Slashdot CSS Redesign Winner Announced 882
The winner of the contest is Alex Bendiken. He will receive a new laptop as well as bragging rights as the creator of the new look of Slashdot. You can see his winning design in a near complete form now. Feel free to comment on any compatibility issues. We plan to take this live in the next few days. There will undoubtedly be a few minor glitches, but please submit bug reports and we'll sort it out as fast as possible. Also congratulations to Peter Lada, our runner up. He gets $250 credit at ThinkGeek. Thanks to everyone who participated- it was a lot of fun.
Ugh (Score:3, Informative)
the preview version is missing images? (Score:2, Informative)
http://summit.makalumedia.com.nyud.net:8080/wp-co
The images for all the rounded corners appear to be missing.
Re:the preview version is missing images? (Score:2, Informative)
not that pretty.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:New, harder to read version (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that people have a much harder time reading sans-serif fonts on paper than serif fonts. On the computer screen, however, the opposite applies.
Here's a study about it http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.ht
And this is a quote from the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Usage [wikipedia.org]:
"The coarse resolution of computer screens has caused a reassessment of the role of serifs in readability, with a large percentage of web pages employing sans-serif type for body text. Fonts with hinting information, anti-aliased rendering and the ClearType rendering technology has partially mitigated these concerns, yet the basic problem of coarse resolution--typically 100 pixels per inch or less--continues to impose strict limitations on readability and legibility on-screen." And yes, in the end, it boils down to personal preferences.
Re:A small Criticism (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Ugh (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Light mode? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have to say (Score:1, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/~CmdrTaco/journal/ [slashdot.org]
Turn in Slacker Credentials at the Door (Score:5, Informative)
You greatly underestimate how much like Work Slashdot looks in an 80x25 terminal with amber or green on black text.
Buttons look cramped in Opera 9 beta 1 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We all want to know! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where? (Score:3, Informative)
You mean, aside from the arrows?
Re:Where? (Score:3, Informative)
To many, this is an indication of bad design. (See affordance.) [jnd.org]
Of course, the "bad" in this case refers to usability for new users, not to the visual appeal of the page. The former often takes a second seat to the latter.
"read more" link (Score:2, Informative)
report from a dillo user (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I have to say (Score:3, Informative)
No it doesn't. Take a look at the stylesheet [slashdot.org]. I quote:
If that respected your font settings, the first number would be 100%, not 82%. Since when is reducing your preferred font size by almost one fifth "respecting it"?
Perhaps if you have a small font size configured in your browser, it might not look very different to you, but the larger you've configured your fonts, the more obvious the difference.
Re:I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:4, Informative)
Having multiple versions of the site starts to become a administator's nightmare because of the overhead of keeping all the various versions working. Less of a problem when the content is all pulled from a DB like Slashdot is.
But this is what XSLT is for - serve up the content in XML and have the browser apply the XSLT stylesheet client-side. This has the added side effect of reducing bandwidth usage since you're not shifting the styling and layout data over the network every time the page is loaded.
The icky problem with XSLT at the moment, is that whilest all the mainstream browsers (even IE) support it, there's no way for the server to tell whether the browser is capable since there is no header the browser is required to set if it is.
In any case, if your web site doesn't work in both modern browsers and text browsers then you must be truely clueless when it comes to web design.
Use elements that are applicable to the *type* of content (i.e. tables are used to output tabular data, not to position random stuff on the screen. Menus can be presented as unordered lists, etc.). Then style those elements to give you the visual effect you need. Text-only browsers can discard the styling data and they still get to see the content - the correct use of elements gives the browser good hints as to how to display the data. Small-screen devices such as PDAs can select a different stylesheet.
And if you're expecting everyone to have Javascript then your site is very badly broken - Javascript-only features cause serious usability problems (for example, they may force someone to open something in a pop-up window when they don't want to). Javascript is an *enhancement* - build your site without it and then if you want to add *optional* enhancements then write some Javascript that modifies the DOM tree to add hooks to the right elements.
Interestingly, if your corporate website doesn't meet the W3 accessibility guidelines then (depending on your location) you may be breaking the law - many parts of the world have laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against the disabled. These often extend to corporate websites and large organisations have been sued for sizable chunks of cash for ignoring these laws.
Re:"read more" link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not that pretty.. (Score:2, Informative)
Idea stealer!!! (Score:3, Informative)
And I still think it's a great idea.
Re:I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:3, Informative)
Here's an example of www.osnews.com being viewed by Links via PuTTY on a SunOS server:
http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/links.gif [visi.com]
and the main project site is here:
http://links.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
I've personally used Links under OS/2, Linux, and Solaris with some regularity, and also on BeOS from time to time. It's a really nice browser for what it does. Except on Slashdot.
Re:I have to say (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, I think that he was referring to your comments about holding slashdot users as more intelligent than the rest of the population and that you were shocked to see immaturity and ignorance displayed here. The vehicle that was used to display the ignorance and immaturity is immaterial here. I think that he was just thinking on a deeper level than you....and if are shocked to see bigotry on display on slashdot, then you simply havent been here long enough.
Congrats LordKazan, you have obviously made some fine friends today with your witty, erudite and insightful commentary on the subject of text browsers. I am sure that the slashdot community is now painfully aware of your knowledge of the subject. Now go away and post somewhere more appropiate, say perhaps myspace?
Re:I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:3, Informative)
If you really have to sit in a dark room, then you should know how to turn the brightness down accordingly, also a recommended thing to do. The assault happens because of difference in brightness compared to your surroundings, not because of some arbitrary color on the screen.
If you REALLY want to read Slashdot at work... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Problem in Konqueror (Score:1, Informative)
Re:That's the whole point (Score:3, Informative)
Just fix it was:Hoping for something new (Score:2, Informative)