• Herr Otto Flick (unregistered)

    Please don't. What does redesigning or doing anything to the site gain you? Did the results of your "comment redesign" not teach you anything? We don't want to register. We don't want to give you our email addresses or names. We do want to read amusing stories about programming and then rip each other in the comments.

    Stick to finding and posting more interesting WTFery.

    Remember the time you renamed the site "Worse Than Failure" so you could explain it to your Nan? This is just as retarded.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    The transparency effect on the menus makes the text hard to read on some colors and is pretty unnecessary.

  • pjt33 (cs)

    Why switch from the one true date format (ISO 8601) to anything else, let alone something as ripe for ambiguity as number/number/year?

  • 11684 (unregistered)

    theDailyWTF.redesign.looksGood = true;

  • vt_mruhlin (cs)

    Having the background color change on mouseover is cute and all, but it kind of distracts from readability. Same with the fading out text on the last line of the preview.

    Generally I like blogs to be readable by just scrolling down a page without clicking in to every post unless it's really long. Seems like the new redesign greatly reduced the amount of content on the front page, which I'm not a fan of. Especially with CodeSOD articles, there's sometimes not a lot to them.

  • KattMan (cs)

    can we get rid of discourse while we are at it?

  • vt_mruhlin (cs)

    Following on my previous comment, I don't need the whole preview text to be a link into the full-length article. Just a "read more" link at the bottom of posts long enough to require it is sufficient.

  • n/a (unregistered)

    Why do we need a big photo of the article author? This is not an op-ed. We care for the story itself. Ideally, all articles are written/edited well enough so we don't care to avoid the worst authors.

  • jnareb (cs)

    The bad parts of redesign:

    • much lower information density (we come there for contents, not look!), aka W A S T E D S P A C E
    • No "Display full articles" toggle
    • [censored] technicolor
    • No breadcrumbs navigation on article page
    • Low contrast for quotes and code
    • The menu!!!
  • Terry (unregistered)

    I like it, although it looks less distinctive then the current style (As in I read many sites that look similar).

    Also where does that logo go when you scroll up and hit the top? #therealwtf

  • OracleIsTheRealWTF (unregistered)

    I responded indifference on the survey to a redesign, however given the mockup of the omgwtf2, I actually liked it. I wouldn't mind that as the new face of the site.

    Captcha: Saluto "Drones make saluto"

  • S (unregistered)

    A few notes about the new layout.

    Main page:

    • left menu is too big (the current site has a narrower left bar - better for content)
    • articles have no date

    Article page:

    • social buttons are too intrusive, they should be placed in a less annoying position
    • "similar articles" are removing room from featured comments. I would like to see them on different rows.
    • date of post is ambiguous
    • stories title way too big

    New comment system:

    • please don't.

    While the new site looks pleasing and 2.0, it's a step back from the current experience in terms of readability of articles and comments. Navigation, social buttons have too much emphasis.

    I like the new font and the wider spacing inside a story.

  • n/a (unregistered)

    Another vote for (against) low information density. Also the default font size is such (too large) that it's actually uncomfortable to read from my normal distance to the screen, from which I browse every other site. Sure, one can zoom in-browser, but then the big empty margins leave the page pretty bare.

  • evilspoons (unregistered)

    Please keep using ISO 8601 dates. Thank you.

    (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to vt_mruhlin
    vt_mruhlin:
    Having the background color change on mouseover is cute and all, but it kind of distracts from readability. Same with the fading out text on the last line of the preview.

    Generally I like blogs to be readable by just scrolling down a page without clicking in to every post unless it's really long. Seems like the new redesign greatly reduced the amount of content on the front page, which I'm not a fan of. Especially with CodeSOD articles, there's sometimes not a lot to them.

    ^this. All of this.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    The new design looks ugly. Why do people these days redesign their sites to have low information density, large fonts and large grayish blocks and no other detail, just to appeal to the tablet/"modern UI" fad? Just keep the old style.

    Of course you don't care about this comment, because I'm just an anon. I come here to read WTFs. That's what I've been doing for the past 10 years (almost). But I do care about what web sites look like: I abandon tablet websites.

