UPDATED COMMUNITIES Q&A CLINIC

Unknown said:

     this is a web forum aimed at customers/users quite possibly/probably funded from membership subscriptions. As such it should be fit for purpose and viewable by all, whether visually impaired, fully sighted or those who just choose larger browser settings for convenience. These different size options have been on browsers for years, so this should not have happened and should have been resolved in the testing and telling people to cahnge their browser settings just won't wash in this day and age and as atech guy, you should be well aware of that.

Oh absolutely - I agree with you, whizzing up and down the zoom settings is a check that should be made across a handful of pages to validate the page's ability to re-render correctly.  That's a favourite test for testers normally as it uncovers poor coding quite quickly (the equivalent "fun" test on Apps out of interest is to go back and forward portrait/landscape a few times to see if it crashes the App - amazing how often it does!).

I suspect the brief was to keep the new site as close as possible in functionality/look/feel to the old as possible to avoid too many complaints about the change.....

"I suspect the brief was to keep the new site as close as possible in functionality/look/feel to the old as possible to avoid too many complaints about the change....."

Well that clearly either wasn't the case or it is a dismal failure !!

There are absolutely no improvements as far as I can see - being able to write things in colour is just not that important. Certainly not as important as being a) able to get on the Site in the 1st place. b) being able to post a reply to another post c) not needing to set aside 15 minutes of my life just to write a short message and d) being able to post a simple photograph . Not to mention difficulties in moving around on the various forums & threads! Grrrrr!!!

.....and that reply took me 10 minutes!!!!

Incidentally, in the defence of testers everywhere, it may well be that many of the niggly issues seen by us all in the last few days were also found by the test team, but they were given a low priority due to a lack of appreciation of the impact on users.  Or it may be that testing time was severely curtailed due to late software deliveries and an immovable end date.  Sometimes the old platform HAS to be swapped out on a certain date, even if the new one isn't 100% ready yet, due to hardware failures, licence conditions or a host of other problems.  So I try to remain a little phlegmatic and not judge too harshly - I've been involved in some problematic rollouts in the past so know how difficult they can be!

Just like to second Scylla's comment about the confusion it causes having a REPLY BOX at the bottom of completed pages - should only appear on the latest page

Edit - had a wait of about 20 seconds after I hit reply, for this to post.  Anything more than 5 seconds gets very wearing if you are trying to describe the action occurring on a nest!

New posts are appearing, then disappearing from view when try to refresh to see if someone else has commented on what's happening on the nest.  Prev page then latest page usually brings the posts back but given the slowness of the site really all just takes too long!  Very confusing!!!

Edit - that post took 23 seconds.  I noticed that initially after I'd pressed REPLY, the message "javascript void (0)"  was displayed and eventually changed into the waiting for rspb.... message.

Please could the button at top right hand side of page which says NEW POST be changed to say NEW THREAD.  I'm sure it will cause new people to create unintended new threads which causes yet more confusion and difficulty in finding the thread you want.

Well, I can only get on here by using hyperlinks provided by a friend, even when I am logged in!

And that message took 32 seconds to post!