This discussion has been closed.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 10th July 2012
I JUST CLICKED "WHO'S WHO" AND GOT A WHOLE PAGE OF PHOTOS OF ACTORS.
PLEASE REGISTER THIS AS A COMPLAINT, AND GET SOMETHING DONE ABOUT IT.
I *KNOW* I AM *SHOUTING*
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Very rude to shout at Tayler personally, I'm sure she didn't put the pictures there.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 2.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
I was shouting at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
But you addressed it to Tayler.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 4.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
Tayler is the local contact with the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
I'm sure she is not personally offended by capitals, and realises that the shouting is at her employers not her personally. She is a very sensible person.
.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 5.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
Hi OI
Sorry about this but it's not going to change. The page you're looking at is from the updated version of The Archers website (due to go live at the end of the week) which uses a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-wide template and there's no way to switch off the photos as there was before.
If you like, and if you don't make too many requests(!) I'm happy to post the odd Who's Who entry here.
Tayler
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
OI is rude (no need for capitals) but he has a point.
This is not the first time that parts/ features of the website have been changed to fit the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú masterplan while at the same time removing content or features which were extremely useful to many listeners to the Archers. For example when the Blog format was introduced we permanently lost about ten years worth of articles, interviews etc carefully assembled by Keri over that period. This great treasure trove of information could easily have been stuck in a section called "archive" but instead it was jettisoned in favour of uniformity of the new look. How about consulting the people who read the site before introducing changes like this (after all we are supposed to be a "community")?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
I don't understand why people have a problem with seeing pictures of the actors.
I've seen most of them but still have a different picture in my head when listening to the programme
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Actually, I don't mind seeing the pictures myself - but there is no denying that a desire not to see the pictures is common. In the early years of this messageboard this issue was brought up repeatedly and eventually Keri persuaded the technical people to put in the feature whereby the pictures could be hidden. The system implemented had its flaws but it was agood example of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú actually listening to what people wanted rather than imposing some universal solution!
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
If you like, and if you don't make too many requests(!) I'm happy to post the odd Who's Who entry here.Â
Tayler that is very kind, but I do - or used to - refer to who's who frequently, and when I do I want to know what I look up now, not in a day or two.
Sorry about this but it's not going to change. The page you're looking at is from the updated version of The Archers website (due to go live at the end of the week) which uses a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-wide template and there's no way to switch off the photos as there was beforeÂ
Surely a "Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú TEMPLATE" would not impose a requirement for photographs? Template for what?
Why can't Who's Who simply lead to a list of names, with options for details and photos as desired?
Surely the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú web templates are to meet listener preferences, not vice versa.
Can we please have a direct response on this issue from someone in authority to change it?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
OH DEAR OH DEAR.
Please explain how pictures of actors can lead to such a response.
Can it REALLY be worth getting so upset about?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 11.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
In reply to fondantfancee:
OH DEAR OH DEAR.
Please explain how pictures of actors can lead to such a response.Â
I have a mental image of TA characters, formed over 50+ years listening.
To have an image of the actor entirely spoils my perception of the story.
For example the actress that is Ruth looks nothing like my image - and now it has been forced on me there is a conflict.
Most to the point, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú has already accepted the need to avoid pics. Now itis ignoring it - without notice or warning.
High handed and thoughtless.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
OH DEAR OH DEAR.
Please explain how pictures of actors can lead to such a response.
Can it REALLY be worth getting so upset about?Â
Quite - there are more important things in life
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 12.
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
I did gather the reason but completely fail to see how someone looks would change how I perceive a story!
It's on the radio, it's voices that matter and surely a brief glimpse of the actor is not catastrophic?
I remember when Shula got married and the photos were all over the Radio Times. I thought, 'oh she's a bit older than I imagined' but the voice was there on the radio and if the character is convincing then that's what matters.
To be honest, their faces are important to actors for most of their work. It seems odd to expect them to be faceless entities.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
If pics on this website will feed the starving I will happily accept them.
