders nearly(?) all of them in full. The names are also an improvement on the old system - they aren't all complete but when you have names like "Gertrude Hannah Cooper" on a half-screen width, it's only to be expected that my gran has to be content with "Gertrude Hannah Co..." in the new display - it is, in fact, a single letter improvement on "Gertrude Hannah C..." in the old.
My impression of the new typeface is that it's proportionally taller than its predecessor (no idea about the actual dimensions) and feels a more comfortable fit.
Not sure that the name of the last person to update an event needs to be a bigger typeface than the Reason above - it is, after all, linked with that Reason so I'd expect it to be the same size. But that really is the only thing I can come up with at the moment, so nicely done. 😊
1 -
I'd say I'm pretty neutral on the change. A little bigger size which is a little easier to read but the spacing seems tighter, although looking closer it is probably the same, which makes it a little harder to read. I you hadn't pointed out the change, I'm not sure I would have noticed exactly what felt different and would have adapted in a couple of days. Be interesting to hear what other's think.
My only comment is that I think contributor's name would be less distracting if it were the same size as the "Last Changed ...." statement. With the new release, it is too big.
4 -
Adrian says:
Not sure that the name of the last person to update an event needs to be a bigger typeface than the Reason above - it is, after all, linked with that Reason so I'd expect it to be the same size.
I complained about the too-small font size used for the reason statement when the last update was made. This was an opportunity to revert to the former size, so the reason statement stood out better. A shame that factor was not taken into consideration, so I still fail to notice those comments clearly. Are you convinced you got things the right way round?
2 -
@Paul W's verdict included:
" ... the too-small font size used for the reason statement when the last update was made. ... "
😕 I actually prefer the reason statement to be smaller than the date and place etc., of the event in question. To me, the date and place etc. is the important thing and the reason (including the last updater) is secondary - hence a smaller typeface pushes that back and the main details of date and place come forward. Well, that's how I think of it... But then again, I can happily read the text.
1 -
Yeah, um, as others have said, you got things a bit backwards on the reason statement versus the contributor's name. The reason needs to be bigger and the contributor needs to be smaller.
I appreciate the mixed case on the About / Details / Sources etc. line; I'm fairly certain that that's new.
I'm neutral on the font/typeface. Like the previous one, it's a decent choice of sans-serif font, since it has a different capital i than the lowercase L (unlike the font used here in Community), but it's just that little bit different and unfamiliar and therefore occasionally jarring. I'm sure I'll get used to it soon.
3 -
I'm pretty neutral on the entire change. I haven't come across anything that isn't functionable. However, my eyes did notice the font change immediately and I feel less eye fatigue over long hours of use today.
2 -
I do have to say one huge Thank You. The banner finally displays Å without cutting off the top half of the circle over the A.
1 -
I wonder if this is still a "work in progress", as it does look odd having different fonts for Notes and Discussions sections of Collaboration:
2 -
A fairly minor point, and perhaps this was previously the case, too: but I have to use Ctrl+ a couple of times to make the end of the "g" character not to appear like a "q"!
2 -
No problem with the "g" on my screen, Paul. You probably better post your screen size, resolution, and settings so they can figure out the problem you are seeing.
1 -
I'm not very computer savvy, so can you tell me how I find the details for the setting being used on the page being viewed?
For example, I can view everything okay until I do a Ctrl- which is when the bottom of the g gets chopped off!
How do I find the description of the screen settings for the respective views, please? That is, for screenshot 1 and screenshot 2 when I am viewing them, respectively. I have a 21" screen and have found Display setting shown below, but I assume this is the same detail regardless of what magnification I apply. Changing browser does not make any difference. (BTW - Doesn't affect the lower case y - as I had expected - just the g)
0 -
Oh, no problem to names in bold (with lower case g display) when I reduce magnification to this level.
0 -
@Paul W - mine is initially OK for the letters "g" and "y" on a 1920x1080 screen (like yours). Doing CTRL + minus results in an 80% zoom in Firefox, at which point some of the letter's descenders - like that on the "g" but not that on the "y", start losing a pixel or two at the bottom. I'm never particularly certain how zooming affects some of the display components but I seldom zoom in and expect things to become a touch flakey if I do. So for me, it's a case of "buyer beware" on zooming. Overall, the loss of bits at the bottom of letters in those circumstances doesn't worry me.
1 -
I personally find it much harder on my eyes, but I will get used to it. Had to stop early yesterday because it caused a headache for me.
2 -
I see some of you have beaten me to it - the descender on the g seems to have an issue. I'm running Windows 10, fully updated.
Patrick Fagan in Chrome - both in the header and in the detail:
And in Firefox:
I've compared on 3 different monitors with the same results.
1 -
The new typeface and resultant changes are fantastic! I serve at the FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake and everyone is happy about the changes. My old eyes thank you!
1 -
Guess I'm in the minority. I find the new font and sizes harder to read. I was viewing the site at 80% and all was fine. Now 80% is almost too small. But viewing it at 90% isn't any better. The bold seems much too bold for me. I find it visually hard to read to the point that I can't work for long on the site. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll get used to it so if this is the final version, I'll tweak the CSS in via StyleBot so that it's easy on my eyes and head.
btw, I have old eyes, too, so one size does not fit all. I most definitely preferred the old look - before this forced update - by far. I could work for hours without any issues, no eye strain, no headaches.
4 -
@LisaAlbert1 - I'm glad that you can tweak the CSS to get something useful for yourself. I used to run at 80% zoom but I've brought it up to 90% because I wasn't keen on the text at the top of the page. I don't know if it works for me, yet. So far, I do prefer the new text at a detailed level - just unsure how the whole thing works for me.
Everyone's Mileage May Vary...
3 -
I must say the appearance of this combination of (new) fonts strikes me as being rather odd:
5 -
@Paul W commented
" ... I must say the appearance of this combination of (new) fonts strikes me as being rather odd: ... "
I agree - headings are normally distinguished from their body by either size or weight. Headings are normally bolder and/or heavier. In this case, the heading for the Note (the Notes section of the Collaborate tab) is smaller than the body underneath. As a result, the attention, I believe, is directed the wrong way, from body to heading.
Whether this combination just got missed, I don't know - nor do I know whether it's the body that's too big, or the heading that's too small. Or both, of course. But it does catch the attention when it shouldn't.
(Incidentally, I have to say that I'm not enthusiastic about the font for "Children of ..." It reminds me of the troubles with Gill Sans - I doubt that it is Gill Sans as I thought that was only available in paid-for versions. Gill Sans in the full size that it was defined for, is an elegant typeface. Shrunk down to PC screen sizes, the bold version of Gill Sans gives letters where the ratio of the width of the strokes, to the size of the letter is too chunky to have the same graceful curves as the big version. Or even the normal, unbolded version. But that's my feeling.)
3 -
I agree with @Paul W and @Adrian Bruce1, something seems off.
Here's my view of a profile page at 80%
And my view of the Notes section at 80%
Why is the font size noticeably larger on this page than on the profile page? I didn't save screen shots from before the new edition (so wish I had) but this sure seems larger than it was and then it needs to be. It would be nice to have consistency in font size between the pages. I'd rather not feel as though I'm taking a vision test.
That same page at 67% (my next choice down from 80%)
70% might get it close to 80% of the profile page.
As stated above, I'd think the name of the person who made changes is given too much emphasis because it's larger than the date the change was made and the reason given. IMO, the reason for a change - "Reason This Information Is Correct" - should be a larger font, not given in teeny tiny text. Here's an example:
4 -
I love the new font, thanks!
1
