Discussion Forum > New styling
Don't like it. The previous one was clear and readable. This is harsh on the eyes.
Compare for yourself:
http://www.markforster.net/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/Superfocus2.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1322645444601
Compare for yourself:
http://www.markforster.net/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/Superfocus2.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1322645444601
January 17, 2012 at 17:03 |
Frank
Frank
I prefer the update. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that this is a test...
January 17, 2012 at 18:01 |
Will
Will
I prefer the update, except for the title. White on gray is hard to see.
January 17, 2012 at 19:29 |
Zane
Zane
Like it - change is good. I see Mark is moving forward with his plans which is a good thing
January 17, 2012 at 19:56 |
Alison Reeves
Alison Reeves
Вау! That's good! It is pleasant to me. All is read, and it is much better, than the previous version. With updating you, Mark!
January 17, 2012 at 20:03 |
Sacherk
Sacherk
Overall, I like it a lot!
Sorry for nitpicking though :) but the line height of this design is much higher than the previous, causing excessive space between paragraphs of the existing content.
Because in the previous design text was single line height, people would manually put an empty line to separate paragraphs. Now, with a higher line height, this wouldn't be necessary, but since there's a *lot* of content already like that, things just seem a bit "off" to me.
Not even sure if you have any kind of control over it, but here's a snapshot to compare:
http://cl.ly/0e0k2V1C0O1U0X2d0j3m
Like I said… nitpicking ;)
PS: also, because the input text box where we type the replies has single line height, it induces this "double-newline" to separate paragraphs when we are typing text.
Sorry for nitpicking though :) but the line height of this design is much higher than the previous, causing excessive space between paragraphs of the existing content.
Because in the previous design text was single line height, people would manually put an empty line to separate paragraphs. Now, with a higher line height, this wouldn't be necessary, but since there's a *lot* of content already like that, things just seem a bit "off" to me.
Not even sure if you have any kind of control over it, but here's a snapshot to compare:
http://cl.ly/0e0k2V1C0O1U0X2d0j3m
Like I said… nitpicking ;)
PS: also, because the input text box where we type the replies has single line height, it induces this "double-newline" to separate paragraphs when we are typing text.
January 18, 2012 at 0:33 |
Hugo Ferreira
Hugo Ferreira
I don't like the line spacing or the dark gray (or is it really black?) text on lighter shades of gray background.
Actually, I find that the changes Andreas' Greasemonkey UserScript provides for unread posts and Mark's posts (black text on pale yellow or green background) are easier to read.
Actually, I find that the changes Andreas' Greasemonkey UserScript provides for unread posts and Mark's posts (black text on pale yellow or green background) are easier to read.
January 18, 2012 at 1:00 |
MartyH
MartyH
MartyH:
Yes, I agree. The 2 shades of grey for text colour and comment box background colour are too close together.
Yes, I agree. The 2 shades of grey for text colour and comment box background colour are too close together.
January 18, 2012 at 3:47 |
Hugo Ferreira
Hugo Ferreira
Agreed, best to lose the grey text on grey background.
January 18, 2012 at 4:16 |
smileypete
smileypete
Though I have no problem with the contrast of the new theme, I added a "High Contrast in Content Area" option to my script for those who do. Makes all text black, general background white and post boxes a very light grey.
January 18, 2012 at 6:46 |
Andreas Hofmann
Andreas Hofmann
Thanks, Andreas.
I find the black and yellow for unread works just fine. Though I miss "open in new tab".
I find the black and yellow for unread works just fine. Though I miss "open in new tab".
January 18, 2012 at 10:05 |
Will
Will
For me, a middle click opens in new tab, so I never used the option.
January 18, 2012 at 12:34 |
MartyH
MartyH
Two words for readability: Serif & Contrast.
1. Serif. There's a reason that dead-tree books and newspapers use fonts such as Times-Roman rather than those such as Helvetica for most of the text you want to read – serif fonts are much easier on the eyes, and allow for faster reading. As long as one has a reasonably high-resolution screen, there is no excuse for using sans-serif fonts for anything other than headings, titles, etc. Serif fonts should be used for most text. The original font for postings on the earlier design of this website made it a joy to read on-screen.
2. Contrast. Gray on light-gray (Forum postings) and dark-gray on black (menu bar) look stylish at first, but make the site much more difficult to use and read on a variety of screens in a variety of lighting conditions. Higher-contrast text is better; it doesn't need to be as garish as black (0,0,0) on white (255,255,255); but again, the previous design was more readable due to its having higher contrast.
My two cents,
1. Serif. There's a reason that dead-tree books and newspapers use fonts such as Times-Roman rather than those such as Helvetica for most of the text you want to read – serif fonts are much easier on the eyes, and allow for faster reading. As long as one has a reasonably high-resolution screen, there is no excuse for using sans-serif fonts for anything other than headings, titles, etc. Serif fonts should be used for most text. The original font for postings on the earlier design of this website made it a joy to read on-screen.
2. Contrast. Gray on light-gray (Forum postings) and dark-gray on black (menu bar) look stylish at first, but make the site much more difficult to use and read on a variety of screens in a variety of lighting conditions. Higher-contrast text is better; it doesn't need to be as garish as black (0,0,0) on white (255,255,255); but again, the previous design was more readable due to its having higher contrast.
My two cents,
January 18, 2012 at 14:30 |
ubi
ubi
1. There's a reason Microsoft (who spent tremendous resources developing TrueType fonts) uses non-serif fonts. I'm familiar with your claim, but it's heavily disputed when it comes to computer screens.
January 18, 2012 at 14:38 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
"serif fonts are much easier on the eyes, and allow for faster reading..."
Jon Moon http://www.jmoon.co.uk/ repeats this advice in his excellent book "Impact" on document design for ordinary mortals. The book itself is set in a sans serif type. As with all areas of endeavour, masters can distinguish rules and guidelines.
I truly hope I'm not going to spend so much time here that the font makes that much difference to me.
Jon Moon http://www.jmoon.co.uk/ repeats this advice in his excellent book "Impact" on document design for ordinary mortals. The book itself is set in a sans serif type. As with all areas of endeavour, masters can distinguish rules and guidelines.
I truly hope I'm not going to spend so much time here that the font makes that much difference to me.
January 18, 2012 at 14:55 |
Will
Will
Okay, we've all had some time to get used to the new look on this site. I must admit I've grown accustomed to it and adapted, far more easily than I thought I would.
February 6, 2012 at 12:50 |
John Angus (Anguish)
John Angus (Anguish)
Except: the gray background for comments is harder on the eyes than the white.