But within these narrow confines surely spoiling people's enjoyment of TA is rather important?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Sorry about this but it's not going to change.Â
Sorry about this Tayler but listeners will continue to complain. It's mostly becuase of the inappropriate use of cast photos that I completely avoid any editorial content on this site. The deal is: radio supplies the words and the listener supplies the pictures.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 14.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
It's on the radio, it's voices that matter and surely a brief glimpse of the actor is not catastrophic?Â
Yes it is. BECAUSE it's radio so we have made our own image.
To be honest, their faces are important to actors for most of their work. It seems odd to expect them to be faceless entities.Â
I don't ask them to wear burqas in Harrods. Just that we do not have to see their images here.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 17.
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
Well of course we all have our own images but to expect the fact that the actors are real people to be ignored is still odd IMO.
Well known 'faces' often do radio plays, does that mean they can't be the characters in the play because you know what they look like? Of course not.
Anyway, Taylor has said it's not going to change so this is all academic.
Perhaps they can sort out the synopsis ....
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 17.
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
I've seen their photos many times but it doesn't change how I picture the characters. I can say which ones look more or less how I think they ought to look and which ones nothing like but it really doesn't spoil listening for me.
For those of for whom it does you must have very visual memories, or something.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 18.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
In reply to fondantfancee:
Well of course we all have our own images but to expect the fact that the actors are real people to be ignored is still odd IMO.Â
I know the names of less than a handful of TA actors.
Brian
David
Ruth
Debbie
That's it.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
>>>Anyway, Taylor has said it's not going to change so this is all academic<<<
Well, that is what they said last time and then it was changed because of pressure from posters.
Why can't people for whom this is not a concern appreciate that it is a problem for many and support them in their request fro the status quo to be re-established? What skin is it off your nose?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 21.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
Why can't people for whom this is not a concern appreciate that it is a problem for many and support them in their request fro the status quo to be re-established? What skin is it off your nose?Â
Ask Keri!
<>
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
I find the change unnecessary and unhelpful, given that the actors are employed for the voices rather than their looks and in some cases are a vastly different age to the character they portray. Seeing their photos adds nothing, because I already 'know' what they look like The one sliver lining in these changes is that they seem to have abolished the floating alphabetical index, which moved up and down the page as one scrolled, to great annoyance.
I should perhaps add that, in RL there have been instances where I have got to know someone by phone before I met them and they turned out to bear no relation to my mental image. i have ended up as thinking of them as two different people - the phone one and the physical one!
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 21.
Posted by fondantfancee (U14086841) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
I believe all boards are for one person to say one thing and others are free to comment without others having a pop at their argument.
In the face of so many other problems both with the board and adverse reactions to TA itself I disagree that time be spent on this topic - and I believed I was free to say this and not lose my skin anywhere.
Maybe there's a new 'law' I'm not aware of but then I wouldn't care if there was.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 18.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
Well known 'faces' often do radio plays, does that mean they can't be the characters in the play because you know what they look like? Of course not.Â
If you know in advance what the actor looks like it does not matter. It is when your mental image is overlaid with a totally different actor's publicity shot - not even in character.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
fondantfancee, of course you can state your view, but a little symapthy for the views of other users of the board would be nice ...
Thanks for pointing out the blog, OI, it looks lake a lost cause (or perhaps something that could be done via the script).
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Tagging on
One positive thing I would like to say about the new design is that we now have a direct link to the message board on the homepage of the website- something many of us have been asking for for ages.
So thanks for that!
I do feel sad the pictures are no longer optional and hope something can be done to solve this. I know it is important to quite a few people. I wonder if one of the fire fox add ons might remove the pics?
v_j
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
OK I think no ap is needed. In Firfox go to Tools/ Options/ Content and then uncheck the load images automatically box. You can set exceptions. I think I did this as a temp measure to block smilies before we had the new Proteus script and thought smilies were going to be a permanent feature of the revamped message board.
v_j
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 26.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
perhaps something that could be done via the script).Â
Apparently not because the script only works with dna pages?
...nope no idea myself either what/why!
