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.
I have to say (Score:4, Insightful)
~S
We all want to know! (Score:2, Insightful)
(looks fantastic btw, job well done)
Congrats! (Score:3, Insightful)
Phew (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks... (Score:3, Insightful)
New, harder to read version (Score:2, Insightful)
runner up design (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:3, Insightful)
A small Criticism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It looks kinda like gnome (Score:3, Insightful)
Light mode? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have Simple Design, Low Bandwidth, and No Icons checked in my preferences. This gives me a very streamlined, efficient way to read
The winner's entry doesn't show this view of
Please calm my fears! Tell me light mode will be part of the new look.
Lipstick on a pig (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Changes? (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if Peter's design going to be used as-is, or if Taco will make a few tweaks to it first. For example, Alex's design incorporates quotes as separate, indented paragraphs. Slashdot not only lacks this capability today, but Taco himself pointed out that it is not feasible given how much the quotes and editor comments tend to be mixed. Perhaps he's changed his mind?
Seperating the quotes does not require a change in the page structure. Right now all quotes are already in italics, so all he had to do was re-define the italics style with a border and some padding on the left.
-bradly
Hoping for something new (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall though, it is only a cosmetic change to Slashdot, and I don't think there is any reason why Slashdot cannot start adding theme support to their website. Why fixate on one theme? Why not take the top 5 designs and offer them in the preferences. That IS of course the beauty of designing a website with CSS. With one change of the CSS link, you can have your website easily look completely different.
Re:New, harder to read version (Score:3, Insightful)
Please don't force a font on us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Too Busy (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters is too tall and thin. It is difficult to read and distracting.
I wish we had something a little more fresh. This design it a little too loyal to the legacy design.
I do appreciate the move to Sans Serif fonts, however.
Re:I have to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Thumbs Up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just redesigned my house. (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't render at all with Links or Lynx. (Score:1, Insightful)
I am sad to report, however, that neither browser renders the site in a fashion that is suitable for everyday reading. I don't blame the browsers themselves. A site like OSNews [osnews.com] manages to render excellently with both, while offering a similar layout as here.
I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a look at both the winner and the second using Firefox on Linux, the winner is definitely better looking than the second - the winner respects my font settings, while with the second many parts of the page are simply unreadably small. For that reason alone, there is simply no contest between the two.
good work! (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I feel the design was quite well thought-out. Here's what I noticed:
Here's what I think could be improved upon:
I understand that this is how things are on the current site, and simply persisted in the new graphical makeover.
No Yelling (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not UTF-8? (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys have obviously never been hacked.
Re:Where? (Score:4, Insightful)
To the creator of the new design (in case he reads this): a "cursor: pointer" style would be nice, and possibly a hover attribute on the tag that has the section name, for those without internet explorer.
Everyone loves some sort of visual cue.
Looks good though.
Judging by the comments...he got it right (Score:5, Insightful)
Rob didn't want something radical, he wanted an updating of slashdot itself; similar, but better. For everyone here who thinks it sucks and how dare Rob do something this screwed up to "your" site, go make a site and for your own community there! That's what Rob did 10 years ago.
Re:Where? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure the world is ready for such customizability, but slashdot should boldly step into the late '90s world of customization!
What is the comparison? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm honestly seeing no comparison to the Mac OS. Have you had any exposure to or experience with the Mac OS at any point? 'Cause I have, a few different times, and this design has precisely zero to do with anything Apple makes... Is it their Web site, which also uses a controversial white background? Or what?
the ultimate design-by-committee (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, the second place entry is miles away from the first place, and quick frankly, rather poor. There is little contrast - everything just kinda blends into one... one blegh. It certainly looks as if it were designed by an engineer, not by a graphic/UI person - perhaps engineers like to look at the website equivalent of pudding all day.
If that was second place, I dread seeing those further down the line.
The redesign chosen is definitely an improvement over the current look.
my fonts my fonts (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
CmdrTaco please give us Classic Theme options in the preference settings!
I guess.. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the whole point (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of CSS is not to make pages pretty. It's to make pages portable.
