Sat, 2006-03-11 14:48
Hey guys,
Here's something new and hopefully interesting, being in beta form I think it's appropriate in this forum.
It's a contrast accessibility testing tool which loads an external page through its submit form and renders it (the real page) in grayscale, including background and embedded images.
It won't work right on a tabled site or one with "tags" as a linked CSS is needed, and it may have some difficulty with PNG alpha transparencies (in IE, of course, lol). You should, however, find it to be a neat tool. And hey, it is still a beta release. 
It's not really a site, but it does have two additional pages, one for more info, and the other for making contact/reporting bugs, etc.
Let me know what you think about the 1) tool, 2) user interface.
>> Launch GrayBit <<
Thanks.
Mike
Sat, 2006-03-11 17:37
#1
GrayBit
Sorry, I click away as soon as I see black backgrounds, even with white text.
Sat, 2006-03-11 17:41
#2
GrayBit
Does it strip background images on purpose?
Sat, 2006-03-11 17:49
#3
GrayBit
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Sorry, I click away as soon as I see black backgrounds, even with white text.
Sorry about that, Ed. We are thinking about putting on a changer and offering the opposite of the design shown. That's what this feedback request is all about to get stuff like this. We figured with 100% font-size, good contrast, and an extremely limited amount of actual text to read that it'd work for even those who don't like the styling. It doesn't have to really be endured for extended periods or anything. Just enter the URL, Click, Done. You're in the grayzone at that point.
Triumph wrote:
Does it strip background images on purpose?
If they are CSS backgrounds it should display them in grayscale. Do note that the background images can take a bit to load, even after the site is "done" loading because it has to still process through the script.
Thanks guys.
Mike
Sat, 2006-03-11 18:30
#4
GrayBit
Mike Cherim wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:Sorry, I click away as soon as I see black backgrounds, even with white text.
Sorry about that, Ed. We are thinking about putting on a changer and offering the opposite of the design shown. That's what this feedback request is all about to get stuff like this. We figured with 100% font-size, good contrast, and an extremely limited amount of actual text to read that it'd work for even those who don't like the styling. It doesn't have to really be endured for extended periods or anything. Just enter the URL, Click, Done. You're in the grayzone at that point.
Well, I suspect there are others out there who, like me, just can't abide light text on dark backgrounds. Reminds me too much of school and chalk on blackboards, perhaps? Anyway, I believe my reaction to this kind of thing is fairly common, and if so, you are tossing away a portion of your possible audience - why?
Sat, 2006-03-11 20:12
#5
GrayBit
Mike Cherim wrote:
How long should I wait? If they are CSS backgrounds it should display them in grayscale. Do note that the background images can take a bit to load, even after the site is "done" loading because it has to still process through the script.
Sat, 2006-03-11 20:44
#6
GrayBit
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Well, I suspect there are others out there who, like me, just can't abide light text on dark backgrounds. Reminds me too much of school and chalk on blackboards, perhaps? Anyway, I believe my reaction to this kind of thing is fairly common, and if so, you are tossing away a portion of your possible audience - why?
Not tossing anybody away, Ed. We're in 0.5 beta stage, not even at version 1 yet. I'm here asking because we're collecting feedback from people like yourself. I happen to be in favor of a more traditional look, but my partner in this project wanted the look we have. We decided that if we got complaints or negative feedback about the design -- which we have in addition to yours, one person stated elsewhere they don't like the subtle block element hover effects -- that we'd make the necessary changes to find the best common ground possible. I would rather have a white background on this one and add the NightSpring style through a PHP style changer.
Triumph wrote:
How long should I wait?
Accessites's banner takes about thirty seconds for me after it said "Done". I suspect there are many variables. We've had a lot of problems with .au sites for some weird reason.
Thanks guys, keep that feedback coming.
Mike
Sat, 2006-03-11 23:29
#7
GrayBit
Mike Cherim wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Not tossing anybody away, Ed. We're in 0.5 beta stage, not even at version 1 yet.
And right now at this stage you are sending people like me away fast.
Quote:
Triumph wrote:How long should I wait?
Accessites's banner takes about thirty seconds for me after it said "Done".
I don't think anybody is going to wait for that 30 seconds unless maybe you pay them. That's just the way it is. Take a look at uset.com.
Sun, 2006-03-12 04:27
#8
GrayBit
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
And right now at this stage you are sending people like me away fast.
Well, Ed, I'm sorry like I wrote twice. We're in beta testing and looking for feedback that's what this post is all about. Based on your feedback we will likely change the initial style and add a changer, like I wrote already. Cutting us a little slack would've been cool. It's not like I ignored you. I told you I shared your concern. I don't what the heck else you want me to do. I guess if you're going to be chased away forever based on simply landing on a dark reverse style page of a tool in beta stage then that's your call.
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
I don't think anybody is going to wait for that 30 seconds unless maybe you pay them. That's just the way it is. Take a look at uset.com.