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 28.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 11th July 2012
v-j you de man.
Changing the tick seems to work, but just blocking this site not to.
Dunno if cached images/pages involved.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
happy to help OI!
v_j
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Thursday, 12th July 2012
Hi Tayler - I see on the blog that "studioj" has provided the code needed to make pics switchable.
Will the kindness be accepted?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Well known 'faces' often do radio plays, does that mean they can't be the characters in the play because you know what they look like? Of course not. Â
Very true! And not only that, quite a few Archers actors, past and present, have done TV and film work:---
Jack May
Graham Seed
Tamsin Greig
Mary Wimbush
Terry Molloy
Felicity Finch
Charles Collingwood
(and more, I suspect!)
Not to mention appearances on TV documentaries on The Archers going back to the 1970s....
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
For 'Felicity Finch' read 'Felicity Jones'.....
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
I have a mental image of TA characters, formed over 50+ years listening.
...
For example the actress that is Ruth looks nothing like my image - and now it has been forced on me there is a conflict.Â
I'm going off the point a bit here but it fascinates me that this conflict causes some people a problem.
I agree that the actors don't, generally, look like (what I imagine) their characters do. When I see the photos it jars for a moment - and I agree that seeing them posed for, say, a RT photospread is completely wrong. But that apart, 5 seconds after I've seen the picture, I forget the actor totally and get "my" image back. Perhaps this is because I just have a bad memory for faces?
(Incidentally, it isn't just actors who cause this kind of dissonance - I was in the audience yesterday for a speech by a Cabinet minister. he looked nothing like himself at all. Perhaps it was just an actor...)
VH
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 35.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Friday, 13th July 2012
I agree that the actors don't, generally, look like (what I imagine) their characters do. When I see the photos it jars for a moment - and I agree that seeing them posed for, say, a RT photospread is completely wrong. But that apart, 5 seconds after I've seen the picture, I forget the actor totally and get "my" image back. Perhaps this is because I just have a bad memory for faces?Â
You must have. I don't account myself good at facial recognition but cannot forget the images of Ruth and Emma, for example, forced on me by the evil Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú. Neither of them is in the least like my mental image, and now the two conflict.
I had only an approximation of Debbie so Tamsin G has taken over. And "my" Brian is almost identical to CC!
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
I have been known to follow someone back to their office to see the name on the door (in the days before open plan). A couple of months ago I was chatting to someone who got off the train at the same station I did (there had been a delay or something, so it was allowed) assuming he was a stranger, only to discover, to my embarrassment, that it was our neighbour (my wife married his daughter a couple of years ago). And so on.
VH
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 37.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Friday, 13th July 2012
In reply to Vicarshusband:
I have been known to follow someone back to their office to see the name on the door (in the days before open plan). A couple of months ago I was chatting to someone who got off the train at the same station I did (there had been a delay or something, so it was allowed) assuming he was a stranger, only to discover, to my embarrassment, that it was our neighbour (my wife married his daughter a couple of years ago). And so onÂ
Yes, I could do those things. It's not the remembering faces, it's the linking I think.
Prosopagnosia rules.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
But that apart, 5 seconds after I've seen the picture, I forget the actor totally and get "my" image back. Perhaps this is because I just have a bad memory for faces? Â
I don't think it's that you have a bad memory for faces, I think it's because you've got a good visual imagination.
Just remembered another Archers Actor who appeared on TV, Ballard Berkeley (Colonel Danby/Fawlty Towers).
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Thank you, Nemo399, that's the nicest thing anyone has said about me for ages!
VH
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 40.
Posted by rick_yard_withdrawn (U14573092) on Saturday, 14th July 2012
Personally I think it would be better if there were drawings of the characters on the website - then they could be portrayed as they really are, rather than by showing the actors and actresses, who may nor may not be anything like the characters they play....
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
But whose drawings would we use? My view of what Ruth looks like is clearly nothing like some other people's, judging by some posts that I've read over the years.
