Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Slashdot CSS Redesign Contest Update 577

A few weeks back I announced that Slashdot was throwing open its design to the readers. An individual will win a Laptop, and hopefully we'll all win a Slashdot design that looks good. My Journal Entries have chronicled dozens of entries since the contest began, commenting on many of them. Today I share with you 3 of my favorites. These aren't necessarily "Finalists" but I think these are some of the strongest entries. First up is Michael Johnson's design, second is Jason Porritt's entry, and third is a design from Peter Lada. The contest will end around the middle of next week. Entries can be sent to redesign at CmdrTaco.net. Read my journal for extensive commentary on the many entries, to see what stuff has been working and what stuff hasn't.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot CSS Redesign Contest Update

Comments Filter:
  • Jason's design (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:32PM (#15310120) Homepage Journal
    Of the three, I'm really partial to Jason's design. It captures all the elements of Slashdot, looks clean, has everything well separated, AND it works without error across the browsers I've tried. I'm rooting for it to win.
  • by raddan ( 519638 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:36PM (#15310186)
    This is beyond just having a new stylesheet, but I think it would be pretty simple: can we get the year in the date for posts? Occasionally, I'll go through /.'s archives, or come up with something in Google, and oftentimes I have no idea how current that story is. I dunno-- maybe this is just a preference setting. Anyone know how to turn this on?
  • by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:39PM (#15310213)
    Honestly I think it would be courteous for Taco to mirror any entries he lists on the index page on Slashdot's servers.
  • Idiots (Score:1, Insightful)

    by hubrix ( 129651 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:40PM (#15310225)
    Giving slashdot free design work. You should be charging mad money for this. CmdrTaco, brilliant financial move, how else can you get dozens of designers to review at a meager cost of a laptop. !!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Poll ! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by earthstar ( 748263 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:40PM (#15310229) Journal
    Slashdot conducts poll for all sort of funny topics....

    CmdrTaco , Use the Poll to get User Opinion - If you really want it,that is.

  • Eh-Off the clock. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:42PM (#15310249)
    "Eh, none of those three really look all that great. I expected to see better."

    As pointed out in the original story. Three weeks really isn't enough time.
  • Nice (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wellington Grey ( 942717 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:45PM (#15310293) Homepage Journal
    Nice to see they all followed taco's rules: change nothing meaningful.

    -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
  • by WedgeTalon ( 823522 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:49PM (#15310337)
    As pointed out in the original story. Three weeks really isn't enough time.

    Very true, especially for those of us who can't just take 3 weeks off from work to do the redesign.
  • by wrong ( 27761 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:49PM (#15310339)
    Respect the viewer's choice of standard font size, kids. Leave body text at 100%. The only thing that should be smaller is the fine print.
  • by irc.goatse.cx troll ( 593289 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:53PM (#15310392) Journal
    It's css, if the slashdot site is made properly you could just include alternative css files for all of these themes and let the users choose.
    If most of this is hardcoded(I havn't checked), then the upgrade for web standards was pointless and whoever did it missed the point.
  • by Eideewt ( 603267 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @01:55PM (#15310416)
    It's about time someone mentioned this. My default font is a 13pt serif font, and I've always appreciated the fact that Slashdot respects my preference, unlike most sites on the web. Anything else would be a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion. Change the graphics and layout all you like, but leave my fonts alone.
  • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:07PM (#15310544)
    Disclaimer: I clearly have work-related baggage in regards to this topic.

    All three of these are valiant attempts at a Slashdot redesign. What hinders them is the Slashdot Coliseo wordmark and the goddamn stupid fucking green colour.

    Which I gotta put on you, Taco. When clients do that to me (I am a graphic designer by trade), I know what I am getting into, which is a client who has nonsensical, nostalgic attachment to elements that simply do not work. That stuff doesn't typically end up in my portfolio.

    Why don't you create a sub-category (for kicks at least) where the designers get free reign. You might be pleasantly surprised.

  • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:07PM (#15310552)
    It goes beyond that - there's plenty of sites that have a lot of text (news sites, in particuluar), where I just like to sit back and read, which means I'm farther away from the monitor. There's no reason someone shouldn't be able to select reasonably larger text sizes without sections running into each other.

    Important for visually impaired (but not blind) people, too. This is one of the biggest faux-pas out there.

