Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashdot CSS Redesign Winner Announced

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the don't-need-me-any-more dept.

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.

cancel ×

882 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have to say (4, Insightful)

Soporific (595477) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429662)

I really like the current look of Slashdot. What was the point in changing it? Just to change it?

~S

Re:I have to say (-1, Flamebait)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429703)

I agree. THe new look is like the bastard child of slashdot and a Mac. I frigging hate the Mac theme, ugliest theme in computing history. Will there be an option to keep the old look?

Re:I have to say (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429707)

I really like the current look of Slashdot. What was the point in changing it? Just to change it?

Seemingly because sans-serif fonts in fashion now.

Re:I have to say (5, Insightful)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429712)

I have to say that the runner-up is so much better it hurts. The problem with slashdot is all the noise. The collapseable sections would be a much welcome improvement. Don't see why they didn't go with the runner up. Just my 2cents

Re:I have to say (0)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429755)

A) it's not a democracy
B) you have collapsable sections with the winner
C) read before you write

Re:I have to say (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429772)


C) read before you write


It may not be a democracy, but it is still slashdot.

Where? (1)

Graboid (975267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429810)

Ok, I give up. Where's the collapsable sections??

But I do completely agree with A) it's not a democracy, although I also like the runner-up much more.

But, in reality, it's not big enough of a change that I care.

Re:I have to say (2, Funny)

pedalman (958492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429833)

A) it's not a democracy B) you have collapsable sections with the winner C) read before you write
You forgot:

D) Cowboy Neal

Re:I have to say (1)

wileyAU (889251) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429782)

I have to say that the runner-up is so much better it hurts.
I don't have any mod points, so I'll just add a me too. The winner doesn't really improve anything. It's just the same as the current design except with rounded corners. Collapsable stories and menus would really improve the functionality. But that just MHO.

Re:I have to say (1)

DeathFlame (839265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429783)

Click on the sections. They are collapsable.

Re:I have to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429854)

Not in Firefox/Mozilla they're not.

Re:I have to say (1, Insightful)

AnalystX (633807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429731)

Apparently. The biggest changes were just to the font and to use square corners.

Re:I have to say (1, Interesting)

gregbains (890793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429735)

I prefer the new one, it is an update but not too extreme. Anyone got a link to the other entries so I can compare?

Re:I have to say (2, Insightful)

packetmon (977047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429738)

I agree, the current look is something akin to historical and functional. The new look does not look that "new". Rounded corners were replaced by sharp edges along with a new font. How exactly does this qualify for a new look?

Re:I have to say (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429852)

Changing the look is easier than improving the editing.

look good to me (0)

huber (723453) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429663)

i like it. Clean and simple.

Re:look good to me (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429763)

Seconded. Its a very nice look; very well proportioned. It looks really... umm, sharp! Seriously, it looks like i'll get a computer cut from it.

Re:look good to me (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429844)

Agreed.

The runner up is only SLIGHTLY better IMO - yet I think the winner has a better "feel" for Slashdot. The runner up has sliding things and stuff - the winner has a minimalistic feel of sorts.

We all want to know! (1, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429664)

We all want to know what sort of laptop he's getting ;-)

(looks fantastic btw, job well done)

Re:We all want to know! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429787)

I'm betting it is a MacBook (Pro).

It looks kinda like gnome (0)

npietraniec (519210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429670)

It looks kinda like gnome... Doesn't it? I can't say I care for it very much.

Re:It looks kinda like gnome (2, Insightful)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429761)

I actually like the runner-up's design better. The winner's is simple and clean but blocky and unfriendly. The runner-up's has a more friendly feel to it. I guess it's all the sharp corners vs. the rounded ones.

Ugh (2, Informative)

donutello (88309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429672)

Blocky, too much wasted space and those same colors.

Re:Ugh (1)

xbradlyx (867260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429846)

Blocky, too much wasted space

Welcome to Web 2.0
-Bradly

p.s. please don't sue me

1st post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429676)

It looks great. Nice choice.

Oh well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429679)

I like the old stuff better...

