New site design again
source link: https://qntm.org/news_revamp
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Discussion (39)
2008-08-26 17:33:19 by Ian:
I notice you still haven't changed the comment section. However, any benefit you may have created by changing the typeface is completely overruled by the fact that black text on white background is difficult to read and it can strain the eyes if there is too much text. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Minimalism is nice and all, but you just end up making the site look as if there was an error in loading the page so all of the design didn't load.
2008-08-26 17:51:22 by Michael:
2008-08-26 18:14:20 by Rob:
2008-08-26 19:29:59 by Ngamer:
2008-08-26 19:45:22 by MJ:
2008-08-26 20:07:09 by qntm:
2008-08-26 20:50:35 by frymaster:
I actually refreshed the page twice, thinking the CSS file was timing out or something
I have to say I preferred the old layout; I do find light-on-dark more restful, but also you've taken minimalism a bit too fair in my not-humble-enough opinion. It seems... messy to me - might be the breadcrumbing isn't as clear, might be the fact that your google ads are still in the old colours, but in any case it just looks... odd
Anyway, you should be concentrating on writing more :P
2008-08-26 21:29:44 by Rob:
2008-08-26 21:53:08 by kabu:
I have to agree. My first thought when I read "new site design" was that it was unfinished and that this was the placeholder. However minimalist it is, at first glance it really does just look like a Microsoft Word document. Light font on a dark background looks much, much better.
I do like the new font, though. It's mostly the blinding white background that's annoying. Just making it lightish-grey would look nicer.
2008-08-26 21:58:43 by Treblemaker:
2008-08-26 21:59:01 by Mick:
I feel bad to be among the masses harping on you, Sam, but harp I must. White on blue was a MUCH better color scheme, and I personally don't see a difference in the font. I love this site and all of your work, and will continue to visit no matter what, but I sincerely hope you change it back.
Also, most sites I go to are not in black on white. Even if you like dark-on-light, go with a light blue or green. it is easyer on the eyes and looks better, too.
Thats my two cents.
2008-08-26 22:12:46 by kabu:
2008-08-26 22:18:52 by Alexei:
I am forced to agree with the above comments. How about a compromise? Something like the background of http://www.stevepavlina.com, where the black-on-white text is framed by a neutral colour to offset the glare and undo the inelegant left-align. Though scrapping the black-on-white colour scheme altogether would still be preferable.
I note, by the way, that you haven't had a single positive comment about the redesign overall (the best being "it sucks except for the font"). If our feedback actually matters as a tool for improving your site, the conclusion is fairly obvious.
2008-08-26 22:51:36 by Kochier:
2008-08-26 22:53:39 by Overmind:
The comment page apparently does not use the same CSS file as the rest of the site too.
As for the CSS links, we could all just come up with out own and submit it to him to use as a base, the more popular possibly all being added as alt's in the View->Page Style toolbar menu through meta tags, that should satisfy just about anyone. If you use Firefox or Opera (or IE with a certain plugin) you can specify CSS overrides per site so you can easily make your own and use it yourself.
2008-08-27 00:15:09 by kabu:
2008-08-27 01:09:14 by Kochier:
2008-08-27 03:33:30 by jart:
2008-08-27 05:04:24 by Mike:
2008-08-27 05:05:43 by Boter:
You got my e-mail about it, but I figured I'd add the public comment again - I have a preference for sans-serif fonts on the web, and in general I find light on dark fonts to be easier to read. I forget my source, but it was verified somewhere. The monitor emits less light to assault your eyes or some such.
This layout, with black on white and a plain serif font (there are interesting serif fonts out there, but this isn't one of them), just seems very late 90s.
2008-08-27 15:53:18 by Ian:
2008-08-27 15:56:05 by qntm:
2008-08-27 16:18:54 by Luke:
I honestly don't like it as much as the previous design. I have to say that I thought the previous design was much more well-done and looked far more professional. This new font is dated, to say the least, and there was nothing wrong with the previous one.
Change it back!
2008-08-27 17:37:27 by MGargantua:
2008-08-27 17:56:39 by Andrew:
2008-08-27 19:42:33 by Crane:
2008-08-27 20:04:26 by Knut:
I'm afraid I have to join the whining hordes, I just liked the old design better. The new font is not bad, but the old one was better. Also I liked the spiraly things on the sides of the old design, they framed the page nicely.
I guess less is not always more.
2008-08-27 21:04:18 by Mick:
Sweet! The harping won out!
*does a dance*
2008-08-27 21:35:05 by Kochier:
"I can't help wondering if every single comment in this thread was written by the same guy under different names." Sam
Sadly I can vouch for my independence, at least as of the time writing this I appear to be but one being of one, not one of many, or many of one. Also thanks for changing the colours back, the rest I can get used to, but the white background was just too much.
2008-08-28 06:01:10 by Mike:
2008-08-28 11:22:38 by Oolong:
I didn't mind the black on white myself - and honestly, I very much doubt *most* people would have any real problem with it - but I do actually rather like the mild blue-grey background you've got now.
The font's very nice. I've never seen a nicer font used effectively on a web site. There's only a limited range you can realistically choose from, and if you want serifs (and I approve of serifs) this is basically *the* non-ugly choice.
2008-08-29 05:37:28 by mcow:
Looks pretty good, although I think I preferred the old design - I've never been a big fan of serif fonts.
The only thing I would recommend is a little bit bigger line-height in the #content id. Right now the tight leading kind of gives me a headache.
2008-08-29 06:00:01 by Boter:
2008-08-29 11:21:39 by pozorvlak:
2008-08-30 05:53:25 by Kopper:
I'm on your side, Sam. I get bored of my own designs pretty quickly and like to change them a lot. That said, white on blue IS easier to read than black on white. Have you considered a (light) yellow on a (darkish) green? Imagine like an old school chalkboard, green with white chalk. Supposedly that's very easy to read.
I think black on light gray is nice too. It's the same principle as white on black, but with slightly lower contrast.
2008-08-31 12:40:59 by FFT:
2008-09-01 01:41:15 by Kochier:
2008-09-02 01:07:04 by YarKramer:
Hmm ... does the "latest updates" now only show new pages, or does it also have modifications to existing pages (in which case, it would be really nice if there was some indication of which is which)?
Myself, I think I rather like the new font -- it looks rather ... elegant, I guess you could say. Pity about not showing the "siblings of current page," though -- it'd be nice if you could go through all the installments of Fine Structure without having to hit "Back" every time.
2008-09-08 17:04:08 by tusho:
It's great but needs moar line-height. I suggest 1.7.
p { line-height: 1.7; }
New comment by :
Plain text only. Line breaks become <br/>
The square root of minus one:
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK