+- Wolf RPG (https://wolf-rpg.com)
+-- Forum: Out of Character: Community (https://wolf-rpg.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Help Desk (https://wolf-rpg.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question (/showthread.php?tid=43459)
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Lilitu - August 24, 2020
(August 24, 2020, 07:47 AM)Sialuk Wrote: Hm, good point about dark mode. Light mode is completely white (#FFFFFF) and dark mode is #444444.
Again, sorry for all the confusion. We are still working this out to make the reading experience better for everyone. :)
Thank you! Could a potential compromise involve having one color contrast well with light and one color contrast well with dark? That way, it would be easy to choose link colors for both modes and there would be a greater range of creativity.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Akavir - August 24, 2020
So... as it stands, all of the current packs will not meet the new standards as they all fail on at least one color for either the light or dark versions of the board.
Easthollow: #E97781 & #838bb4 (pink fails on white)
Firebirds: #ff9500 & #00539f (orange fails on white, blue fails on dark grey)
Kaistleoki: #00a86b & #E8EDB1 (light green fails on white)
Moonspear: #58e362 & #3a2262 (green fails on white, purple fails on dark grey)
Neverwinter Forest: #6744D4 & #ff9000 (orange fails on white)
Reneian Empire: #9b68a4 & #96c4b5 (green fails on white)
Sagtannet: #8E7073 & #3D6075 (both colors fail on dark grey)
Rusalka: #7b7475 & #BE5869 (both fail on dark grey)
Saints of the Dying Light: #D4AC0C & #000000 (yellow fails on white, black fails on dark grey)
Seelie Court: #65C8C3 & #bba0cc (both fail on white)
Ursus: #196619 & #a1a1a1 (green fails on dark grey, the grey fails on white)
Yuelong: #006a9f & #58CF9A (blue fails dark grey, green fails white)
I think this is what people mean when they say it feels limiting...
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Lilitu - August 24, 2020
^ This perfectly illustrates the basis of my suggestion to have one color complement dark mode, the other complement light mode -- I think it would help people with existing packs not have to completely revamp their colors and people with packs in the making have an easier time choosing colors.
Moonspear, for example -- the purple could be used as link color for light mode, the green for dark mode. The fade remains the same. Does that make sense?
EDIT: gee miryam maybe try using the correct form of "complement" the first time
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Akavir - August 24, 2020
(August 24, 2020, 09:29 AM)Lilitu Wrote: ^ This perfectly illustrates the basis of my suggestion to have one color compliment dark mode, the other compliment light mode -- I think it would help people with existing packs not have to completely revamp their colors and people with packs in the making have an easier time choosing colors.
Moonspear, for example -- the purple could be used as link color for light mode, the green for dark mode. The fade remains the same. Does that make sense?
I haven't worked with myBB for awhile, but I don't believe the online user links work that way. I didn't think you could have different ones pending what skin was used? I think it's something that's just done in the user groups and applies across the board no matter what skin a member uses?
Again, been a few years, so I'm not sure...
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Lilitu - August 24, 2020
I'm fairly sure pack managers were asked, when dark mode was rolled out, to pick a different, readable link color for dark mode. (Actually I'm positive, bc I had to do it for BFW 2.0. Our color was indigo on light mode and pale green on dark mode.) Packs show up differently (if they've chosen an alternate color) on dark mode. So I feel like it would be doable to use one color for light and one color for dark.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Akavir - August 24, 2020
(August 24, 2020, 09:34 AM)Lilitu Wrote: I'm fairly sure pack managers were asked, when dark mode was rolled out, to pick a different, usable link color for dark mode. (Actually I'm positive, bc I had to do it for BFW 2.0.) Certain packs show up differently on dark mode. So I feel like it would be doable to use one color for light and one color for dark.
That would make things simpler for sure, then! That's awesome. <3
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Wylla - August 24, 2020
I forgot we can pick totally different colours for dark mode so that resolves that, nvm to the rest of what I had written.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Akavir - August 24, 2020
I just need to clarify... is the ask that at least one color for the packs be 3.0 for light version and one for dark, just for online name purposes, etc? Or is the ask that both colors be 3.0 for both light and dark versions?
