Slashdot CSS

[Jeff Wheeler]

Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/)

Wow! Not my favorite entry, but it's still very cool that they did this. It's lovely. :)

I'd bet they're saving hundreds of dollars a day. ;)

[senocular]

its about time too.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Yep…

[hybrid101]

looks much better. love this redesign, although the colors are still the same

[simplistik]

Umm... sorry... :lol: it the only thing pretty about that site is the coding. Horrible color scheme, and very sub-par typography.

[Pasquale]

Still pretty ugly but hey- they make more money than me :)

[skOOb]

Ill stick with digg (http://digg.com). Using slashdot makes me feel too much like a nerd. :nerd:

[theflash]

ahhh I dont know about CSS so this does not look good from any side...

[prstudio]

pretty ugly looking - gj on the css though - as far as saving money - probably not - most large entities such as this have a deal worked out with their hosting provider - it brings traffic through the host which makes the host more appealing to capital investors and good press and to be honest bandwidth if you are sitting on the right pipe isn't that hard to come across.

[Jeff Wheeler]

I meant saving money on the host's side. I doubt they're paying for any amount of bandwidth they use…

[Esherido]

I think it's a great look with the gradients, very smooth. Though in some places the colors are downright hideous. I like the colors on the main page the most, not as easy to use a digg (though I hardly ever use either or any news for that matter), a little to tight and doesn't fit in with the popular minimalist. If they tweaked their margins a bit and downsized everything it would probably be about 2 times better. Still a good look, needs some touchups though.

Would probably look good at the first glance but long-timers might get tired, we'll see.

[bwh2]

to be honest, i think it's pretty bad. the only things i think are halfway decent are the left nav and the header. the content presentation is atrocious.

[DDD]

This is a vintage NoKrev site....lol. This thing is boring and fugly. But it fits your style. Which makes me wonder why you are such a mac fan. Seems you wouldnt like something with that much styling....:nerd:

Actually after reading my post I dont mean it in the negative sense, but your style as in very utalitarian and basic. No bells and whistles. Not that you are a boring and fugly person...:lol:

[Esherido]

Not that you are a boring and fugly person...

ROFL. Anyway, after a second look I understanding what u mean bwh2 and DDD. The sidebar looks okay and the header looks great but the content in butt ugly and it's hard to read since there isn't much content per item and each item has a header about the size of it. Besides the gradient headers this site does need some more work.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Really, I thought it qualified as a “Kool Site” (boo-yah, I can do angle quotes!) because of the “Kool” source. ;)

The design is way to similar to the old one to warrant a thread or anything…

If it were just the design, I never would have submitted it… it's far from spectacular.

[insaniak]

Well the source is umm nice. I haven't been to slashdot for a while - how long have they had that typography in the title - its ugly - looks like some kid picked the font for them (reminds me of Monsters .INC font or some other cartoon)!!

After scrolling down a bit, the site looks very nice, the boxes for content seem quite swish and pretty - but I'm not a fan of the top bar. Menu is ok as far as CSS menus go.

[senocular]

I take it none of you have seen this site before the update? :sure: (though, visiually, I suppose, it wasnt terribly different, but the HTML was a mess)

[Jeff Wheeler]

I have seen it before… I knew they didn't change the layout much. I have already said that.

[senocular]

I have seen it before… I knew they didn't change the layout much. I have already said that.

I know you have :P

[Jeff Wheeler]

I take it none of you have seen this site before the update?

You should be clearer. :lol:

[B3NKobe]

Still pretty ugly but hey- they make more money than me :)
Agreed, I think its a horribal site!!

[DDD]

Goes to show how much respect you have here Nokrev. Only you can post a ugly site, have everyone diss it (even mods 4 to be exact) and it still remain in KS.... Only you :worship: <---someone make a smilie for this

[Jeff Wheeler]

:lol:

Well, we all know it is a cool site. ;)

[prstudio]

I meant saving money on the host's side. I doubt they're paying for any amount of bandwidth they use…

makes sense - but who cares about the host :P

[Jeff Wheeler]

I care about my host, and I assume everybody else wants their host to like them, also.

