Suggestion - a slight change to rarity bars

[Metax]

I don't support. ^~^
That is why the text is there.
Plus, that shade of bright blue which you call turquoise is way too bright ;o;

[Kotoliszka]

It doesn't necessarily need to be exactly that colour :3 It could be a darker and less saturated shade of turquoise. I'd just like it to be something that's easy to distinguish from the "common green" at a glance.

[Kotoliszka]

Bump.

[username by me]

I support when I'm on my phone, I have to scroll way in to see the text, and the colors look about the same, it gets quite anoying to have to scroll in every time you have I see a pets rarity, then scroll out again when your through, this is especially a problem for me because I organize my pets by rairity. Complete support

[Snowpelt.]

I support!!

[Desmond]

I'll support, even if it won't make much of a difference to me. C: To me, blues look like greens or purples anyway, it's the saturation that I look for - but I can see where there would be an issue, if the shades are so similar. We recognize broad swathes color before little letters first, guys - have you ever done one of those tests where you have to read a list of color names that are actually colored differently? - and so if a little color change will help the color-seeing majority of CS quickly sort through rarities, I'm for it.

[nickjr]

I'd like to have some clarification since I'm pretty confused:

A lot of the "no support" posts only give alternative solutions, not actual reasons why this suggestion cannot be implemented (like, for example, "the system will be slowed down" or something [please note that it's just an example...]). Shian explains my confusion pretty well in this part of her post (front page; if you can't find the post, it's here):

I would like to add that while yes, it can be made functional by looking at the words instead or looking at where the star is instead, why do I have to "not look at what I want changed" simply because there's other ways of getting around the problem?
That's not a good enough reason to not change it IMO, especially when it'll take what, a few seconds to fix? Maybe a whole minute.

[snip]

(I think it'd actually take ten minutes tops, not one minute, but that discrepancy is insignificant and her point still stands.)

In addition, I'm even more confused by the "just read the text instead" suggestions; I'm pretty sure some of us are using the colors because, um, ah, how do I put this... we find the colors easier to use than the text. Why would this suggestion be made or supported if we could just be happy with reading the text to fix our problems? Logically speaking, it doesn't make sense.
I'm guessing that those of us who support this suggestion want the colors changed because we're going to find it easier to distinguish the rarities than with the current color choices, and I'm also guessing that we're using the colors in the first place because we find the rarities easier to differentiate than with the text, even with the current color choices. (There might be some people who don't realize they can switch to text-only, yeah, but the colored rarity bar images also include text, so that particular point is moot; the people who prefer the text but don't realize they can switch to text-only will just be using the text under the bars...)

And I can't see how this change would hinder the people who don't use the colored bars (unless the color choices were suddenly eyeblindingly bright and it pains the people who use the text but don't realize they can switch to text-only, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen lol). I mean, if this change hindered the text-reading people, then I could see why this suggestion isn't supported, but I'm not seeing any reasons why this suggestion would actually hinder the text-reading people.

Plus this change shouldn't take that long to do, as Shian said in the snippet I quoted and as perseoona demonstrated in this post, so that should not be an issue; it should be easy to change the colors a little bit in the images, and I'm guessing that the current rarity bar images can simply be overwritten since that makes logical sense. I don't know the actual coding in CS, of course, but I honestly can't see why there would be a complex system for setting the rarity bar images... especially because they actually do seem to be images, not some cool CSS3-generated thing in HTML5--which, might I add, does not seem to be the HTML version that CS is coded with xD
(Though even if the bars were generated by CSS3 [which means that they probably wouldn't work in older browsers lol], it should still just be a matter of changing the color in the code... but that's a story for another day, when all browsers in the world magically get upgraded to support CSS3/HTML5 lol)

So why would this suggestion not be supported if all I'm seeing are alternative solutions and not reasons why this kind of change would be unhelpful to people/the site/etc? Especially since this suggestion shouldn't take long. o.O I get that Nick might not see this suggestion/might not implement it until later/etc etc, and I understand that some people are just neutral about this suggestion since it wouldn't affect them, but I'm really just wondering why people are against this suggestion; my brain isn't comprehending that right now for all of the reasons I've stated above.

</confused>

[Sherlock]

I support this. Yes, it's easy to distinguish between them when you're looking at every pet individually, but when I'm tying to sort pets out of a massive trade group and I just scroll quickly unless I see a pet I need to move- very commons and commons take forever because it is hard to tell the difference unless you go slow. Maybe OMG so common could be light blue and very common could be dark blue? It could make things much easier for some of us who sort in this way ^^

[Schuyler]

I'd like to have some clarification since I'm pretty confused:

A lot of the "no support" posts only give alternative solutions, not actual reasons why this suggestion cannot be implemented (like, for example, "the system will be slowed down" or something [please note that it's just an example...]). Shian explains my confusion pretty well in this part of her post (front page; if you can't find the post, it's here):

I would like to add that while yes, it can be made functional by looking at the words instead or looking at where the star is instead, why do I have to "not look at what I want changed" simply because there's other ways of getting around the problem?
That's not a good enough reason to not change it IMO, especially when it'll take what, a few seconds to fix? Maybe a whole minute.

[snip]

(I think it'd actually take ten minutes tops, not one minute, but that discrepancy is insignificant and her point still stands.)