    Designers should also always use relative sizes ("larger", "smaller") instead of absolute sizes for fine print and large headlines.

    I expect problems with 90% of the websites out there (including ones I've made, I'm sure as heck not perfect), but when you have a contest and expect some professional results, I think we should remind some of these entrants that there's a functional design philosophy as well as a visual one.
  • by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:14PM (#15310606)
    I'm not going to bash any of the designs. I think they're all very clean and clear. But I can bet that Taco picked them because they were basically Slashdot with some slight drop-shadows and some fades here and there. So, overall, they're kind of bland. Like your Grandma tells you she wants suggestions for new candy in her dried, crusty candy bowl and instead of getting something you like she gets the same thing, only wrapped so it doesn't dry as quickly.

    Disclaimer: I design.

    As such, I know it's not that these guys have no creativity. I am putting the blame on the client. Taco asked for little more than a fresh coat of paint on the site, and that's what he got. It would be nice if he was less constrictive and opened himself up to other ideas besides something that automatically constricted the contestants to have results almost exactly like the site you're looking at right now.

    I also can't fault people for choosing the design simply because it's what a lot of other sites look like nowadays. But in a couple of years, when the whole "Web 2.0 Soft Gradients" thing loses its sheen, the site is going to look dated yet again.

    I do think the finalists all have a strong, clear foundation on spacing and placement so the designs aren't bad. They're just not enough of a change.

    (Take my criticism with a grain of salt as I haven't submitted anything).
  • Wow, big nothing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sohp ( 22984 ) <snewton@@@io...com> on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:25PM (#15310712) Homepage
    I thought from the original announcement that we were getting a redesign. If the "top 3" so far are the leading candidates for the final change, we get a few minor updates but overall a big yawn for a "new and improved" version with about as much change as the latest laundry soap.
  • by MrAndrews ( 456547 ) <mcm@NOSpaM.1889.ca> on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:26PM (#15310736) Homepage
    I think you're right, but the other side of the coin is that the site needs to run slash at the end of the day, so while you may be able to dream up the most fantastic ways to re-imagine the content for the site, it may be impractical to implement. Last time I dabbled in that stuff, you really didn't want to muck about with how the server draws the page... you just want to re-skin it and run away. I haven't checked, but I would guess that most of the entries don't fiddle with the HTML much, just the CSS.

    I'd love to see a completely re-done concept of a slash-type site, but it'd require a proof-of-concept at a lower level than just eye candy, unfortunately.
  • by JM Apocalypse ( 630055 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:27PM (#15310748)
    I'm getting a horizontal scrollbar no matter how wide I make the window.
  • by BobPaul ( 710574 ) * on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:32PM (#15310798) Journal
    I like his design best of the three. It's stylish while retaining the feel of the original.

    I think his design looks the best, but I like the collapsible containers that the other two have. In fact, I like them a LOT. If Mike's had the collapsibles I'd vote for him, otherwise I like Jasons. Peter's is just too green and flat. Sorry Peter!
  • by scovetta ( 632629 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:38PM (#15310856) Homepage
    Maybe there's something I don't understand, but why can't they ALL be winners? Why can't /. (and other websites, for that matter) have a "skinnable" interface that lets the user choose how they want the content displayed? Drop down? Another page to set a cookie to the css file? There are many ways to do it technically. I'd even think that an "upload-your-own-CSS" feature would be nice (since you can't set cookies cross-site).

  • by 0racle ( 667029 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:39PM (#15310859)
    It's crapping out on Konqueror (3.5.2) as well. Cool screenshot [imageshack.us]

    That said all 3 were very nice designs. I'd hate to be the person picking out a winner.
  • by Homestar Breadmaker ( 962113 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:41PM (#15310878)
    Peter Lada's is the only one that even works, the other two are trendy broken code trash that doesn't work in safari, opera, some versions of ff/moz, and all old browsers.

    And taco, you are a retard and a douche for not hosting the entries. There's no copyright infringment excuse here, they entries have been submitted to be part of the site, you can host them on the site.
  • by PseudoThink ( 576121 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:42PM (#15310889)
    You're talking about evolutionary vs. revolutionary change. I used to be on a formula racing team, and each year we were accustomed to making small, evolutionary changes to our winning design to improve it. The competition often complained that we were just copying our previous designs, not introducing enough new innovation (even though we always had new innovations). It came down to the fact that revolutionary changes (broader, more fundamental) are more "dangerous", often more likely to hurt you than help you. If you're already working with a winning design, then incremental, evolutionary changes are SOP. No point in risking it all if you're winning already!

    A totally new Slashdot design would defintely be more interesting, but I would think that even if it was genius, it could hurt the site more than help it by driving away more users than it attracts. For example, a "revolutionary" design might be one that works great in Firefox, and purposely ignores obvious usability problems with IE. This could encourage lots of users to switch to Firefox, but I would expect lots of IE users would just stop visiting /. instead. Of course, I doubt a solution that didn't gracefully handle all common browsers would ever be accepted, but it would certainly be interesting to see.
  • by carou ( 88501 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:46PM (#15310937) Homepage Journal
    If you use a browser like firefox... then Ctrl - + increases the font size.

    That's not the point! I've already set my browser up so it displays text at a comfortable size; The point is why the hell should your design mean I have to adjust it every time I visit slashdot? And put it back again every time I visit anywhere else.

    Look people - for pity's sake leave the default paragraph text size alone, and use only relative changes for everything else: I know my monitor and my eyes better than you do!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:47PM (#15310943)
    It is too small to read, so you hit ctrl-+ a few times, than you click on a link and now the font size is huge, so now you have to ctrl-0 and start again. It is a pain.
  • by Kopretinka ( 97408 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:50PM (#15310969) Homepage
    I think the headlines should also be the links to the stories (same as "read more"), as they are so much bigger and easier to target for clicking.
  • by charlesnw ( 843045 ) <charles@knownelement.com> on Thursday May 11, 2006 @02:54PM (#15311019) Homepage Journal
    Um. Most people at work reading slashdot probably have the authority/rights to install firefox on there machine....
  • by ZiakII ( 829432 ) * on Thursday May 11, 2006 @03:10PM (#15311170)
    Um. Most people at work reading slashdot probably have the authority/rights to install firefox on there machine....

    If you can unzip a file you can install firefox... and what IT department would complain about a user using firefox?
  • Re:Jason's design (Score:4, Insightful)

    by coolgeek ( 140561 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @03:26PM (#15311286) Homepage
    Me too! I'd choose Jason's. The drop shadows around an article summary, combined with the inset before the green header is just absolutely beautiful. The collapsible menus on the left are great. There is just enough whitespace around the various elements create readability, and drive your eyes straight to the meat of the page. The design maintains the /. Zeitgeist in a way that the other two designs seem to completely miss. 548 thumbs up.

    [Ok, I'm really going a little over the top here, but I somehow feel like this is my 15 minutes as an art critic.]

    I really hate that "upper left corner" style of Michael's...where's the rest of the fucking box? Is there some kind of bit shortage where we need to conserve every last byte in transmission? Seriously though, the corner is little more than fluff and does little to enhance readability or make the articles "pop". 93 thumbs down.

    Peter's doesn't render properly in Safari. The right column rams up into the search box. Surely this is a minor glitch that can be solved, but even if it were, I have to say the green dominates too much. The sub-articles are not visually distinct from the main articles. Overall, I feel more like I'm on a golf course, not looking at a website. 27 thumbs down for letting green dominate the scene and another 9 thumbs down for the sub-article snafu, for a total of 36 thumbs down. Clearly not as bad as the previous entry, and clearly nothing to earn it a single thumb up.
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday May 11, 2006 @03:40PM (#15311444) Homepage Journal
    Running your site against a validator won't help if you're using IE6, because if your code is correctly written, it won't work :P Anyway there is no substitute for testing, period. You must test in every browser you care about, starting with the one about which you care most. However, I admit that I develop for Gecko first, and then go back and fill in IE, because IE is the broken one and when it's unfucked then I can go back and rip out the hacks instead of having to rip myself down to hacks.
  • IE 6 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RandLS ( 637452 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @03:46PM (#15311526)
    All three are pretty (the third gets my vote), but all three have quirks in IE 6. C'mon guys...it may not be the browser of choice for most Slashdot followers, but how can we complain about websites that are IE specific and don't render properly in Firefox if we're doing the exact same thing in reverse?!
  • by City Jim 3000 ( 726294 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @04:39PM (#15312205)
    1992 called, they want their web surfer back.
  • by Thaelon ( 250687 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @04:55PM (#15312404)
    The winner gets to have their style be the default.
  • by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @05:15PM (#15312657)
    What is so bad about Slashdot Coliseo wordmark and the goddamn stupid fucking green colour? Sure it might be fun to have maybe a different goddamn stupid fucking color, but the green isn't *that* bad. I happen to like the Coliseo logo.
  • by iamghetto ( 450099 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @05:50PM (#15313011) Homepage
    I'm confused as to whether I'm trading in my Playstation 2 for a Playstation 3, or just trading my PS2 in for a newer PS2.

