Crispydogs101 wrote:

Who is going to be the new owner of the thread once it reaches 500 pages?

k7e wrote:

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Who is going to be the new owner of the thread once it reaches 500 pages?

This one user named @k7e or something like this…
Why would it get a new owner after 500 pages? Also, we've got 124 more pages to go.

Za-Chary wrote:

4.1 Disable “See Inside” or restrict sharing

Zydrolic wrote:

k7e wrote:

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Who is going to be the new owner of the thread once it reaches 500 pages?

This one user named @k7e or something like this…
Why would it get a new owner after 500 pages? Also, we've got 124 more pages to go.

Topics get closed at 500 pages(or above) to save server costs and space;

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Zydrolic wrote:

k7e wrote:

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Who is going to be the new owner of the thread once it reaches 500 pages?

This one user named @k7e or something like this…
Why would it get a new owner after 500 pages? Also, we've got 124 more pages to go.

Topics get closed at 500 pages(or above) to save server costs and space;

Not really.
No space difference appears by closing topics, and the forums are so small, costs won't change due to bandwidth as much.

Zydrolic wrote:

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

Zydrolic wrote:

k7e wrote:

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Who is going to be the new owner of the thread once it reaches 500 pages?

This one user named @k7e or something like this…
Why would it get a new owner after 500 pages? Also, we've got 124 more pages to go.

Topics get closed at 500 pages(or above) to save server costs and space;

Not really.
No space difference appears by closing topics, and the forums are so small, costs won't change due to bandwidth as much.

Yeah my brain is just dead again this night.
(Also I dunno about you but over a million total posts ain't small to me)

GIitchInTheMatrix wrote:

However, with the forum software Scratch uses, once a posts made it can't be deleted.

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

Should we add changing the header back to blue here?

Contact Us wrote:

Hey there!

Thank you for reaching out! In the next week we’ll be releasing a blog post that describes the process a bit, but I’m happy to share some details now.
I’m the Design Director at Scratch, and our designers began working on the high contrast blocks last year. The process for the blocks began with them checking each original block color combination against the WCAG AA guidelines. Very few blocks met the contrast ratio so they began exploring alternative combinations that kept the same hue as the original blocks, but lightened the background and used black text — giving a higher contrast ratio and consistent look.

We launched the High Contrast blocks in Scratch Lab where ~800 users tested it and provided feedback. Many users with self-reported visual impairments or disabilities preferred the new high-contrast blocks, but many users without those impairments found the blocks to be less aesthetically pleasing. Most users asked for an option to toggle between the modes, which wasn’t functionality we had at the time. So, our engineers and designers worked to create the drop-down settings menu that allows users to choose whether or not to use the high contrast mode.

As for the colors in the nav bar and elements on the Scratch site itself, we explored a similar approach of lightening our original blue and using black text. However, that visual change felt off-brand and was quite jarring as a change. So, we decided to keep white text and use an existing brand color (the purple) which would allow us to meet the contrast guidelines and keep a common Scratch color. We actually use a purple editor in the Scratch Lab environment, so this was not a huge shift.

We’ve seen a few users ask to make this part optional as well, but unfortunately we need to ensure that the site is usable for as many people as possible (including use in schools) and that means we need a consistent design. We can certainly explore personalization features in the future, but for now, we want to make sure we have a site that is inclusive for folks with visual impairments, and we will be considering additional color modes in the future for the blocks — so stay tuned.

Thank you for asking about our process. The three links in the forum post (included below) are probably most help to point for more information about contrast standards in general.

Sincerely,
[Redacted by @Za-Chary]

https://kids.kiddle.co/Accessibility#:%7E:text=Accessibility%20is%20equal%20access%20for%2Ca%20person%20without%20a%20disability
https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Content_Accessibility_Guidelines

k7e wrote:

EDIT: Now that I think of it, I think that the original announcement is what should be linked if this does get added to the list. I mean, you've linked announcements before, and this new announcement is a much better explanation than the Discuss tab one (the reasoning in 9.1 came mostly from a comment on your profile by @Paddle2See, right?).

Sliverus wrote:

“Remove the Suggestions forum” used to be on this sticky, but it got removed. I was trying to look for the link to the original topic, but I couldn't find it. Do you happen to still have the link to the original topic? I need it for the wiki.

Sliverus wrote:

Also, while I'm here, I'm curious: Why was it removed from the list?

Zydrolic wrote:

Za-Chary, I found this post from 2016 suggesting to lower bans to an hour.
Mind to add it in? Although ST doesn't appear to have noticed it, I just think this should be added in considering it's not a really good idea and has gotten zero support anyway. Though it is ST's decision..
Here.