[ditt0]

Switching to css use is a good thing, 10 points for that. Yet I've seen nothing on their "visuals" (as in layout, web typography, positioning etc.) accomplished with css if not in a spectacular way, at least in a remarcable one.
I know you already said that the design is poor. But I'm curious, in your oppinion what makes their css source so cool? Big sites switched to xhtml+css before and even in a more pleasant way, like novell did.

[Jeff Wheeler]

I don't mean to suggest it's any better than those. This one just happened to catch my attention, because I visit it often. ;)

[theflash]

Ah! ok. It should be in the random section then ;)

[Esherido]

Yeah, theflash, probably in random. Still like the gradients in the headers and sub-headers. Though the rest of the site looks pretty much like hard-to-read-trash (I'm don't really like the news cuz CNN and them make it so depressing; and you'll never accomplish anything in life by just reading the news).

[senocular]

Switching to css use is a good thing, 10 points for that. Yet I've seen nothing on their "visuals" (as in layout, web typography, positioning etc.) accomplished with css if not in a spectacular way, at least in a remarcable one.
I know you already said that the design is poor. But I'm curious, in your oppinion what makes their css source so cool? Big sites switched to xhtml+css before and even in a more pleasant way, like novell did.

You must be one of those people who havent seen the site before too. :P If anything, their new CSS did WONDERS for their positioning. Before margins were cramped, text ran together and all in all it smelled of elderberries.

[simplistik]

Goes to show how much respect you have here Nokrev. Only you can post a ugly site, have everyone diss it (even mods 4 to be exact) and it still remain in KS.... Only you :worship: <---someone make a smilie for this
Well I'm not moving it cause everyone makes a big fuss, and soil's themselves when I do. Not to mention that fact that all mods will be called dictators, and bashed because we think we're always right and none of us have an eye for design, or can make an objective decision... k... done w/ my rant.

[senocular]

I think the mods rant too much :bad:
</rant>

[theflash]

It's ok guys keep it in here I was just kiddin :rabbit:

[Esherido]

Cool down everyone, I can almost see sprays of blood on the screen from you guys 'shouting' at each other. I'm not trying to be a mod but c'mon lets be mature adults not screaming kids.

If I can go by what you said senocular in post #30:


You must be one of those people who havent seen the site before too. If anything, their new CSS did WONDERS for their positioning. Before margins were cramped, text ran together and all in all it smelled of elderberries.

Their site is much better than what I can imagine it looked like. But...it still needs some work in my opinion.

EDIT: Still loving their gradient headers and sub-headers and always will love them.

[Jeff Wheeler]

Oh, some of you haven't seen it, for real? It is a ton better than before… just not all that graphically awesome.

[senocular]

Keep in mind that the site is directed towards programmer geeks, not designers. They suit their audience pretty well if you ask me.

[Esherido]

In that perspective I completely agree with u senocular, for their target audience, they're doing a pretty good job.

[simplistik]

I personally disagree with both of you on that note. Just because it's towards programmers and geeks doesn't mean that they want UGLY. I just think that the people who re-designed it don't have the eye for a better design. I don't think it was in their mind to say "lets make it ugly... but it'll be ok and no one will notice cause our content is scrumdidlyumptous".

[Jeff Wheeler]

In my opinion, the person who redesigned it was following the guidelines. It was requested that they keep many of the same visual elements, and the designer did just that. They weren't looking for a complete make-over, and I think he did a great job of modifying the old design without redoing it.


Retains some sense of visual continuity with Today's Slashdot - This one is the real challenge I think. From the Slashdot 'Shade of Green' (#006666) to the curve on the upper left hand corner of the page & article headers, to the use of the Coliseo font, I really think that many of these design elements need to persist. You are welcome to ignore me of course. But I'm being totally up front about this point: the winning entry ought to echo the current design. How loud of an echo is up to you.

It's #7 on this page: http://slashdot.org/articles/06/04/26/1512247.shtml

;)

[Esherido]

Loving 'scrumdidlyumptous.'