I think I'm just misunderstanding something. ><
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Huā - August 24, 2020
I want to bring up another idea, because I think many people don't seem completely satisfied right now: how about a high contrast mode for those who need it? Some of us may be on older monitors or have poorer vision, but not all of us necessarily have those issues and need those accommodations, and while I do think some colors could use changes on certain modes, some (for example, Easthollow's pink on light mode) are completely readable (at least to me) despite being marked as unreadable by the little machine.
An idea mentioned by Flyleaf to me was that high contrast mode could consist of a single, starkly different color for each pack. Just like selecting different colors for dark mode, PMs could select a single color for the high-contrast mode to meet certain standards there without having to change regular mode colors
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Lilitu - August 24, 2020
(August 24, 2020, 09:45 AM)Akavir Wrote: I just need to clarify... is the ask that at least one color for the packs be 3.0 for light version and one for dark, just for online name purposes, etc? Or is the ask that both colors be 3.0 for both light and dark versions?
I think I'm just misunderstanding something. ><
yeah, this is my question as well. The latter scenario makes it really difficult to choose colors.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Sadhbh - August 24, 2020
Just a few points:
1) This isn't happening tomorrow, so everyone will have time to choose new colors if appropriate and will receive specific instructions on what's needed before changes to existing pack colors are required. Consider this a slow roll out rather than older packs getting a free pass forever.
2) The CM team will continue to work with forming packs to select colors that meet requirements for both dark and light mode (I don't personally know the answer about whether it's one color for each, or if both colors need to work on both).
3) Not everything is up for community discussion, particularly about OOC-type things like this that don't really impact actual game-play much. However, feedback on how this was communicated is fair and noted!
4) Our goal is to move towards meeting ADA web standards and making things more accessible and inclusive. This isn't negotiable.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Finley Grebe - August 24, 2020
On one hand I appreciate the dedication to higher readability standards. WOLF has one of the cleanest RP layouts I’ve come across, and while I have no vision problems myself (besides myopia ig but that’s besides the point), I firmly believe that all sites should keep accessibility in mind for as many aspects of design as possible—if not by default then, as Summer suggested, through an alternate theme. Thank you for taking this into consideration.
That said: I feel like concerns about color selection are valid, especially when a majority of dark/light mode color differences aren’t being used as-is. This makes most if not all lighter colors (such as pink and gold, as mentioned here) impossible to use; no, it doesn’t affect gameplay, but when pack colors are such a major component of the site that even old packs’ colors are recorded, I can see why the new limitation would upset people.
Accessibility standards aren’t up for debate: okay. The standard being applied with no prior announcement or warning, however, strikes me as a severe communication failure; subsequently, I read “Not everything is up for community discussion” and “This isn't negotiable” as dismissive and unnecessarily harsh, even though I agree with the point being conveyed. I don’t think anyone here is arguing against inclusivity.
I bring this up because I’m glad the CM team is noting community feedback, and I hope better communication can help this and other rule changes proceed smoothly moving forward. I really liked the statement on the spirit of WOLF and wonder if something similar might help re:dedication to accessibility.
While I’m here, for general reference: this page explains the importance and standards of color contrast, with minimal jargon, and this tool suggests higher-contrast color pairings (albeit for text and background) while staying close to the originals. Might help if you don’t have a color picker readily available?
And if it’s up for discussion at all, I think using different colors based on theme allows for much greater flexibility while ensuring maximum contrast. Trying to pick colors that work on both themes simultaneously effectively narrows the range to midtones, which may not always be desirable. Most packs can keep both of their existing colors this way, on one mode or the other.
</graphic design is my passion>
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Lilitu - August 24, 2020
^ Thanks Flyleaf! You put all my own thoughts into words much better than I could have.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Caerus - August 24, 2020
seconding this.^^^^
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Y2K9 - August 24, 2020
^ yes to all that
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Cyprin - August 24, 2020
^ praise to your words
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Arcturus - August 24, 2020
I try to remain relentlessly positive (especially in the face of criticism!), but I'm going to drop some tough love in this post. Bear with me. <3
Member driven is not synonymous with member controlled. The original vision of member driven was to give players full agency over writing their own stories, pursuing their own goals (family, leadership, BWPs...) with minimal CM interference.
Somehow, along the way, community-driven has started to morph into an expectation about how CMs should behave. Perhaps this is something the CMs have inadvertently encouraged, by trying to balance the wants of the players with the need[s] of the game setting? I don't know... But I can tell you as a person who has only ever wanted to see this game be fun for all of its players, it is really discouraging to log on and constantly see complaints directed at the CM team.. Including because of a minor adjustment meant to improve accessibility. If anything I would have expected unanimous support from our members, given how often I see comments in Discord about how unreadable some pack colors are.
A reminder: This adjustment has no bearing whatsoever on the heart of WOLF-RPG, which is in-character writing! Wolves don't know what their pack colors are. I have never seen this come up in an IC post, lol.
The CMs recently pushed through several major tweaks to our rules on member feedback. We had several polls, we had several discussions -- we listened -- so it feels off-cuff to that a small update to our pre-existing color requirements has such a strong reaction. As does the insinuation that there needs to be more communication on minor rule tweaks that have no bearing on IC.
Not every policy that goes through will be polled or run through the members first. CMs listen to every single complaint that is aired on this forum - but that doesn't guarantee site policy revision. While the CM team's mission is to keep the game casual, simple, and fun, it is not the CM team's job to cater to every complaint about how poorly we're running things.
If players are feeling that strongly about colors -- purely vanity items -- then I would suggest you(g) take a breather for a bit. Go outside, draw, play with your pets -- whatever makes you happy.. And hopefully when you come back it can be with a fresh set of eyes and the perspective that the CMs are not evil fun-sucking goblins that want to take the pretty crayola colors from you. I was really disappointed by some of the responses here, which are frankly disproportionate to the subject at hand.
That’s it for me, folks. Off my soapbox now. <3
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Sadhbh - August 24, 2020
I acknowledged communication about this requirement could be improved. I also disagree that this policy is being applied universally with no warning; as mentioned, the transition is being taken slowly and more specific instruction will be coming to legacy packs at a future date, including whether one color or two need to meet requirements for light/dark mode. We have also frequently worked with forming packs in the past when encountering colors that are difficult to read — the difference now is that we have documented this in the Guidebook.
Thank you for providing additional context on why ADA and accessibility is important and why we are focusing on it. To be honest, I do not want to spend hours crafting a long message for every decision we make (The Spirit of WOLF was drafted over the course of several days, reread, edited, etc for clarity before it was finally posted publicly), especially when a change is purely cosmetic. I do agree a shorter announcement with some of the links you provided could have been helpful, but on the "operations" side this clarification in the guidebook seemed too minor to warrant it at the time (given that we have been working with forming packs for years on this, and it did not yet and still does not yet apply to existing packs).
The part that is not negotiable is that we are striving towards ADA compliance.
The "member-driven" portion of our mission statement seems to be widely misunderstood. We do prioritize member feedback, especially when it relates to the in character environment or when policies impacting the in character environment need adjustment. However, prioritization does not mean WOLF is a democracy or that all decisions will be discussed with and reviewed by the membership.
We use feedback to inform our decisions, but the decisions are ultimately up to the CM team. There will be times when we are not open to feedback. We are humans with emotions behind the screen, too, and constantly having to defend ourselves and our boundaries is tiresome. The tone policing is tiresome. We do our best to be open and transparent and explain/clarify ourselves, but we are flawed just like everyone else. We do our best to please the majority, but we know it will never be possible to please everyone, and as a result there are times we are going to be firm and make a call. That doesn't mean we are dismissive and haven't been discussing behind the scenes if something is a priority or not.
For context? Upgrading the board so it doesn't break in a few weeks when a new version of PHP is enforced by our host is much larger than crafting communications for (in the grand scheme of running WOLF) a trivial update. One would prevent you from participating in the game. The other doesn't. This is a hobby and we need to prioritize what we spend our free energy on as a CM team.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Derg - August 24, 2020
Something briefly mentioned was the repercussions for not complying.
