WolfCat67 wrote:

What they mean by “large audience” doesn't mean to make it more complex, but rather remove most of the cartoon characters from the front page (but maybe keep them in the library and on the logo), change some of the colours, and maybe roughen up the edges of the Scratch blocks instead of being rounded. So, basically, stop the 3.0 design changes (as they make it EVEN MORE CHILDISH and have lots of unneeded padding). Doing so would make people take Scratch a bit more seriously at first glance instead of thinking “oh it has cartoons and looks like it's for babies, must be terrible”.

The 3.0 designs don't make scratch, as a language, more childish, they just give the first glance appearance of being childish.

jromagnoli wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

What they mean by “large audience” doesn't mean to make it more complex, but rather remove most of the cartoon characters from the front page (but maybe keep them in the library and on the logo), change some of the colours, and maybe roughen up the edges of the Scratch blocks instead of being rounded. So, basically, stop the 3.0 design changes (as they make it EVEN MORE CHILDISH and have lots of unneeded padding). Doing so would make people take Scratch a bit more seriously at first glance instead of thinking “oh it has cartoons and looks like it's for babies, must be terrible”.

The 3.0 designs don't make scratch, as a language, more childish, they just give the first glance appearance of being childish.

In fact, I heard that the padding is to make Scratch easier to use on phones and tablets and has almost nothing to do with “childish”

nickeljorn wrote:

jromagnoli wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

What they mean by “large audience” doesn't mean to make it more complex, but rather remove most of the cartoon characters from the front page (but maybe keep them in the library and on the logo), change some of the colours, and maybe roughen up the edges of the Scratch blocks instead of being rounded. So, basically, stop the 3.0 design changes (as they make it EVEN MORE CHILDISH and have lots of unneeded padding). Doing so would make people take Scratch a bit more seriously at first glance instead of thinking “oh it has cartoons and looks like it's for babies, must be terrible”.

The 3.0 designs don't make scratch, as a language, more childish, they just give the first glance appearance of being childish.

In fact, I heard that the padding is to make Scratch easier to use on phones and tablets and has almost nothing to do with “childish”

Yes, but they seem more rounded and have brighter colours than before, which is a more kid-friendly design than we already have. To be honest, I'd support making them a bit darker and rough around the edges, and making padding an option.

I'm interested (especially because I tend to be a bit older) to know what you mean by this. Could you give specific examples of how you think this site is being aimed for an audience too young than its population?

To be honest by the time scratch.mit.edu 3 is out. I'll be out

Scratch's design seems to be heading towards a more flat and pastel design throughout the years. Scratch 2.0 came in with the new online editor with a brighter background and blocks for it. Scratch 3.0 is going to be the pinnacle of this.
Scratch 1.4 and lower seemed way more professional to me. Maybe because of the darker colors or the pixelated feel it had because of the low resolution. I don't know.
I started Scratch right when 2.0 came along. I would only know about 1.4 years later. And I couldn't ever get used to it. I got way too comfortable with 2.0 and vector.
Some design changes are nice, but if kids are the target group for Scratch, they shouldn't make it look more bright and kiddie. Kids like to do what adults do. They like being more edgy, they like dark…
Although I don't really agree with that, it's mostly true.
So maybe that's what Scratch should do. Give Scratch a more professional look. Doesn't need to be dark and with sharp edges, but just maybe an “Adobe feel”. You know, like Photoshop, or Animate. Something that just screams “professional”. But with the easy nature that Scratch has always had.
I think that's the only problem with Scratch. The design. Taking that out of the way, there are no more critical limitations. Just no violence and blahblahblah. Scratch has no problems with projects adressing serious topics and such. That's a pro for Scratch.
I could talk about design all day, but that's basically it.

duckboycool wrote:

Yes overall the website it designed to be easy and for kids, but if you don't like the atmosphere, you can move on to a different language, maybe something like SNAP!.

The trouble is, Snap! really doesn't have very big of a community – mostly only a handful of people who roam the Advanced Topics forums and the creators of Snap! themselves. Snap! is great for learning programming, but it's not so great for sharing projects with the world.. (Yet, anyways – I think that a Scratch-like website has always been on the Snap! creators' todo list.)