Can we please get the scantily clad people off the homepage!!!



  • zigraphixzigraphix Posts: 2,813
    edited December 1969

    The Flash aspect is annoying and seems rather pointless... was there an animation or other interactivity that I missed somehow?

    I'm also slightly baffled as to why Mike doesn't have any hair.

    Making the bikini a contrasting color would answer my concerns, though. I might still have to explain what site I was on and why, but at least someone glancing at my monitor from the doorway wouldn't instantly conclude that I have a nude model on my monitor. I probably could explain that, given the kind of graphics work that I do (and the fact that I'm female and known to be happily married), but I'd rather not have to explain unless necessary.

    But then, I felt the same way about the Genesis Evolution Morph Bundle, with its use of almost-flesh-tone color on bare models. It just seemed like pointless boundary-pushing to me.

  • cridgitcridgit Posts: 992
    edited December 1969

    Its not pointless if the sheeple is gonna bleat about it ;-) DAZ has new oil in the marketing engine, no?

  • TheWheelManTheWheelMan Posts: 1,014
    edited December 1969

    JeffG said:
    I knew going into this that it would become a flame war.

    That's OK, I'm fireproof.

    This is a business issue I'm addressing - not censorship or feminism. I buy products for a company.

    Most other 3d sites seem to be able to steer clear of the "hey, look at us, we're hobbiest soft-core pornographers" atmosphere (i.e turbosquid, 3docean, etc.

    Indeed, Daz has done so also on their front page - up to this point.

    I totally get your point, however, you say it's not about censorship in one sentence, and then in another you infers relation between a woman in a bikini as "soft core porn". You're not helping the validity of your point with that.

  • larsmidnattlarsmidnatt Posts: 4,511
    edited October 2012

    zigraphix said:

    But then, I felt the same way about the Genesis Evolution Morph Bundle, with its use of almost-flesh-tone color on bare models. It just seemed like pointless boundary-pushing to me.

    Stuff like that doesn't really bother me, because they didn't even have eyes or hair. Were they also on the homepage?

    Most people look at clay differently then they do people with skin, eyes and hair. It made sense to me to show them skinless and without clothes. that cream color is one of the best colors to show off shape. They were selling shapes and not complete characters.

    But at a quick glance I could see some people squinting at it, but there was no details where details were needed to really make it a person .

    Post edited by larsmidnatt on
  • DAZ_ann0314DAZ_ann0314 Posts: 2,208
    edited December 1969

    As a company who does cater to people working in a business atmosphere, DAZ3D does try it best to make sure things on the site are done in a way that makes it accessible to those viewing in a work environment. When the image was done, I am sure having the bikini be light pink didn't seem to be an issue but I can see how it could possibly come off as her being naked which could cause issues for some trying to use the site in a business environment. With that in mind, I have pointed out the issue. At this point I am not sure if they will be able to swap out this specific image as some of the site images are worked and reworked over multiple days and can take time to put up as well but whether they can or not, I have pointed this out and made them aware so they can use care when choosing future images for the main pages.

    In the meantime you may want to use a different entry point, as was suggested by others, since even if they resolve the issue with this image, it could potentially take some time to do.

    If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to contact me via PM.

    Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused you in your workplace and thank you for your patience while we consider possible solutions.

This discussion has been closed.