Well done (4, Interesting)

KevMar (471257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429685)

That is a very crisp look. it still feels like slashdot, just fresh.

Congrats! (3, Insightful)

Daveznet (789744) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429687)

Id just like to congratulate Mr. Alex Bendiken on a job well done and that his design was also one of my favorite designs throughout the contest. I cant wait till the design is rolled out onto the live server.

I, for one... (5, Funny)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429690)

Welcome our new CSS overlord, Alex Bendiken.

Nice, clean, simple. I like it. Guess I'll (5, Funny)

one_shooter (931988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429692)

steal it. Thanks.

1995 called... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429697)

They want their rectangles back!

Looks rather familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429698)

No offense as I have always enjoyed the simplicity of the site for the last x.x number of years...but the revamp in design sure looke familiar. Looks like /. meets mac

Lada's was better. -nt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429699)

nt = no text

Phew (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429701)

Many of the entries were just too busy and distracting, or very Digg-ish (i.e. looked like a soul-less link farm). The winning design IMHO doesn't muck with things too much, but gives an aesthetically pleasing facelift to Slashdot. The only problem I could see with it is that the "Slashdot" logo (presumably should appear in the upper left) didn't show up on any browser I tried.

Re:Phew (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429743)

It showed up in mine (Avant which is an Explorer shell).
However, it took a few seconds to load; I'm guessing the site is slow. Did you give it a minute to see if it showed up?

Re:Phew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429796)

However, it took a few seconds to load; I'm guessing the site is slow

It's been slashdotted

It looks... (3, Insightful)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429704)

It looks nice, I guess. But I really like slashdot as-is. Biggest complaint is the new location of the 'Read More...' link after stories. I'll be searching for it for a month or two before I get it down to muscle memory like the current one.

Re:It looks... (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429789)

Biggest complaint is the new location of the 'Read More...' link after stories

Indeed. I'd rather move it to left and I'd put the number of comentaries and section at right.

New, harder to read version (2, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429706)

Yuck. The main body text is in a sans-serif font. Hard to read.

Re:New, harder to read version (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429814)

Yeah. And now we're gonna get cracks spreading out from the long strokes.

Re:New, harder to read version (1)

nazh (604234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429820)

Agreed it is hard to read, but i think its more because of the text-size. The text is way too small. Keep the body font-size at 1em and let the user get his/hers prefered font-size.

Re:New, harder to read version (3, Insightful)

ems2 (976335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429827)

Agreed. Check out the print css it is horrible. At least hide the login box with it!

Re:New, harder to read version (5, Informative)

JMemmert (564338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429832)

*chuckles* Quite the contrary. Or maybe not.
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.htm [wilsonweb.com] (Google is your friend).
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:New, harder to read version (5, Interesting)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429836)

Yuck. The main body text is in a sans-serif font. Hard to read.

Wow. I didn't realize that, but this is not even "in production" yet, and I'll say that when I first looked at it, I thought -- WOW! This is how Slashdot should look!

I think its very clean and nice, and just looks slick. Personally, I still believe in the sans-serif fonts for headlines and section headings and whatnot, and serif fonts for body as well, but many if not most of the online news sites are pretty much using san-serif fonts all over the place. Its trivial to make this an option for those of us who are registered users (hint, hint).

The only other issue I have with the design is that in my browser, Safari, there are alpha-channel issues with the bottom two grey rounded corner areas. I'm assuming these are PNGs here with an alpha channel.

But otherwise, I think this is very clean and beautiful. I can't wait until that Thursday when this gets thrown out on us!

Kudos for Slashdot for opening this up, and kudos to the guy that did this. If I needed a web designer, I would definitely ask you if you were interested in helping me out.

The original CSS overhaul was not that significant, except that it added div tags and whatnot for the addition for a new CSS overhaul. This is definitely a work in progress.

Hmmm okay... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429708)

While his design is very clean, it's still the same. You should allow people to submit radical themes, and then let people choose a favorite in their profile. Slashdot... news for green things by people who like green things.