I really don't want to see photos of the actors, and am dismayed that I no longer have the option of hiding them. It doesn't seem to me impossible to have a clickable link to the photographs.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by Ayesha Bhatia (U14738640) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012
Hi OI
Sorry about this but it's not going to change. The page you're looking at is from the updated version of The Archers website (due to go live at the end of the week) which uses a Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú-wide template and there's no way to switch off the photos as there was before.
If you like, and if you don't make too many requests(!) I'm happy to post the odd Who's Who entry here.
°Õ²¹²â±ô±ð°ùÌý
Hi Tayler, just a quick question.
I haven't looked at the
'whose who?'
section for quite a while, and I'm aware that it's changing.
I'm blind and use a screen reader called job access with speech or as we users of it call it, jaws
There are plenty of other blind and partially cighted, or as some call us, visually impaired, listeners of the programme who look up information on the website.
If the
'whose who?'
section is all going to be photographs, will it be of any use to those of us, and there are a lot, I promise you, who can't see at all, or those of us who have some impairment with our sight?
Just curious ...
Thanks in advance for your help.
Ayesha
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 43.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012
Hi Ayesha - Just in case Tayler is not around, I looked at the Who's Who page (squinting to avoid visual images.
There is a name under every image. There would have to be really as no-one knows what they look like. Or needs to.
Then it links to a page per person with text and another bigger unavoidable inage.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 44.
Posted by Ayesha Bhatia (U14738640) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012
Hi Ayesha - Just in case Tayler is not around, I looked at the Who's Who page (squinting to avoid visual images.
There is a name under every image. There would have to be really as no-one knows what they look like. Or needs to.
Then it links to a page per person with text and another bigger unavoidable inage. Â
Thanks for checking it out for me.
I'll have to check it out later and then report back as to how it is for me.
Not to criticise, but to inform.
Thanks it's much appreciated.
Ayesha
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Hi Ayesha - Just in case Tayler is not around, I looked at the Who's Who page (squinting to avoid visual images.
There is a name under every image. There would have to be really as no-one knows what they look like. Or needs to.
Then it links to a page per person with text and another bigger unavoidable inage. Â
Hi OI, that is very off-sipping - thanks for advance warning - although I feel bad complaining about it because I am lucky to be fully-sighted.
I will NOT LOOK at those pics - but I have a similar/different personal experience. Sometimes characters in books have been RUINED by seeing them turned in to "characters" in "movies". It's never taken me long to get over this. These sorts of things seem to wear off quickly, doncha think?
Tayler mentioned you recently - article under google TA - in heading.
None of my business, but is your wife a minister/registrar sort of person - must be "well-cool" marrying people! exxers
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
, in reply to message 46.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 18th July 2012
Tayler mentioned you recently - article under google TA - in heading.Â
Mentioned OI (me) ? Where? Can't understand your clue
None of my business, but is your wife a minister/registrar sort of person - must be "well-cool" marrying people! exxersÂ
No!! How have I given that impression? Or are you addressing someone else?
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Tayler mentioned you recently - article under google TA - in heading.Â
Mentioned OI (me) ? Where? Can't understand your clue
None of my business, but is your wife a minister/registrar sort of person - must be "well-cool" marrying people! exxersÂ
No!! How have I given that impression? Or are you addressing someone else? Â
OI:
2. Sorreee. f. moment (pace Jenny M). `twasn't you nor your OH.
1. It seems to have gone. DO do do ask Tayler: last week, I googled "TA" and Tayler included in her heading (somewhere around the middle) "Hi OI" or summat. Poota hasn't learnt links yet so wouldn't give it to you. Silly poota - I printed out your instructions but it said "I'm a Mac, an old one at that". exxers
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
I've just come back to The Archers and turned to these pages thinking I would get up to date with new characters and be reminded of old ones. I was disappointed to see a photo gallery of the actors. It's interesting but surely it would be more useful to have notes on the characters as well.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
I think that you can click on the link underneath the photo to get the information? Haven't tried, as I hate the photos.
Link to this forum: TAYLER - FORMAL COMPLAINT RE IMAGES OF ACTORS
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.