In addition, I'm even more confused by the "just read the text instead" suggestions; I'm pretty sure some of us are using the colors because, um, ah, how do I put this... we find the colors easier to use than the text. Why would this suggestion be made or supported if we could just be happy with reading the text to fix our problems? Logically speaking, it doesn't make sense.
I'm guessing that those of us who support this suggestion want the colors changed because we're going to find it easier to distinguish the rarities than with the current color choices, and I'm also guessing that we're using the colors in the first place because we find the rarities easier to differentiate than with the text, even with the current color choices. (There might be some people who don't realize they can switch to text-only, yeah, but the colored rarity bar images also include text, so that particular point is moot; the people who prefer the text but don't realize they can switch to text-only will just be using the text under the bars...)

And I can't see how this change would hinder the people who don't use the colored bars (unless the color choices were suddenly eyeblindingly bright and it pains the people who use the text but don't realize they can switch to text-only, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen lol). I mean, if this change hindered the text-reading people, then I could see why this suggestion isn't supported, but I'm not seeing any reasons why this suggestion would actually hinder the text-reading people.

Plus this change shouldn't take that long to do, as Shian said in the snippet I quoted and as perseoona demonstrated in this post, so that should not be an issue; it should be easy to change the colors a little bit in the images, and I'm guessing that the current rarity bar images can simply be overwritten since that makes logical sense. I don't know the actual coding in CS, of course, but I honestly can't see why there would be a complex system for setting the rarity bar images... especially because they actually do seem to be images, not some cool CSS3-generated thing in HTML5--which, might I add, does not seem to be the HTML version that CS is coded with xD
(Though even if the bars were generated by CSS3 [which means that they probably wouldn't work in older browsers lol], it should still just be a matter of changing the color in the code... but that's a story for another day, when all browsers in the world magically get upgraded to support CSS3/HTML5 lol)

So why would this suggestion not be supported if all I'm seeing are alternative solutions and not reasons why this kind of change would be unhelpful to people/the site/etc? Especially since this suggestion shouldn't take long. o.O I get that Nick might not see this suggestion/might not implement it until later/etc etc, and I understand that some people are just neutral about this suggestion since it wouldn't affect them, but I'm really just wondering why people are against this suggestion; my brain isn't comprehending that right now for all of the reasons I've stated above.

</confused>

I agree with you completely. In my earlier post about using the text instead of the colors, I just meant it as an alternative that people might find useful, since it's what I do. I wasn't intending to say whether or not I supported the suggestion (for the record, I do think it's a good idea, I just wouldn't have much use for it myself.) I think dark blue for OMG so common, light blue for very common, and green for common would be nice.

[dori.]

[snip]

In addition, I'm even more confused by the "just read the text instead" suggestions; I'm pretty sure some of us are using the colors because, um, ah, how do I put this... we find the colors easier to use than the text. Why would this suggestion be made or supported if we could just be happy with reading the text to fix our problems? Logically speaking, it doesn't make sense.
I'm guessing that those of us who support this suggestion want the colors changed because we're going to find it easier to distinguish the rarities than with the current color choices, and I'm also guessing that we're using the colors in the first place because we find the rarities easier to differentiate than with the text, even with the current color choices. (There might be some people who don't realize they can switch to text-only, yeah, but the colored rarity bar images also include text, so that particular point is moot; the people who prefer the text but don't realize they can switch to text-only will just be using the text under the bars...)

And I can't see how this change would hinder the people who don't use the colored bars (unless the color choices were suddenly eyeblindingly bright and it pains the people who use the text but don't realize they can switch to text-only, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen lol). I mean, if this change hindered the text-reading people, then I could see why this suggestion isn't supported, but I'm not seeing any reasons why this suggestion would actually hinder the text-reading people.

Plus this change shouldn't take that long to do, as Shian said in the snippet I quoted and as perseoona demonstrated in this post, so that should not be an issue; it should be easy to change the colors a little bit in the images, and I'm guessing that the current rarity bar images can simply be overwritten since that makes logical sense. I don't know the actual coding in CS, of course, but I honestly can't see why there would be a complex system for setting the rarity bar images... especially because they actually do seem to be images, not some cool CSS3-generated thing in HTML5--which, might I add, does not seem to be the HTML version that CS is coded with xD
(Though even if the bars were generated by CSS3 [which means that they probably wouldn't work in older browsers lol], it should still just be a matter of changing the color in the code... but that's a story for another day, when all browsers in the world magically get upgraded to support CSS3/HTML5 lol)

So why would this suggestion not be supported if all I'm seeing are alternative solutions and not reasons why this kind of change would be unhelpful to people/the site/etc? Especially since this suggestion shouldn't take long. o.O I get that Nick might not see this suggestion/might not implement it until later/etc etc, and I understand that some people are just neutral about this suggestion since it wouldn't affect them, but I'm really just wondering why people are against this suggestion; my brain isn't comprehending that right now for all of the reasons I've stated above.

</confused>

I agree with you on everything

You have my support , I don't have the BEST eyesight and I find it hard to make out if one pet is common or very common despite my effort to make common/very common pet groups , I'm also very confused by " the texts there you can read that " posts , I like to use the colouration instead of looking at it trying to read the text (which in my opinion is a little bit on the small size for me). I doubt it would take long for the colour to change if we could have this implement into the site , It would help me and many other's who would like this changed.