-Kryptonite- wrote:

Milkysplash wrote:

If they include mobile users and make it mobile friendly, there is an unspoken obligation to make it mobile friendly.

Well here's what I say, no there is no obligation, get on a computer if you want to use Scratch without Ui issues and the way it was meant for. Scratchdid not include, just because it's possible doesn't mean it was intended.

Not everyone has, is in the position to get, or otherwise has access to a computer. I'm unaware of the statistics for mobile users, but I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of Scratch users use mobile. If a large part of a community uses mobile, then it is the obligation of the leaders of said community to make it mobile friendly.

Also, Scratch did intend for mobile users, at least after the 3.0 update. The F.A.Q page for Scratch says: “In order to make Scratch 3.0 work well on touch devices (like many Chromebooks, Windows Surface laptops, and tablets), we needed to make the blocks bigger…” This includes tablets, aka mobile devices. In the development of Scratch 3.0, mobile users were put into consideration. I don't see why that should change now, when Scratch's audience has gotten bigger and therefore so has the mobile users.

Matjam02 wrote:

I asked her again if they would change things and she said:
We might look at suggestions for the future, but we’re definitely not changing anything right now with how severe things were with the old studio system To describe how severe it got: imagine website activity around studios exploding a couple thousand times over. It really wasn’t sustainable for a website that relies on donation money that was originally intended for the Scratch software.

Matty! Mah BOI!

Milkysplash wrote:

lgutowska wrote:

Milkysplash wrote:

lgutowska wrote:

Walle10-0 wrote:

you bring up a lot of valid points! I think there is something to be gained here

As for my opinion, I believe this update has potential, but it needs some major correction. Manager rights should be restored, but as for the limit of managers, I think it's reasonable as long as there is a “demote manager” button (so you can remove inactive managers)

As for the comment limiting… I fear the scratch team actually knows they're hurting RP studios. The way I read it was they want to change the way studios are used, which I guess is their right to do, but it doesn't feel right…

yeah they're fully aware they're basically killing roleplays as they mentioned it in a reply. (Link: https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/526541/?page=228 )

Also, with the 25-reply-limit; they also are basically making it more of a hassle for studio collabs where ideas can span over quite a few comments

Imao agreed though that's true.
Literally a normal convo with a friend goes over 25 comments. gee.

The comment limit was one of the worst updates. I really hope they get rid of it but it's almost certain they will not.

cheddargirl, an ST member did say they'd look into changing it *in the future*
But we want now, don't we?

yeah Imao the only seemingly valid reason to keep the 25 comment limit is for mods to be able to scroll faster. which is dumb as there'd often be 0 context to work with. (And aren't there the links in the URL that automatically bring you to a certain comment?????) and imao Im kind of getting the feeling that they're trying to get rid of non-coding activities on scratch

basically I'm anticommentlimit

cheatcodeman wrote:

Matjam02 wrote:

I asked her again if they would change things and she said:
We might look at suggestions for the future, but we’re definitely not changing anything right now with how severe things were with the old studio system To describe how severe it got: imagine website activity around studios exploding a couple thousand times over. It really wasn’t sustainable for a website that relies on donation money that was originally intended for the Scratch software.

Matty! Mah BOI!

Everyone i know is surpporibt the movement!

Matjam02 wrote:

cheatcodeman wrote:

Matjam02 wrote:

I asked her again if they would change things and she said:
We might look at suggestions for the future, but we’re definitely not changing anything right now with how severe things were with the old studio system To describe how severe it got: imagine website activity around studios exploding a couple thousand times over. It really wasn’t sustainable for a website that relies on donation money that was originally intended for the Scratch software.

Matty! Mah BOI!

Everyone i know is surpporibt the movement!

Yup. I can't even find a GOOD reason to keep the updates how they are.

Beautifully said. I think it's ridiculous that they are wasting time “fixing things” that are already fixed and maybe focus on things that need more attention? The point of manager is now completely pointless. I am now running a 500+ member studio on my own because my teammates can't update the description for me :'D That stinks. I also dont see how this prevents raiding? Removing managers doesn't stop people from raiding the comments. Perhaps I misunderstand what other people are defining as raiding but I dont see anything being “fixed” in doing this. Perhaps it stops irresponsible managers from being irresponsible but isn't it the owner's choice to decide whether or not someone is worthy of being a manager or not? Is that not a good learning experience for the owner? I may be thinking too much but I support this. Great work.

