Timeline for New design readability - all comments are ignored
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 30, 2015 at 22:57 | comment | added | Wesley | Upvoted because, while I'm not a fan of the design's heavy use of white space and I find it much more unpleasant, I don't want to say "I don't like this!" without having some more objective reasons and possible alternatives. | |
| Apr 30, 2015 at 15:33 | comment | added | dyasny | @BE77Y Already put that in an edit, but I've also changed the title, just in case | |
| Apr 28, 2015 at 15:40 | comment | added | BE77Y | @dynasny: I do completely agree both with your points about the readability issues as well as the lack of official comment on the matter, but perhaps it would be beneficial to also update the title of this post to reflect the fact it's questioning the lack of comment rather than the readability as already addressed? | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 13:21 | comment | added | dyasny | Clearly? So why are there multiple complaints about the same thing in meta.serverfault.com/questions/7995/… and so many upvotes on all of them? All those answers have provided the same comment - the new fonts are too light, that hurts readability, because contrast goes down. Previously, the fonts were a darker blue, and reading was much easier. | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 6:11 | history | answered | Mark HendersonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |