Jump to content
  • 0

Theme??


Lady-Jennifer

Question

Has something happened to the theme?

It's either too dark or too light - So light that I need sunglasses and it makes me want to throw up.¬†¬†ūü§Ę

If it's "your" doing then either put the light back as it was or give us a switch option to do it ourselves.

  • Like 2
Link to post

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
16 hours ago, Lady-Jennifer said:

Has something happened to the theme?

It's either too dark or too light - So light that I need sunglasses and it makes me want to throw up.¬†¬†ūü§Ę

If it's "your" doing then either put the light back as it was or give us a switch option to do it ourselves.

 

10 minutes ago, iom120000 said:

Same problem here - no way to adjust back as far as I know - someone's meddling.

Dark theme seems to be working fine ...

image.thumb.png.e903daf764a45e31d7584c6a06841064.png

Link to post
  • 0
16 hours ago, Lady-Jennifer said:

Has something happened to the theme?

It's either too dark or too light - So light that I need sunglasses and it makes me want to throw up.¬†¬†ūü§Ę

If it's "your" doing then either put the light back as it was or give us a switch option to do it ourselves.

check your monitor brightness settings.

Link to post
  • 0

I have to say that I'm not a fan of the new all white them either, the old one was better. It would be good if the banners of each window could be offset with another colour (light grey or something), as each window seems to get lost and it is hard know where one starts/ends - even the dark theme has this concept. Not great from a UX pov.

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 0
2 hours ago, Caseynotes said:

check your monitor brightness settings.

Strangely, I tried that.

With the net result of..........

ZERO EFFECT!!

This is either the work of an idiot or IG's attempt to make it even harder for people to trade profitably.

It is Rubbish!!

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • 0

This new all white layout is very distracting as it blends the top bars with the main content and also with, in my case, the google bookmarks bar. Is there a reason for the change? If so, a simple explanation would be appreciated.

The previous layout was much easier to navigate visually. Perhaps it's an age thing, but as I get older I need all the help I can get and the new layout is not helping.

Is it not possible to have a customising facility for the various panels in the layout? After all, there is plenty of customising allowed in charts. 

Link to post
  • 0
2 hours ago, Lady-Jennifer said:

Strangely, I tried that.

With the net result of..........

ZERO EFFECT!!

This is either the work of an idiot or IG's attempt to make it even harder for people to trade profitably.

It is Rubbish!!

This is their reply on Twitter lol. In other words you can make it blacker instead of whiter!

"Hi, it is a system update however you can change it by clicking on Settings > Theme > Dark"

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • 0

This bleached out anti-theme is horrible. It makes me want to look away. And it's so obviously bad that I wonder what they were thinking. Maybe they are following Microsoft's new minimalism? The most important thing for trading is the ability to watch for long periods, so a pale grey would be ideal. But anything would be better than all white.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • General Statistics

    • Total Topics
      15,389
    • Total Posts
      73,859
    • Total Members
      62,261
    • Most Online
      7,522
      10/06/21 10:53

    Newest Member
    darrylantonio0
    Joined 12/06/21 18:09
  • Posts

    • Oh, so underlying conditions are significant now we have the vaccines, ''98% of ALL COVID-19 deaths in English hospitals were people with underlying conditions. The evening standard is trying to defend the vaccine by saying that the people who died with two doses had underlying health issues. See the problem?'' datatosee.com¬†¬†@dontbetyet ¬† ¬† MEANWHILE,¬†-¬†What? ''WHOA!! 73% *HIGHER* death rate in this vaccinated UK cohort compared to the unvaccinated (19/9344 vs 23/19573, p=0.07). Pause. We need more transparency on this data, not more politics with people ...¬†misrepresenting the data.''¬† Dr Ah Kahn Syed¬†@arkmedic ¬† Also meanwhile, ''Pandemrix was pulled for causing narcolepsy in 20 in a million doses. The crude reporting rate for myocarditis¬†is 35 per million doses for 16-17 year olds [covid vaccines] ''¬† Dr Clare Craig¬†@ClareCraigPath¬† (Chart taken from FDA video below).¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† .
    • UK following the US in rewriting the rules for testing and counting the Chinese virus. Before vaccines every thing possible was done to inflate the numbers, post vaccine rollout now new rules to deflate the numbers. ''NEW: Hospitals have been told to differentiate between those actually sick with coronavirus and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else. The move will reduce the official numbers in hospital for coronavirus Via @Independent.''¬† @PoliticsForAlI ¬† Meanwhile Ferguson's fake models finally getting the sort of attention they deserve. Matt Ridley¬†¬†@mattwridley: ''I was misled by Prof Neil Ferguson at a select committee hearing.'' 'Researchers at Uppsala University adapted the ICL model and on 30 April estimated that, without mitigation, Sweden‚Äôs Covid deaths would hit 96,000 by the end of May. The actual number on 1 June was just 4,403. Questioned about the disparity by Matt Ridley in the House of Lords on 2 June, Ferguson insisted: ‚Äėthey did not use our model, they didn‚Äôt adapt our model‚Äô and ‚ÄėWe had no role in parameterising it‚Äô. ICL itself tweeted sniffily on 6 May, ‚ÄėProfessor Ferguson and the Imperial Covid-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths‚Äô.¬† In fact ICL¬†did and the Excel spreadsheet they produced showing just that¬†is still up on the internet for all to see. So what about Sweden, huh? | The Spectator Australia ¬† Also, ¬† .
    • probably missing the point, but I don't get the growth stocks (QQQ) short to hedge against correction in cyclical commodities, sorry.¬† NDX went nowhere since mid Feb, while oil is up 20% or so.¬† That doesn't mean tech is cheap, nor that QQQ would rise (again...) when cyclicals crash.¬† but hasn't the narrative been reflation-rotation for a while...?¬† if that simply unwinds¬†- QQQ obviously will outperform.¬† on the other hand, in case of a general risk-off, with multiple¬†compression in the center, you'll do very well.¬† Personally, I¬†see too much risk of NDX catching up first.¬† next week expiry date - not that I would have much data on these things, but wouldn't be the first time that range breakouts come just in time, almost like manipulationgic...¬†¬† ¬† ¬†
×
×
  • Create New...