I noticed that my own name is red when reviewing threads. This is very helpful, but it would also be helpful if the gamemaster had a different color as well, as I often have to look back through the posts and trying to find the "official" happenings as posted by the GM is slowed down by having to sort through everything and it would be much easier if I could just look for the GMs color as a standout from the other players.


This could be expanded to having every player have and choose their own color, but I would only want that if the name colors were subdued except for mine and maybe the GMs. It would be helpful to remind me which dialogue color I should be using for that character too, and if I wanted to look for a post by a certain character, that would also be helpful

+1 - I like this.

Actualy, I kinda like the idea. It would make finding posts for specific users faster when scrolling down the name list.

+1 for gm
+1 for multiple characters
I agree with Lunarius +0 for just because, or even -1 depending, like make it so players and gm's have seperate colour lists?

I had to open another tab to get that name...
This message was last edited by the user at 03:43, Sat 09 Aug 2014.

+1 for defining the GM (maybe something akin to how mods are denoted on public forums?).
+0 for character colours.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:40, Sat 09 Aug 2014.

This is a great idea. It could perhaps even be expanded/refined to having the GM's post having a different background colour, either customisable or not. (ie. WoW forum game liaisons are shown as 'Blue posts')



Not sure on this part. As a GM, it would be cool to assign certain colours to individual players or groups of players (not group as in using game mechanic), but it might get too much or complex. Maybe this is a way that GM NPC posting could be made visually different?

As an alternative, maybe those with multiple characters could be allowed to assign a colour (one that hasn't been assigned to their primary character, GM, or GM's NPC's) to each of their secondary characters.

I like that a lot.

Updating my vote:

+ 1 Defining GM posts
+ 1 Secondary Colour(s) for players with multiple characters
+ 0 Assigning Colours just because

+0

I usually just look at the portraits for quick identification.  That is why they're there, after all, and there are a lot more of them than colours (for thos really big games).

What about for those who have portraits turned off, which is a valid option in user preferences. :)

And for players/games where they aren't commonly used.  I have had plenty of GMs not use portraits for their GM role.

+1 from me for GM posts

Revising my vote.

Hilighting the GM's posts.  +0

Hilighting every player post with their own colour.  -1.6x10⁴²

+1

If I need to search through a player's posts I type in their character's full name (aka Evil Empryss for example) into my browser's search window, which does cut it down somewhat, but if anyone does a reply or a quote from that character it still makes for a lot of extra posts to go through.

+1 for GM highlights
+1 for secondary characters of the same player getting highlights
-1 for every player getting customizable highlights, especially if they're visible to all other players

Well, allow me to clarify that I was mostly thinking within a game and not really in the public forums.

In a game there aren't likely to be very many characters, and thus wouldn't exactly get out of control.

Also many games (that I've been in anyway) have each player pick a text color to distinguish their dialogue anyway (which is why the GM color was my primary suggestion) I just tend to sometimes forget which color I'm supposed to be using for a particular game, thus would find having my name in that color would be a good reminder.

Also doing searches for posts by a particular character (if it can even be done in a single game) would not reveal the context which, particularly in games, is often just as important. Having an easy way to visually sort through allows it to be faster to find a particular post and see the context, which is particularly important if you don't remember exactly what was said (which is presumably why one would be searching anyway)

It can't.  At least not using an RPoL function.

To find posts by a specific character within a thread, I use my browser's Edit -> Find option (Firefox), which allows me to skip down (or up) the page from one of their posts to the next, while still giving me the option to look at other posts around them, to get the context.

Here is a thought why the Color thing wouldn't work for each player character...well ok a couple of thoughts. The big thing is having a lot of player characters in the game, which perhaps not everyone does but many games do. There just are not enough colors usable right now on RPOL, as we have seen with the just using color in text stuff. So it would put a lot of work on Mods to find more colors to use. Also having players pick their own colors? That is likely to lead to some complications as several people may want the same color, and defeating the purpose. Plus adding another thing onto the GM's to have to deal with.