Enh... (1, Interesting)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429709)

It's an incremental improvement in the look. Big deal. It's nice, but for this he gets a laptop?

Perhaps the problem here is editorial: Taco and the gang couldn't stomach a more radical departure from the old standby.

Changes? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429710)

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?

Personally, I'm a bit sad that Jason Porritt's design didn't end up in one of the top slots. (His design was the one who's mockup had the "infinite paragraphs" bug in Opera.) I personally thought his design was extremely good looking, readable, a huge step forward, and yet recognizable as "Slashdot".

Anyway, congrats to Mr. Bendiken. You're now more famous than you can possibly imagine. Don't spend it all in one place, okay? ;-)

Re:Changes? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429751)

s/Peter/Alex/g

Sorry, brain fart there.

Re:Changes? (2, Insightful)

xbradlyx (867260) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429812)

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

runner up design (1, Insightful)

tscheez (71929) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429711)

i like the second place entry better.

Re:runner up design (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429768)

As did I. There was something I found more visually appealing, but nothing specific that I can elaborate on at the moment. Still, $250 at ThinkGeek is a nice pat on the back. That's a lot of STFU t-shirts.

Re:runner up design (1)

Drey (1420) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429803)

Seconded. IMNSHO, 2nd place > current > 1st place.

the preview version is missing images? (2, Informative)

Edgewize (262271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429714)

Compare the preview link to this PNG thumbnail from the author's website:
http://summit.makalumedia.com.nyud.net:8080/wp-con tent/uploads/2006/05/slashdot.png [nyud.net]

The images for all the rounded corners appear to be missing.

Re:the preview version is missing images? (2, Informative)

Edgewize (262271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429750)

Never mind, the slashdot server was just refusing to serve the images to me for some reason. It's fine. Please ignore the parent post!

Re:the preview version is missing images? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429845)

As well as a Slashdot logo. Fairly important, IMO :)

Re:the preview version is missing images? (1)

markholmberg (631311) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429865)

Same problem here, Slashdot logo as well as rounded corners are missing.

I just redesigned my house. (1, Redundant)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429715)

I just re-designed my house. It's was gray, but is now slightly darker gray. I've widened the white trim around the windows and porch railings a bit. And, I added a remote keypad for my automatic garage door opener.

Seriously, I can take the new page, put it as a 50% transparent layer under the old slashdot, and it comes close to identical. Is there something more under the covers?

Now maybe we can get on to the less important stuff like fixing the mod system. (Which will now demonstrate its fickle nature by modding me to -1.)

(I love slashdot. I think it is one of the most important forums on the internet. This re-design seems very similar to the old design... I guess it wasn't intended to be a makeover.)

Congrats on the slashdotting... (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429718)

... hoping the price of the new laptop doesn't get exceeded by your bandwidth costs this month ;)

Huge ads (1)

Roadmaster (96317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429722)

It's OK, but on the demo page the ad is HUGE, and way too in-your-face. Takes a lot of valuable space. Please don't make the same mistake Yahoo! made with their non-flowing redesign; they say 1024x768 but that's the resolution I have and it still makes me scroll around, which is dumb because hey, I thought we'd all learned that fixed dimensions are bad!

still, good luck with the new design.

cold and corporate (1)

onesloth (935605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429725)

that's my first impression

No rounded corners? (0, Redundant)

hthite (675708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429732)

This is just wrong! Are we going back in time? When the entire world is going to Web 2.0 = rounded corners?

Seriously speaking, I love the new font and the blockquote... Better than the perma italics. Only the new design looks a little too much spaced out for my taste.

Oh and could someone please tell me why we are having this redesign? I don't see a vast difference as such!

Re:No rounded corners? (1)

petabyte (238821) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429792)

If you look at the png screenshot, it does actually have round corners. I believe that all of the images are not yet deployed in the temp version available for view. I guess we have to wait for the real rollout to see the whole setup.

Missing "Slashdot" - big bug? (0, Redundant)

gus goose (306978) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429736)

Well, I am somewhat surprised. I use Firefox 1.5.0.3, and it does not show the "Slashdot" "News for nerds" in the linked "preview".

