# Cross-outs



## Parla

Is there any way for the vBulletin folks to make cross-outs more evident?

They come up pretty much okay in *boldface*, but they're often difficult to see in ordinary type; this is especially true the shorter the word—say, the article a (that "a" was crossed out, but you have to peer awfully closely to see it!). 

I don't know if it appears any different in other browsers. I'm using Firefox 8.0.1 on Windows 7, which I think is fairly common.


----------



## jann

I'm not sure if it's a vB issue or perhaps more about the font itself... strike-throughs may be clearer in a typeface other than the default "Verdana"? 

 Personally, I often add color to the word but not the strike-out:  example, a, not.  For ease of formatting, apply the color first, and the strike-through after...  or just manually type the [s] [/s] tags around your colored word.  They will be converted on post preview/submission.


----------



## mkellogg

I can easily set up strike-through to be a different color or bold.  If more people think it makes sense we can test it.


----------



## swift

Hi. 

In a number of other forums I visit, any text that is stricken out is automatically made bold too. I think Parla's suggestion is actually a good idea and it gets my vote. 

Best,


swift


----------



## Cagey

I prefer Jann's use of color ~ and I like red, because red is often used to mark errors.  

I am afraid that bold would make the struck-out word *dominant *in comparison with the surrounding text, and I don't want an error to be dominant.  Often I use strike-outs to mark minor corrections that are side issues, not the central topic under discussion.


----------



## swift

Hola, Cagey. 

I had a bad experience on September 2008 with the use of red. I quoted a post and highlighted some grammar and spelling errors in boldface red. My intention was only to give some feedback but the person I quoted felt slighted and responded with sarcasm. My decision was to avoid red and I started using blue instead. But I just ceased using colours over time. Anyway, you certainly got a point and I concur with you. Minor errors shouldn't divert our attention from the main topic and the use of boldface is therefore not advisable.


----------



## Cagey

I can see that people might respond to red that way.  If blue or any other color would be more peaceable,  it's fine with me. 
blue
brown (?)
green


----------



## Parla

I like the idea of some kind of use of color, just sufficient to make it evident that the word has been struck out. I use red for replacement words or letters, as in Mike if someone had written it with a lower-case "m". I think it calls attention to the correct way. 

Mike, do you mean that you could make the _line_ (as opposed to the word) a different color? Like red? I think that would be perfect!


----------



## Loob

Jann's idea is brilliant - as always!

But I rather like Parla's suggestion that the strike-through line should - by default - be in a different colour from the original text. Is that possible, Mike?


----------



## L'irlandais

I go along with the suggestion that the use of colour is better than emboldening.  Traditionally in most school systems "red" is the preferred colour for corrections.  I work in architecture, an industry where we "red-line" any corrections needed to a building plan.  Sorry to hear that swift had a bad expierence with the use of red, however it sounds like that member overreacted.  Perhaps it might have been better to pm the corrections, rather than giving them in the forum.


----------



## mkellogg

Parla said:


> do you mean that you could make the _line_ (as opposed to the word) a different color? Like red? I think that would be perfect!


I didn't think that it could be done, but I see now that it is possible.  Those black lines over colored text look good. A black line over dark red text might be best.  I'll try to get a test up and running in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## jann

hi Mike,


mkellogg said:


> Those black lines over colored text look  good. A black line over dark red text might be best.  I'll try to get a  test up and running in the next couple of weeks.


Thanks for looking into this, but I'm not quite sold on the idea.  We can already set any color we want for struck-through letters  manually.  It sounds like the change you're contemplating would force all struck-out text to a certain color scheme (e.g., black line on dark red letters).  I'm not sure that's an improvement.  I understand that many people never bother to change default formatting, and that consequently there are times where a black line through black letters is hard to see... but for those of us who do format our posts, this change would reduce our options without adding anything we can't do already.

On the other hand, if it did turn out to be possible to make the strike-through line a different color by default, that would potentially be helpful.  I've just discovered that I can do that manually, too, so there are four basic possibilities, plus color combinations: 



Formatted
BB code
example
example
example
example
example (no, I'm not actually suggesting that one!)


[s]example[/s]
[s][COLOR=red]example[/COLOR][/s]
[COLOR=red][s]example[/s][/COLOR]
[COLOR=red][s][COLOR=black]example[/COLOR][/s][/COLOR]
[COLOR=lime][s][COLOR=orange]example[/COLOR][/s][/COLOR]

N.B. doesn't work as expected:
[COLOR=red][s][/COLOR]example[COLOR=red][/s][/COLOR]


----------



## Parla

I like the notion of running some sort of test, Mike—perhaps a series of two or three, each lasting just a couple of days—to see what looks good to you, as well as to get some feedback  from forum members.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I usually use green or blue when I do strikeouts, but red does work, too.
I do vote for a different colour when it is used.


----------



## Parla

Mike, did you ever come to a conclusion about making non-boldface cross-outs easier to see? I think you said that you were going to try some sort of—test? experiment?


----------