PetalsSilversteam wrote:

Beautifully said. I think it's ridiculous that they are wasting time “fixing things” that are already fixed and maybe focus on things that need more attention? The point of manager is now completely pointless. I am now running a 500+ member studio on my own because my teammates can't update the description for me :'D That stinks. I also dont see how this prevents raiding? Removing managers doesn't stop people from raiding the comments. Perhaps I misunderstand what other people are defining as raiding but I dont see anything being “fixed” in doing this. Perhaps it stops irresponsible managers from being irresponsible but isn't it the owner's choice to decide whether or not someone is worthy of being a manager or not? Is that not a good learning experience for the owner? I may be thinking too much but I support this. Great work.

I fully support all of your ideas. Why would the ST spend so myuch time on an issue that is only affecting SOME people?

Imacreamoo wrote:

pro’s

Why is there an apostrophe
/lh

Welp, couldn’t have said it better myself, you 100% have my support.

Also, even outside of the RP thing, what’s the point of the comment limit? No one’s stopping you from joining into the conversation. And it’s not a DM system in any way, anyone can look at the replies whenever they feel like it.

I fully agree with that. I previously was used to be @Bewbel, when I created an art comunity. When I moved here, I promoted myself to manager to keep the studio updated. We had a manager chat. We NEVER got raided. Then ST published this update and now I can't do anything with the studio. There are many other people suffering with this update. Scratch Team, we want our studios back to normal.

Support! This expresses almost exactly what i think about the topic, it's incredibly well written, and I agree 100%.

I've seen so many studios and rps fall bc of this update, and some of the new rules are just so infuriatingly limiting. I honestly saw nothing wrong with the old version; i'd be more than happy to have it back.

I completely agree! But I want them to take this whole update back– I feel like the ST has ruined a year of my life with one update.

sofi.sodaa

yes gigi, absolute support! this writing is on point

but anyway yeah the communication aspect is super super important. the trying to get around questions by repeating themselves and not actually answering them isn't ok. I've been on here since I was seven and it'd be too sad for me to leave over this. but I'm really close. studios were the only stress-free part of my existence here, and now they've become the most stressful part.

Bump

CherriCookie wrote:

-snipppppp-
the ST's new updates are really discouraging everyone from staying on the website.

That’s how I feel too. The fact they didn’t even think to let us know a week before so we could give feedback shows that they don’t really care about us and are just trying to update it how they would like it.

If one of the ST’s main reasons for the update was that the servers couldn’t support it, then why couldn’t they just move it to a new server and not update all of it he other stuff? I think it was just a bit pointless tbh.

landofgreenandgold wrote:

If one of the ST’s main reasons for the update was that the servers couldn’t support it, then why couldn’t they just move it to a new server and not update all of it he other stuff? I think it was just a bit pointless tbh.

`\yep, agreed,

Adding onto the layout.

It's very bright and saturated, which can be distracting and/or overwhelming. Using a rough estimate of the studio colours on contrastchecker shows that it doesn't pass as a neurodivergent friendly colour scheme. The issue is the light blue. It passed when it was white.

The new layout of title, description and buttons are also not neurodivergent friendly. It's very squashed in my opinion which leads to it looking clustered and it's confusing to navigate after being used the to old layout where it was more spaced out. I find a way around this is too zoom out

Of course, I have zoomed out to 80% which works as less overwhelming for me (I am likely autistic but not yet diagnosed.). There are websites you can look up for all this information.

As for what the ST could do? I think the first step would be too change the pale blue back to white for that contrast.

Of course. It's important to understand this is all in theory and it may be I am one person who struggles with this. It's important that if you are ND, feel free to share. Respect that we all experience neurodivergence differently and because you are not struggling does not mean others are not.

I will add your opinions here because YOU need to have a say.

God * agreed.

Woah, you typed a lot! 100% agree