I just got back on after a couple of hours away from SF and the vote count and some of the other text is now looking kind of anaemic or anorexic. What happened? Why did it get changed? I don't recall anyone ever complaining that the font was too bulky, so why make it so light? Looks crap. Please change it back.
-
4Glad it's not just me. I checked the site on my iPad and thought "this looks awful" but figured it was maybe an issue with how the ipad was rendering it. It doesn't look as bad on my main computer but it doesn't look right either. There's a few changes made as part of this 'revision' of the site layout and some of them aren't so bad, but I truly think the vote layout change is a mistake.– Rob MoirCommented Dec 15, 2012 at 11:16
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
It looks like some new CSS has been pushed to some SE sites. As ever mSO has some discussion.
answered Dec 15, 2012 at 9:34
-
3It's not just us then. It also appears I'm not the only one who disagrees with the change. Change just for the sake of change is rarely a good or popular thing. Commented Dec 15, 2012 at 9:57
Looks crap. Please change it back.
I have to say that given the complaints we had about the SF template over the past years, I am glad someone has taken on the work on some changes.
-
1Yes, there have been complaints. I can't recall the font weight that I'm referring to being one of them. If changes are required they should be to those things people have complained about. Commented Dec 15, 2012 at 21:43
-
1
-
3It's also worth noting that the changes that have been made are inconsistent with the general appearance of the site, which makes them even more of an eyesore than they would be otherwise. The vote count compared to the rest looks like Laurel and Hardy. Commented Dec 16, 2012 at 0:41
-
@JohnGardeniers Jin - who apparently is the one in charge for the template changes, stated Instead of a major release of changes at once, I prefer to do small incremental ones so it's less of an impact. I assume this is partly a bad case of The journey is its own reward - Taoism. But since something is moving, I would expect things to move on and eventually get the broken features fixed. Commented Dec 16, 2012 at 23:43
-
Being a skeptic by nature you'll understand when I say that I'll believe it when I see it. Regardless, it still doesn't understand why something that had no need to be changed was changed for the worse when there are so many things that need to be changed. As far as I'm concerned it's just another case of a dev changing something to suit his own weird sense of style. Commented Dec 17, 2012 at 0:11
-
1@JohnGardeniers I would not say it changed for the worse. It just ... changed. As this frequently happens to other Web (2.0) sites, I stopped questioning the rationales long ago. If Joel wanted a new look, there would be nothing to stop him anyway (well, except maybe a number of angry venture capital companies' managers calling his desk and asking him to think again), so all is left is hoping for the better. Also, I don't believe things like a design would get changed without major consultations - so it is probably much more than just "one dev". Commented Dec 17, 2012 at 0:39
I think the new style is better. I remember when the BBC changed logos, the new one (bottom) looked really dull and boring, but looking at it again with hindsight, the old one (top) looks terrible.
-
1Given that our site is nothing whatsoever like the BBC I can't imagine why you even mentioned it. In our case the changes are inconsistent with the general appearance of the site and that never looks good. Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 1:32