I like how I can only see my posts by a different color, makes it easier for me to see where I posted last on a long thread. I can understand and support maybe having something for the GM also as it might be something helpful to others though I wouldn't use it in my games. The player colors though I can see that just causing more trouble then it is worth.

+0 -> I can already see the line that says GM under the name, besides which forgetting your GM's name requires Atonement or similar. :P

-1 if it applies to all GM on-the-fly NPC posts.

Eyes register things in a certain order, movement, color and shape, details (from large to small).

Making things stand out using earlier aspects is faster, particularly when that aspect can stand out.

So having a few bright colors will be found faster then trying to scan text for certain words. (Which is why I suggested other players have subdued colors). Even if there are lots of busy bright colors, scanning for a certain color will still be faster then trying to scan for certain words.

Looking for a color, I can scan a couple pages per second, scanning for words however takes several seconds to scan one page.

Besides I questioned the idea of having a color for each player, but thought it had enough merit to tack it on as purely a secondary concept, I am primarily concerned with getting the GM posts to be colored.

That is great if you're reading posts on a full-sized screen, but when scanning on a mobile device the tags can be miniscule.  Color pops so much better in that case, and from someone who posts very often from a mobile device it would be awesome.

Another thing that was just brought to mind was "Interface" posts, where the GM fills out the "other name" section during post creation.

This leaves no tags, post counts, nothing but a timestamp.

Highlighting these should go hand-in-hand with highlighting a GM's posts in my opinion, since only GMs can use this function.

+1 Being able to highlight/differentiate a GM's post would be useful.

I've had a few instances where due to the nature of the game not everybody was using character portraits (including the GM) which can make the quick scroll to find a particular post more difficult without doing things like text searches and such.

+0 Being able to choose your own name text color.  The red stands out.  I can see the appeal for being able to set it as a custom color, and it might even be something I'd use at times, but it's not something I could say at this moment would improve my current experience using the site.

+0/-1 Being able to set everybody elses color as they display to you.  I don't know that I'd ever use this feature for the most part and it sounds like it might be a lot of work.  If that is the case and that stops it from getting implemented I would not be disappointed for the above reason.

EE - yup, probably is a pain on a mobile device ... but I only ever post on a desktop/laptop, so my vote reflects that ... you should obviously vote for the function if it's beneficial to you.

DLH - eye may well recognise colour ... but I use the browser Find function looking for "GM," and use the up/down arrows to bounce around without hopeful scrolling, so I don't need/want any other distracting colours in there.  Works for finding any other character too, including my own.  Again, probably no help to anyone on mobile devices.

And another -1 to extend colours to players names too - one or two colours may stand out and I could live with 'em, but add in a kaleidoscope of 'em and I'm sure comprehension nosedives (not to mention how ugly it'll look, or how these colours will interact with users' different colour themes).

I'm a definite -1 on coloring everybody's names; that would totally defeat the purpose.

Just extending it from "yourself" to "yourself and the GM"... +0, I guess.  I've never noticed it as a problem, but I don't think it would bother me.  Once I got used to it, I might even like it.

I gotta go in the +0 camp for highlighting you and GM.  I don't seem to have an issue finding things now, and control + f is one of my best friends.


A definite -1 for the giving the Skittles treatment to all names.  I do not want to taste that rainbow.

In reply to Joebobcool456 (msg # 19):

It already does that. All character names have a blue link to their character description even if it's empty. All 'interface' posts (using the other field instead of the character drop down) are black and have no link.

I can kind of understand putting the GM characters in with a different colour, but I don't think it's all that useful. Surely it's easy enough to use the brower's search function?

The browser has to have a search function to use it. I have yet to use a mobile with one included (or if one is included it is hidden somewhere hard to find and remains unfound by me).

-1

We can easily identify posts by various users using "search" and "find" functions already. If that is insufficient, there is already the possibility of using portraits to distinguish them.



Ditto on this one ^



I know both Android and iOS have this function.

I'd prefer that it be mandatory to put some image.  Even if that image is a black square of nothingness, or a highlighted boxed white square of nothingness, or something.  There are a few people I know who can't find a character portrait that suits them who choose to use nothing instead.  It bugs the heck out of me, since I tend to miss the beginning/end of their posts since I've learned to ignore the bit of stuff that RPoL puts between every post and just go by the image on the left.  When there is no image, I just presume it's the same post.  "But how did you learn to ignore all that stuff that marks a new post?"  But it being largely completely irrelevant and then going about reading, no kidding, hundreds of thousands of posts over the last many years, so much that at one point RPoL made us in one game go through and "archive" (delete from RPoL and archive elsewhere) many many threads of posts.  I'm not complaining, for the technology and prices that were then current, that decision made sense.  Still, I've read a heck of a lot of posts and all that stuf was largely completely irrelevant and I've just learned to ignore it... except for the character portrait and it bugs me when a character doesn't use one.  Not enough to force them to pick something that they don't like, but I do wish there was a generic "I don't like any of these images" image that was more visible.

You must really hate the public forums, where there are no images.  :)

Me, I just read the name next to the post, because that's always relevant.  And it's the top line, and bolded so that it stands out.

There's one that looks like an old circuit board with lots of diodes that I like to use.

Nah, I just mentally think of you all as the collective consciousness of RPoL and only look at names if I think it might be important for some reason. :p

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 30):

This kinda thing is sort of why a lot of RPoL users objected to permitting portraits in the first place. ;-)

As a side note I think it's great RPoL doesn't use portraits in the public forums :) it just doesn't seem right here.

But yeah, I don't think there can be that many people who need this extra colouring thing.

As for phone users: my phone is for making phone calls. If you're using your phone to access and post on RPoL you already know you're making things difficult for yourself.
(and smart phone culture is to blame for Windows 8 *shakes fist*)

You assume there is an easy, accessible,  and simple alternative to using my phone. Not a good assumption.

Also, haven't found the search function.

Same goes for me not using my tablet. Although admittedly with my keyboard dock, functionality increases to minimize anything not an issue of incompatibility with tablets in general.

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 33):

Why is it not a good assumption? I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that if you're using the internet you have access to a computer at some point of the day/week.

I realise this might not be the case for everyone, but it is a reasonable assumption to make and sometimes you just have to put up with the fact that smart phones are not an ideal substitute for computers.

You're wrong about the reasonableness of that assumption.

In reply to Tileira (msg # 35):

It is a poor assumption for many reasons, not least of which is the number of people you are making the assumption about vs the number of people you are using as a reference for that assumption (guessing between 1 and 6, more likely 1)

Additionally, that assumption is built on other assumtions as made clear in your follow up post. Having internet doesn't mean one has a computer (they might have an xbox or a roku only), also having a computer doesn't mean one has internet, furthermore, having a smartphone doesn't mean one has anything else, and even more, people might nit have reasonable access to public or work computers that have internet.

Basically, having access to this site through a cellphone gives zero indication that someone has any other form of access, and even middle-class folks can't be assumed to have such, and far too many people, such as mtself, don't rate as middle-class.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:11, Mon 18 Aug 2014.

I believe it would be reasonable to say that it is Jase's intention not to make any unnecessary assumptions about the specifics of the browsers making use of his site.  He has repeatedly turned down implementations that focused too much on Javascript or one type of browser over another.

However, It isn't hard to imagine someone who might have an ipad, itouch, or similar device... and might only have internet on it while visiting certain places which offer free wifi... such as some restaurants, bookstores, or public libraries.

It is not hard for me to presume someone having pretty high availability of hardware... because of my community... but I also recognize that far more rural locations exist in the US than where I live... and I'm certain some other locations could have more scattered access than even there.  (I remember having to drive down to McD's to submit a timesheet one evening on a weekend when down visiting a friend for instance)

Granted... I really try to avoid posting from a phone or tablet... and really dislike it when I end up having to unless it is something really simple and short.  I'm fortunate to generally have access to something else during the day/week (not always having time during that time).  However, I agree that assuming no-one else will need to post (or read) from such a device is less than ideal.