I guess /. is going under cover. I get a link if I over over where the /. title should be.

Go figure...

gus

Re:Missing "Slashdot" - big bug? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429801)

Seconded. Looks like the new design is broken in the latest Firefox. So much for Slashdot being geek friendly...

slashdotted prize (2, Funny)

davidesh (316537) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429737)

here is a laptop you may promptly sell to pay for your bandwidth bill

ugly (1)

zwad (937823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429740)

the winning design is ugly, the current look is better. However, the runner up design is very smooth/nice looker. you should reconsider using that one instead.

I cut myself on the new slashdot (1, Redundant)

binarybum (468664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429742)

looks, well, a hell of a lot like the "old" slashdot without the safety rounded corners.

A small Criticism (2, Insightful)

Spinlock_1977 (777598) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429744)

Just my 2 cents, but I think the use of a downward-pointing triangle on the left-most section headers is a poor choice. My natural tendancy (which may differ from yours) is to click on the triangle, expecting a drop-down menu. Instead, it does nothing in Firefox 1.5.0.3.

Re:A small Criticism (4, Informative)

gregbains (890793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429878)

I'm using Firefox 1.5 up to date and clicking the triangles for me opens and closes sections.

Let's see if I get this right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429745)

1. Remove 1998-circa rounded edges and replace with squared off edges. 2. Use gradient fills that weren't available in 1998. 3. Profit! (or at least get a new laptop) Yawn.

First thoughts (1)

lewiz (33370) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429749)

Wow, I'm pretty impressed. I had absolutely no idea what to expect and I like the clean, polished look. It has kept the "Slashdot" while at the same time managing to bring the whole site right up to date.

Some people have already commented about wasted space... first off I don't think this is really true, it seems to be more down to the fact that everything is less "bendy" at the edges.

Well done on this, even the original icons fit in, although it would be nice to see these gradually phased out as more clean and professional designs come in.

Re:First thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429849)

Some people have already commented about wasted space... first off I don't think this is really true

It looks good at 1600x1200, but some people still browse at 1024x768, or even less. At those resolutions there's a lot fo space wasted and the actual content appears as squashed in between the sidebars.

why even change (0, Redundant)

hsmith (818216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429756)

if you aren't going to "mix it up" and go for something differnet. It looks exactly like /. in its current form. big deal.

Light mode? (4, Insightful)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429762)

What about the light mode?

I have Simple Design, Low Bandwidth, and No Icons checked in my preferences. This gives me a very streamlined, efficient way to read /. stories and comments. IMHO, it is the best way to view /. with no mess and a minimum of garish color schemes. The only thing it lacks is the Poll slashbox.

The winner's entry doesn't show this view of /. and I'm worried that it'll be removed as an option.

Please calm my fears! Tell me light mode will be part of the new look.

Teen Girl Squad: (0, Offtopic)

strokerace (912726) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429765)

SO GOOD!

Looks ok (1)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429766)

Looks ok to me, I think the main thing is that Slash is moving on (FINALLY) to some new standards. I use things on Digg like the thumbs up/thumbs down buttons, and it's just one example of how things 'should' work nowadays, in regards to Web UI at least. I say "bring it on" and we can see what works, and hopefully, ways to improve it in a faster manner than in the past (Debian release comments anyone?)

Re:Looks ok (1)

Surr3al (800346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429866)

We do moderate comments, I'm not sure if you realized that though. It works differently for a reason though, /. doesn't trust everyone for a reason, and they tried a similiar aproach to what digg does now a long time ago. In any case, the result is that you get to mod comments every so often, rather than every time. I prefer this over giving everyone the ability.

Lada's looks better. (1)

Tavor (845700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429767)

Yuck. Why did they go with the blocky? Lada's entry looks smooth, polished, and like the current generation of Mac/Windows!

