I want the Scratch Team to at least consider my feedback on their proposal. There's almost no chance that the Scratch Team possesses a chaotic mindset in which they change their actions immediately after a series of events; they would not reject their own proposal immediately.

The Scratch Team attempts to make Scratch as inclusive as possible: to all genders, to all ethnicities, and to people with disabilities. However, I feel that the Scratch Team overemphasizes the latter, and recently they changed the project icons (the love, star, and eye) to be much more contrasted, for people with low vision.

In Scratch Lab, a separate website in which the Scratch Team shows off new functions, one can see the the contrast block proposition. They have shown that they are not interested in making an option, and considering that many people find the new project icons to be hard to adapt to, including me, I'm concerned that the Scratch Team does not want to make the block redesign an option.

Excluding project icons, many of Scratch's functions are designed to be viewed by someone who doesn't have any major vision problems. Text and underlying content in shared projects do not seem to be aiming also to an low vision audience. If the Scratch Team would to not make this redesign an option, they should either discourage content which are hard to see for some people, or to eradicate every single content which isn't friendly to people with low vision, with their philosophy of immediate, direct and absolute inclusivity.

My point is that not everything we stumble on in an everyday basis would be made for all people. The Scratch Team should at least recognize that they couldn't cater to all people, and if they tried, it would cause more bad than benefits that they are aiming on.

If they still want to go with their idea, they should at least make an offline editor software with the new block redesign or to make it an option. Scratch's online function does not always cater to people with low vision.

The ST have already gotten sufficient backlash from changing the studio layout to 3.0; why not learn from mistakes? I fear that people wouldn't take your idea that lightly. Reject your idea like crippling paper into a ball, if you want to.

honestly scratch 3.0 was a mistake
And yeah, I could barely even look at the 3.0 colors before. Now I can't at all. There's a topic for an optional thing though:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/635211

medians wrote:

honestly scratch 3.0 was a mistake
And yeah, I could barely even look at the 3.0 colors before. Now I can't at all. There's a topic for an optional thing though:
https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/635211

Thank you for telling me that. I changed my suggestion to be focused on deleting the redesign.

I don’t think it needs to not exist, because it could help some people, but it wouldn’t help people who aren’t colorblind, and a color deficient person said it didn’t help them. It might still be useful to some people, and if they’re almost done with it then there’s not point in not making it when it could help some people. Not support

Support.I haven’t seen anyone say it helps them, and I’ve seen at least 4 or 5 people who it”s supposed to help say it’s harder to see.

Ok, is this asking to remove the new block colors or make them an option? I'm not sure.
If it's the first, semi-support, I find the new block colors disgusting, but some people may like them.
If it's the second, full support, as again, some people may like the new block colors.

also “ambolish” is not a word and i think you're looking for the word “abolish”

thmnko wrote:

Prime689 wrote:

They have shown that they are not interested in making an option,

Are you sure about that?

I’m not sure, I really don’t know if I believe it.. or..