It's hard to say which of you I agree more with. The simple forum member torn between to mods, a life or death situation! Dum, dum, dammmmm! Yeah, maybe their designer was terrible or somethin simp, or maybe the majority of their update was server side, it's hard to tell cuz I don't really use it that much (or any other site besides kirupa). If the majority of their update was server-side (or just a large portion) I'd agree with senocular; if not, then I'd agree with simplistik, because in that perspective it's much more likely that their designers had no taste for contemporary web design.

I'll always love their gradient headers and sub-headers.

EDIT: Nokrev, when I posted mine, ur post popped up, so stuff in mine may contradict or agree with urs.

[simplistik]

In my opinion, the person who redesigned it was following the guidelines.
Doesn't mean he executed it well :D :thumb2:. It's not only just the header and colors... it's the typography that was used and how it was used. Now it is hard to design around a strict format and template like that, but it is possible.

[senocular]

I personally disagree with both of you on that note. Just because it's towards programmers and geeks doesn't mean that they want UGLY. I just think that the people who re-designed it don't have the eye for a better design. I don't think it was in their mind to say "lets make it ugly... but it'll be ok and no one will notice cause our content is scrumdidlyumptous".

They're used to ugly. Its where they feel comfortable.

[Jeff Wheeler]

They did give a requested font, also. ;)

Plus, I rather like the typography. What are you referring to that is so bad?

[Esherido]

Plus, I rather like the typography. What are you referring to that is so bad?

It's a little vague (isn't that how u spell it?) what you think is ugly. I'm guessing the typography and the header/colors?

[Jeff Wheeler]

I'm saying the main text is really easy to read, and same with the navigation.

The header/colors were in the guidelines & criteria.

[Esherido]

So what ur saying is that the text is easy to read and they followed the guidelines but it's still kinda ugly?

[Jeff Wheeler]

Yes…

[Esherido]

Ok, we got that puzzled out. What's challenge do u have next for the kirupa Puzzling Team?

[ditt0]

You must be one of those people who havent seen the site before too. :P If anything, their new CSS did WONDERS for their positioning. Before margins were cramped, text ran together and all in all it smelled of elderberries.
I see your point. But let's say a site named uglysite.com is ugly and bad coded, but with very good content and at some point the code of that site improves somewhat. Does that make it cool? It might be a cool resource, yes. But that site has got nothing to do with being cool. Imo, cool content doesn't compensate the poor presentation, just like a cool presentation doesn't make up for the lack of content.

[senocular]

I know plenty of cool people but their aholes still stink. Nothing's perfect. :P

It's "kool" that /. finally updated their site and made it visually more pleasing than it was. Though it won't win any beauty contests, its also no tubcat (http://www.tubcat.com/).

[simplistik]

I know plenty of cool people but their aholes still stink. Nothing's perfect. :P

It's "kool" that /. finally updated their site and made it visually more pleasing than it was. Though it won't win any beauty contests, its also no tubcat (http://www.tubcat.com/).
:lol:

[ditt0]

Though it won't win any beauty contests, its also no tubcat (http://www.tubcat.com/).
lol indeed

kitties r kewl!!! espeshly fat kittes!! That must be the quote of the day:) And tubcat is the new zombo.com :lol:

[Esherido]

tubcat is hilarious! That design is so bad it's funny, though I've seen worse. And the subject matter is completely pointless! ROFL.

I think that Slashdot has an okay design. They don't need a perfect design or anything, just somethin to make it easy to the eye and useful for their users. It doesn't have to be flashy or anything. Just relatively simple and very easy to use.

[theflash]

@senocular: ROFL

What if some good designer is hired and given freedom to design (dont tell designer that use ONLY these fonts or you will be fired).

I am pretty sure there will be a very good outcome which is more efficient to find info, more easily readable, simple but more attractive.

So IMO there are lots of scope for improvement, even keeping the focus on content.

[Esherido]

That would definitely work a lot better. But they weren't smart enought to do that, so now their site is ugly. That little statement took us four pages to finally get to. Gee, we're smart.

Will always love their gradient headers and subheaders though.