Re:the ultimate design-by-committee (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting each individual feature of possible designs to an individual vote might.
Re:I have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
The horrible idea is not one site's implementation of a mass moderation system, it's a mass moderation system period. The problem is one of human nature: There are two kinds of people in the world, those who think others are wrong in their opinions, and those who think others are wrong in their opinions and should be silenced and punished for them. Because the latter are approx. 50% of the population, i.e. a huge number of people, you simply cannot have moderation by the masses, even on an infrequent, impromptu basis.
Are you nuts ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you think this is, 1999 or something ?
Downplaying the original CSS redesign (Score:5, Insightful)
- pages load faster due to smaller pages
- seperated most of the styling from the content (CSS)
- easier to maintain/modify
Don't downplay the original CSS redesign. While the front look may have not been altered much, a lot of changes went on behind the scenes.
Re:the ultimate design-by-committee (Score:3, Insightful)
No, saying the design is poor is taking the things you mentioned into consideration, such as the form and function, and determining that the design performs poorly in both cases; therefore, the design is poor. It's not subjective - UI has been studied out the wazoo, and colour theory too. This is only Slashdot - I'm not going to submit a rationale.
I'm a bit surprised someone would say the second design is good from a colour theory standpoint. It is pasty green and white (and weak white type on the pasty green - ugh!), with paler green, almost invisible grey and more white for accent. At least the first beefed up the green and threw in black and meaningful shades of grey to provide some differentiation, and therefore provide elements to focus on (levels of importance).
I wonder how slashdot looks to the many men with colourblindness? Grey grey grey and grey - perfect!
I also wonder if any usability studies were done with these entries. I don't really care (it's only Slashdot), but I'm curious.
The winner's design is missing a lot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's the whole point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't believe this go look in a library or bookstore. You will find very few books set in sans-serif. People don't buy them because they are hard to read.
Re:I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd imagine that it's a little of both. Don't forget that major newspapers will be printing hundreds of thousands or millions of papers every day; all that ink is going to add up over the course of a year.
There are also other issues, of course - newsprint tends to come off on your fingers, so if there was a lot of extra cosmetic ink on the page, the readers' fingers would get that much dirtier (I know I hate how dirty my fingers get after reading a paper now).
Finally, PCs are not newspapers. They have different design considerations, and so naturally lend themselves to different types of design.
've come across a good rule of thumb: if the page is more readable in lynx, links, or w3m than it is in Firefox, then it needs work. The current slashdot is pretty darn readable in a text browser once you get past the ton of links at the top
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say there - do you mean that the current page *does* need to be redesigned?
Now if I was hanging slashdot on my wall, I might prefer one of the CSS redesigns... but I'm not; I'm reading it
I know where you're coming from, but for me (and I suspect a lot of people), I tend to spend a very large proportion of my day staring at my monitor. What's on it had better be pleasing to my eye, and while plain text in a terminal window is definitely *usable*, it's not very aesthetically pleasing. That's a very subjective thing, of course, but my opinion would be the exact opposite of yours.
Re:I agree. The runner-up seems FAR better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally I hold slashdot users as a group more intelligent than the average person, so seeing bigotry - which is the direct manifestation of ignorance and immaturity - running around slashdot like wildfire was disturbing so say the least
I think you've just made a prime example of yourself.
Re:That's the whole point (Score:4, Insightful)
The designner obviously didn't do this check, or else he would have noticed that the <div> containing the left-hand sidebar gets displayed first, making the user do a lot of scrolling to get to the actually content.
Re:I have to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what does give? (Score:2, Insightful)
The winner is much more subtle, makes more use of light and shade and will not age as rapidly.
The runner up is more initially striking it would become tiring quickly. I feel the right choice has been made and looking at the code behind it, appears an elegant solution.
Re:I have to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, rather, 8 pixel high sans-serif fonts are in fashion now.
Are all the "web designers" aiming for people running 640x480 screen sizes? The winner is close to illegible at 1280x1024 on a 19" CRT.
Tahoma not meant for body font use (Score:2, Insightful)