Forum Discussion

pvberg's avatar
pvberg
New Contributor
7 years ago

Cox Phone Tools Web page

At some point the Call History page changed its color scheme. When you hover over a name on the call history you get a blue box with black lettering with the phone number that called. This combination of colors is almost impossible to read. Blue with black lettering on a screen is almost always difficult to read and in general should be avoided. Please fix this issue. Choose whiter or yellow for the text color.

6 Replies

Replies have been turned off for this discussion
  • pvberg's avatar
    pvberg
    New Contributor

    In case you could not read the black on blue here it is in yellow on blue:

     Blue with black lettering on a screen is almost always difficult to read and in general should be avoided.

  • Bruce's avatar
    Bruce
    Honored Contributor III

    That's what Cox calls an "enhancement" of their online Phone Tools!  Cox can now obscure wherever your cursor goes!

  • DeeJ1's avatar
    DeeJ1
    Former Moderator

    Hi pvberg,

    Thank you so much for this feedback, I'm sending it over to the product team for you.

  • DeeJ1's avatar
    DeeJ1
    Former Moderator

    Hi pvberg,

    I could actually read both, but I definitely see how this can be difficult to read.

  • Bruce's avatar
    Bruce
    Honored Contributor III

    Why not just display the telephone number?  Why do we need to hover our cursor over a name to reveal its number?  That's silly.  It only encumbers our analysis of who called...especially in the age of spoofing.

    If Cox is to provide us data (Call History), it needs to be informative.  Our Call History should tell us something.

    For example, I've received 4 calls from (859) 547-4475, and each call had a different Caller ID:  
     - COVINGTON KY
     - INFO CNTR
     - SIRS
     - THE INFO CENTER

    If I got these calls on the same day, at first glance, I'd assume these were from different telephone numbers.  However, I'd have to hover my cursor back-and-forth to reveal the truth.  I'd have to hover my cursor back-and-forth and compare the numbers:  859-->859...547-->547...4475-->4475.  Why?  If Cox listed the telephone numbers, I could quickly detect the spoofed Caller IDs at first glance.

    I don't subscribe to Cox Selective Call Rejection, but I can only image the frustration.  If I didn't perform the back-and-forth comparison, I would have first blocked the number associated with COVINGTON KY.  Then...after listening to announcements, following instructions, programming 1's and 0's and #'s and *'s and codes...I would have probably forgotten the number of my first block.  (I'm only human after all.)  Then I'd hover my cursor again and try to block the number associated with INFO CNTR.  Ah, oh!

    Would there be an automated voice informing me of the duplicate number on my Rejection List?

    "Hmm, when did I previously block this number...months ago?"

    I'd listen to the list of my current blocks.

    "Yup, this number is on there.  If I previously added this number, why didn't Cox Selective Call Rejection block the call?  Does this service not work?  Do I troubleshoot something?"

    Hopefully, after my next hover, I'd finally recognize the number associated with SIRS.

    "Oh, I see what's going on!  It's the same number with 4 different Caller IDs!  Grrr!"

    When Cox hides the telephone numbers, it's like playing the Memory Match Game.

  • Hi Bruce, thank you for your input. I forwarded your comments to our product development team.