    When I looked at these three designs, no offence at all to the people who are doing them, but they look like what a client would be presented if they have a agreed upon a basic layout, and wouldn't a few different "looks" to choose from.

    I actually think there is some pride and a lot usability in Slashdot's current look. It's not fancy, but it doesn't need to be (at all!).

    I think Slashdot is wasting peoples time if we're just putting a new coat of paint on the car. We don't care how ugly you are Slashdot, we love your personality!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, 2006 @06:03PM (#15313110)
    These are nice, even sexy, designs. My one complant is that these designs, and the current Slashdot design, try to use divs as tables, even when it doesn't fit. Tables are still part of HTML 4.01; they have not been depreceated. I don't believe it's cool to try to force divs to act as tables, when tables would fit much better. It seems they are going to have problems with the footer floating up over one of the three cols... and the cols restrict the body from filling up the whole page when you get below the cols.

    If I would add any one thing to slashdot, it would be the ability for the body to expand past the cols, when the cols don't have anything in it. When you scroll down a ways, 40% of the screen is whitespace, which has to be bad design, though you might think it's cool because you only use divs. For an example of what I'm talking about, check this site [1fp.us]. Now, it won't validate, because it's displaying the full feeds of people who don't know how to write html, but it could look the same in xhtml 1.0 strict.

    Now, Slashdot is better than some sites, where they can have up to 70% whitespace if you have a larger monitor. This site [blogsforbush.com] is aweful. The body of the messages don't expand with the browser window, and the politics and retoric suck.

    The top of this one [insitemotion.com] looks great.

    I like the post in the body of this one [bestweddingsource.com]...

    Anyway, that's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.
  • by maggern ( 597586 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @06:32PM (#15313313) Journal
    I've created two newspaper layouts from scratch and I'd like to point out that the "headlines" need to be bolder/bigger.

    Why you say? Because bolder text (to a certain point) is easier to spot. You should be able to see it instantly. Also, all text should be normal or above normal in size. Remember, many slashdotters are not below 30 and do not have perfect eyesight. Further, the contrast (in colors/text) need to be very big. (All three scores well on contrasts)

    It is only logical that the most important text [the headline] has a size that matches it's high importance. Thus, the difference between the headline and the rest of the text should be substancial, and certainly BIGGER than all three "favorites". And the story text (second most important) should be bigger than all the other text, links, comments etc. The layout should always help, guide and prioritze for the reader. The reader should not need to waste time searching for the important information, the reader should know in 0,03 seconds what information to read first, second and last.

      I also would like to ask one question: Is the time (posted) and name of poster really that important? Are they more important than the story text? If not, they should be at the end of the "story"-boxes, not at the top. Also, maybe a 50% increase in theme-picture-size be could be smart, easier to see. How about using actual pictures from the stories? (maybe a rights issue, I know, but it must be possible to get free use of a copyrighted picture in many cases). More: The text should not be in italic (ok, a few words are ok), because it is harder to read.

    Also, to not alienate the readers, it may be smart to keep the original colors, so that not "everything" changes from one day to another. If wanted, change the color later.

    PS: Do you see how much easier it is to spot bold text in my comment? That comfirms my first statement. ;)

    Please feel free to comment my comment!
  • Re:Jason's design (Score:4, Insightful)

    by default luser ( 529332 ) on Thursday May 11, 2006 @06:33PM (#15313326) Journal
    Yes, I have to agree, I like Jason's simple upgrade of the existing design. The drop shadows make it look cleaner, and take away from that "antiseptic white" that has plagued Slashdot for so long.

    Looks very slick.

    My only complaint: as mentioned in other posts, the text does not resize in IE 6.0.28. This is a CRITICAL issue, so I wouldn't give it the thumbs-up until this is fixed. Hopefully, the bugs will be dealt with.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...