What will happen if we don't conform to this new rule? Will our packs be forcefully disbanded? The colours forcefully changed? Will PM's be banned?
Another serious point is definitely the limitations. There will be many colours that won't be able to be used and the site will end up looking bland because of the lack of vibrancy with these new regulations. Or so I believe.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Sialuk - August 24, 2020
We’ll likely modify colors of old packs if the current PMs don’t get back to us within the timeframe, which will be lots of time, and we’ll be lax with that deadline. Nobody’s getting banned, and no packs are being disbanded. That would be preposterous.
I’ll take accessibility over variety any day. I come here to read and write with the other folks here, and being unable to do the first has been an annoyance of mine with the site for a very long time, but we haven’t had a good way to objectively enforce things until now.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Sadhbh - August 24, 2020
We would not forcibly disband a pack over non-compliance.
As repeatedly mentioned, we would (and do) work with packs to find an acceptable alternative.
If someone was not cooperative, we would likely choose for them, although I genuinely don't understand why this would be a hill to die on. If someone were particularly combative, we would follow the Guidebook's policy in regards to discourtesy. At a less extreme level, WOLF may not be the best fit for a person that is more attached to a pack's color scheme than the writing and character development found in participating in the game itself.
The site will not look bland, but certainly a bit different when compared with today. Most websites you use daily comply with ADA standards and there's a high likelihood you don't notice.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Kynareth Deagon - August 24, 2020
I can see where everyone including the CMs are coming from. im literally neutral af and i love everyone on this beautiful site so pls dont take my words as me being rude. im a very blunt, honest person.
I understand why the CMs could be disappointed by the feedback they're getting but its the communities honest opinion and if they cant handle the truth and what ppl think then idk what to say. Ppl feel strongly towards the colors cause its a way to express and yeah it doesn't effect IC stuff but like its been this way for some time now and its become a big part of the site, sometimes change is hard to stomach for some ppl. I know no ones planning on getting rid of the colors completely but im just saying feedback is feedback and whether its bad or good its the communities honest opinion and thoughts on the subject. What the CMs choose to do with said feedback is on them. they have the option to acknowledge and carry on and do what they want despite the community feedback. it just be like that sometimes
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Sadhbh - August 24, 2020
Also, I missed on my first read: banned?
It's extremely difficult to get banned at WOLF due to the strike system. It would only apply in this case, as I mentioned previously, if a player behaved discourteously. We don't strike willy-nilly. We frequently work with individual players to correct issues without invoking strikes, unless there are repeated problems, intentional rule-skirting/breaking, or instances of discourtesy (and often even after verbal warnings from CMs to cool it are ignored). This all occurs behind the scenes, privately with the player(s) involved, to respect their privacy and give players room to grow & improve past issues.
I'm honestly shocked and insulted at the implication that banning would be considered an appropriate response from the CM team in regards to non-compliant pack colors.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Atlas - August 24, 2020
I think it's important to remember that the CMs as a whole are willingly volunteering their time and money and energy and coding knowledge to make sure this forum is kept up and functioning for the masses who use it.
As entitled as you might feel about the pretty little colors that you picked for your pack, if that's the sole focus when looking at Wolf, you may want to take an interior design class instead. This is for writing and reading and developing plot! Please just have an open mind. Please do not behave as though you are owed an explanation for why colors might need to shift and change.
The goal has been clear from the start: this is a free game we are all fortunate enough to take a part in. Be respectful of your peers and CMs. Try to be kind to each other and you may find yourself having a more enjoyable experience here.
RE: pack colors, the 3.1 rule question - Ibis (Ghost) - August 24, 2020
(August 24, 2020, 02:06 PM)Sialuk Wrote: I’ll take accessibility over variety any day. I come here to read and write with the other folks here, and being unable to do the first has been an annoyance of mine with the site for a very long time, but we haven’t had a good way to objectively enforce things until now.
This. Seconding what Bo said as well.
Also though - guys, this is snowballing in to such a crazy discussion over something simple that is slowly being implemented. They're just colours. Nobody is dying.