I respectfully disagree. Lots of people wait for testing tools to return results. Webxact, sitereportcard, the W3C validators, none of them provide instant results. Scripts have to work. Things have to happen. There's not much we can do about it. Regarding payment, that was pretty sarcastic on your part. Payment? How about having the page they want to test be rendered in grayscale as a form of payment? It does provide results -- for free. These results may be useful. I think people will wait a few seconds for the results if they are using the tool for testing. There's only one other similar tool [1] on the market right now that I know of and ours, while not as full featured, is a lot faster.
[1] http://colorfilter.wickline.org/
Mike
Sun, 2006-03-12 05:08
#9
GrayBit
Mike Cherim wrote:
We've had a lot of problems with .au sites for some weird reason.
Trouble as in long delays or trouble as in the background images not showing at all? I've waited a few minutes now and none of my image replacement is showing up.
As for the light on dark thing, I think Ed's being a bit OTT with his reaction against it. If your site involved a lot of copy it would be more of a problem, but for the amount that you've got, I think it's fine.
I do think the choice of font is a bit of a problem though. The Century Gothic looks very jagged on my screen. The Trebuchet looks much cleaner.
Sun, 2006-03-12 05:46
#10
GrayBit
Tyssen wrote:
Trouble as in long delays or trouble as in the background images not showing at all? I've waited a few minutes now and none of my image replacement is showing up.
All sort of issues: Sites not coming up at all, images not showing up, etc. Can you look to see if you have unrecognized characters in a url path if possible? You might have to use full path through the script (long URL) to see the script's rendering of your CSS. I suspect you'll see something in the image URLs, and I['m starting to] think it's space attributable, which can be trimmed and fixed from the script's end I'd say. That's another thing that seems to be cropping up, anyway.
The script is really quite complex so we figured we'd run into stuff just like this. All this feedback is great because it lets know what things we need to address before letting this thing run itself. We figure people will break it, but that's the whole point. We've been announcing it a forum-a-day to try to gauge the bandwidth consumption and to allow us to be more responsive. If it was bad we were going to put in a limiter to control the number of simultaneous checks but the thing's running quite fast(er than we expected it would).
I have just installed a PHP style changer and created another CSS (phase one of what we're calling "Operation Edify" -- just kidding). The first thing I need to do it solidify the style to make it more cross browser compatible. It may need a universally imported CSS for IE 6 and below (it looks good in IE7) and another for Mac IE as it's broken in that browser. The style has some bugs. Once those are fixed, and I'm satisfied that it's ironclad, then I'll take that second CSS, make it the first CSS for public consumption, then use the first to create a "light" style. I'll then make the light style the default so people don't go scampering off. At that point I'll add a link on the footer to allow users to change the style to black style that's default now. A cookie will remember the selection for return visits.
Thanks for your help, Tyssen.
Mike
Sun, 2006-03-12 06:48
#11
GrayBit
Mike Cherim wrote:
Can you look to see if you have unrecognized characters in a url path if possible? You might have to use full path through the script (long URL) to see the script's rendering of your CSS.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the URL I'm entering into Graybit, or URLs within my CSS?
Sun, 2006-03-12 07:20
#12
GrayBit
Tyssen wrote:
Mike Cherim wrote:Can you look to see if you have unrecognized characters in a url path if possible? You might have to use full path through the script (long URL) to see the script's rendering of your CSS.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the URL I'm entering into Graybit, or URLs within my CSS?
Either in the document or header on any style related link, and in the CSS itself. I've seen a couple where the URL has an added character at the URL's end which caused the link to the image fail and thus be missing in action.
Mike
Tue, 2006-03-14 05:58
#13
GrayBit
Okay guys, you're getting first look at the white version. It's not put in as the default stylesheet yet, nor is the changer link installed. Just checking it here with you guys first 
http://graybit.com/main.php?GrayBitCSS=graybit-w
Now, if you want to change back, use this link...
http://graybit.com/main.php?GrayBitCSS=graybit
...or clear the "GrayBitCSS" cookie from your system before reloading the site.
Thanks.
Mike
Tue, 2006-03-14 06:39
#14
GrayBit
I like the dark version better.
Tue, 2006-03-14 12:52
#15
GrayBit
Tyssen wrote:
I like the dark version better.
Lol. Me too in this case, actually.
Tue, 2006-03-14 13:10
#16
GrayBit
Mike Cherim wrote:
Tyssen wrote:I like the dark version better.
Lol. Me too in this case, actually.Yeah. Me, too!
Tue, 2006-03-14 22:00
#17
GrayBit
Can I jump on the bandwagon?
I like the dark one too.
Wed, 2006-03-15 06:09
#18
GrayBit
HellsBells wrote:
Can I jump on the bandwagon?
I like the dark one too.
Young whippersnappers!
Wait til you get old and your eyes get weak. [-(
By the way, anyone know what a whippersnapper actually is? :-k
Wed, 2006-03-15 13:00
#19
GrayBit
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
HellsBells wrote:Can I jump on the bandwagon?
I like the dark one too.
Young whippersnappers!
Wait til you get old and your eyes get weak. [-(
By the way, anyone know what a whippersnapper actually is? :-k
I'm old enough to know, but I looked it up anyway:
whip·per·snap·per (hwĭp'ər-snăp'ər, wĭp'-) pronunciation
n.
A person regarded as insignificant and pretentious.
Mike