Different (0, Redundant)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429770)

We fear change

I like it... (1)

ErnieD (19277) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429771)

I like the design a lot. Very clean, still readable, and the clearly-indicated quoted sections are great. Very nice to clearly see what's quoted and what's editorial at first glance. Kudos.

nooooooo...... (1)

xao gypsie (641755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429778)

I do NOT tolerate change......

pink was best evr ! (5, Funny)

prettything (965473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429779)

i like this design but pink was best evr ! bring bak the ponies :) xx

Not very Web 2.0 (5, Funny)

shish (588640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429781)

Where are the gradients? The rounded rectangles? The complete dependance on AJAX?

Slashdot'll never catch up to digg at this rate :(

Rounded corners?! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429806)

NOOOOOOOO!

Web 2.0 has infected /., run for your lives!

Lipstick on a pig (3, Insightful)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429808)

Looks to be the same to me, save a smaller harder to read font. A lot of other entries looked a lot more pleasant (no, I didn't submit, so I'm not bitter). I know Taco wanted the site to be different yet the same, but I think this is far too much on the "same" path. Not all change is bad, Taco.

Looks just like the old Macromedia site (1)

angelzero (935040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429811)

...but with Slashdot's colors. For shame.

Hoping for something new (5, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429818)

No offense to the design winner, but too often CSS styles websites just end up a bunch of gradient filled rounded corner boxes. Its like the CSS community thinks with one brain cell. The collapsing side menu is a nice touch though. I would hope that the state of the menu will persist between sessions. Having something collapse or expand is annoying if it resets on every visit to the page (i.e. no point in offering it then). Also, I hope you bring back the running tape of the last few article icons at the top of the page. At a glance I can decide if I should bother to read slashdot or wait for an interesting icon to appear first.

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.

No longer living in 1982! (1)

Jimmni (953683) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429821)

I like it. Very clearly still Slashdot while making this a bit more modern. Slashdot has been living in the past for far too long.

not that pretty.. (4, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429823)

But at least it's using CSS throughout, so it can be customized more easily. The current CSS use is quite haphazard, so while this new look isn't very impressive on the surface, it's a vast improvement underneath.

boring... (1)

jasen666 (88727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429831)

The winner is pretty damn boring. I guess they were going for "simple" over "stylish".
As has already been said, I like the curent layout better.

Please don't force a font on us... (2, Insightful)

bziman (223162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429837)

Some of us have a real hard time reading sans-serif fonts. I also like the existing soft edges a lot better than the harshness of the new design. But like everything else in this world, no one seems to give a damn what I think.

Too Busy (5, Insightful)

corby (56462) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429841)

This design is too busy and too dense. You need to put some more whitespace in here. It is hard to focus on just the story summaries, for example, without feeling encroached on by the other elements.

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.

Hate it (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429847)

What's up with the new funky non-serif fonts? And the squishy typeface?

Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429851)

If you make the browser window too small it breaks.

Alos it's very, very boring.

Where is the tagging? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429862)

The old or the new are about the same to me, but where is the tagging on the new look?

new look of slashdot (1)

dawggy_daddy (905096) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429864)

While I didn't think the classic slashdot look needed changing, the first thing that struck me looking at the new slashdot 'packaging' was a karma soothing appearance.

Zzzzz (1)

blackjackshellac (849713) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429875)

Holy shit, so seldom have I been so underwhelmed by a design change. Maybe that's a good thing, but there are a couple of design decisions that are downright horrible. One, your text font should be a serif font, not sans-serif. Second, the light gray bar to the left of the article descriptions is very distracting, and, imho, the design would be much cleaner without this extra deadwood.

Why the hell not make these designs available as themes and let us L^Husers make the choice?

Awesome! (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429876)

His was the only design in final few that I liked. All the others were too bloated/messy and broken on my browser (Opera.. although they seemed broken on IE too, and one on Firefox also).

This was the only design that worked on all 3 major browsers, its simple enough but pretty, and if it were my choice I'd pick it so I'm glad he won.

Congrats Alex!

Modern font. (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429877)

I hate TNR as much as the next guy. But I really thought that /. would have gone with WingDings by now. Nothing says 'elitist' like a site written in WingDings!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>