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Why was this unrejected? Was it not suggested as much anymore?

snapdrag0ns wrote:

Question: what is the status of the idea of a search box for the forums?

Zydrolic wrote:

snapdrag0ns wrote:

Question: what is the status of the idea of a search box for the forums?

Please ask on Questions about Scratch, not on TOLoRS.
Just saying because it doesn't belong here. Thank you.

Crispydogs101 wrote:

Who is going to be the new owner of the thread once it reaches 500 pages?

Zydrolic wrote:

Topics get closed at 500 pages(or above) to save server costs and space;

waitwhat2288 wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

4.1 Disable “See Inside” or restrict sharing

Shouldn't these be separated from one another? According to 4.1, disabling the “See Inside” button is rejected for dissuading the purpose of remix culture, while restraining access to who can view a project is rejected because moderation concerns.

waitwhat2288 wrote:

I know both of these suggestions fall under the same category as “preventing something,” but 2.3 and 2.4 also have some resemblance to one another, and yet 2.3 and 2.4 have contradictory reasons for rejections just like the suggestions in 4.1 have.

k7e wrote:

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

Should we add changing the header back to blue here?

I think it would make more sense to do it now, it's not implemented anymore.

Za-Chary wrote:

I was hoping to see a Scratch Team member response today confirming that it's rejected. But it's probably safe to add it anyway since the Scratch Team performed months of research and work for this change and likely will not be reverting it. See 7.14. For those who want to quote this, be aware that “changing the color palette back to blue entirely” is what is rejected; it is NOT rejected to make this optional.

On that note, I got confused as to where to put this rejection. Since the purple changed across the entire website, I felt like “7. Scratch Community” was the best fit. But this didn't make much sense because it's more of a website change, not really a community change. Then I started thinking about how a lot of the suggestions in that category were different, and could be placed in two different categories; some described community norms/rules, while others were actual features that would have to be developed.

As such, I'm entertaining the idea of splitting this category into two categories: one which lists actual features on the Scratch website, and one which lists proposed community norms/rules. In fact, the entire list is probably due for some proofreading and rearranging, anyway. I'll try to make these changes within a week or so, but don't be surprised if it takes longer than that.

Sliverus wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

I was hoping to see a Scratch Team member response today confirming that it's rejected. But it's probably safe to add it anyway since the Scratch Team performed months of research and work for this change and likely will not be reverting it. See 7.14. For those who want to quote this, be aware that “changing the color palette back to blue entirely” is what is rejected; it is NOT rejected to make this optional.

On that note, I got confused as to where to put this rejection. Since the purple changed across the entire website, I felt like “7. Scratch Community” was the best fit. But this didn't make much sense because it's more of a website change, not really a community change. Then I started thinking about how a lot of the suggestions in that category were different, and could be placed in two different categories; some described community norms/rules, while others were actual features that would have to be developed.

As such, I'm entertaining the idea of splitting this category into two categories: one which lists actual features on the Scratch website, and one which lists proposed community norms/rules. In fact, the entire list is probably due for some proofreading and rearranging, anyway. I'll try to make these changes within a week or so, but don't be surprised if it takes longer than that.

Firstly, I have an answer from a Scratch Team member. Changing the site back to blue is rejected, but it is NOT rejected to change the color to whatever you'd like.

And I think Section 7 should be split into “Scratch Community” and “Website Features”.

Paddle2See wrote:

Yes. We things similar in the TOLRS relating to other changes we have made. Sometimes changes have to be made. Some people will be very vocal about disliking said changes. Doesn't mean that the changes should or will be rolled back. If there are valid objections (things that break, for example) or valid suggestions for how to improve the feature, we are open to hearing them.

EtheBee wrote:

i think yoou should have a mobile app it would help alot so in long ca rides i can have something great to do i would love that and so would everyone it should be on ipad iphone android and pretty much all mobile devices so please please do that thank you and please dont reject this

Za-Chary wrote:

Strictly speaking, it's not rejected, since it's not even closed. I agree it would be rejected — but I don't have the authority to determine that. Nevertheless, I probably would not add it to the list anyway since I don't see it suggested often.

Za-Chary wrote:

Zydrolic wrote:

snapdrag0ns wrote:

Question: what is the status of the idea of a search box for the forums?

Please ask on Questions about Scratch, not on TOLoRS.
Just saying because it doesn't belong here. Thank you.

They can ask here; they are asking if a suggestion is rejected or not. That is relevant to this thread.

Za-Chary wrote:

Zydrolic wrote:

Topics get closed at 500 pages(or above) to save server costs and space;

That's not true. Forum topics don't get closed just because they are above a certain number of pages.

Lego_Kai wrote:

2.6 could be added by letting people choose what they want their personal clone limit to be. They could also decrease their personal clone limit to below 300, too.