  • Mark (unregistered)

    The redesign looks nice. It's hard to sell graphic designs to most programmers. Most of the critics here seem to want each post to be a black & white table of numeric data. Don't listen to them. This is a nice, fresh coat of paint.

  • Malaki (unregistered)

    Looks great on a phone, but on an 800x600 desktop screen (don't judge me please, I do what I can with what I have), the top pinned menu takes up quite a bit of screen space. You can't please everybody, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

    Also, I know that displaying blocks of code isn't as easy as it sounds. To wrap the lines or not? Either way, somebody will tell you that it's unreadable. Good luck with that.

    That having been said, I really do like it. Especially the clear demarcation of articles. Easy to navigate and easy to read. Good job. Just don't mess with the RSS feeds please. I keep hearing that RSS is dying, but I think that's only coming from folks who get their news from Facebook or something.

  • Logan (unregistered)

    Too much whitespace. Waaaay too much whitespace.

  • Greg (unregistered)

    I'm sorry, but the new layout looks horrible:

    • saturated contrasting colors makes my eyes bleed;
    • changing colors on mouseover (seriously, wtf, the survey clearly states we're not teenagers?);
    • the top menu is too large and far less usable than what we have now - not only does it appear on mouseover, which I find very annoying, but it also obscures the nevest article;

    All in all it looks like someone got a hold of some HTML and said "look what I can do!" - it's flashy, immature and way less usable than what we have now. I understand the need to do something new but seriously, this site is good as it is and it does not need changes for the sake of changes alone.

  • Mike (unregistered)

    It looks incredible at 75-90% zoom, but at 100% it feels a bit claustrophobic. Also might want to turn down some of those dynamic effects. Maybe have the background color of the title be color-coded, with no mouseover effects, or something?

  • Mike (unregistered)

    Also, I don't understand why the logotext always loses its personality in these transitions. It's always the same font with the same two-color scheme. You're allowed to mix it up a bit!

  • n/a (unregistered)

    More I click around the new design, more I dislike random flashes of colour on mouseover. It feels like the designer dreams of the laurels of Boingboing in some incarnation, but theirs is/was not a great usable design either.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    TRWTF is fixed width web sites. There is no valid excuse for fixed width.

  • Rich (unregistered)

    I think the redesign looks great (maybe the headlines could be a tad smaller, but whatever).

    However, I think you're making a mistake not using a fixed-width font for the syntax-highlighted code samples. I'm assuming this is an oversight?

  • zerazerazerazerazerazer (unregistered) in reply to n/a
    n/a:
    Another vote for (against) low information density. Also the default font size is such (too large) that it's actually uncomfortable to read from my normal distance to the screen, from which I browse every other site. Sure, one can zoom in-browser, but then the big empty margins leave the page pretty bare.

    ++

  • zerazerazerazerazerazer (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    The new design looks ugly. Why do people these days redesign their sites to have low information density, large fonts and large grayish blocks and no other detail, just to appeal to the tablet/"modern UI" fad?

    ++

  • neminem (unregistered)

    I don't think it's terrible. I do think the current look looks better/more distinctive, personally.

    Less subjectively, I agree that no dates on articles on the main page should be fixed. I'm also wondering why the decision to only use like 60% of the available horizontal space, on both the main page and the article page? (On Firefox, with a screen resolution of 1680x1050, the middle 1030 pixels contain content, leaving 300ish pixels on the left and 300ish pixels on the right just sitting there doing nothing. The current site, it's pretty much all used.

  • theorem (cs) in reply to jnareb

    Wow, I agree on a few points. I couldn't put it into words until I read this post.

    1. Please note that I was the one asking for "choose a desktop version vs. mobile version" primarily because of the stupid 'menu' that sites place on top nowadays. Huge stupid menus at the top of sites are quite bad and they only serve to get in the way of reading, making using the site so, so much worse. I know what site I'm on, if I wanted to look at the top menu I would go to the top of the page. If you wanted to make it slide down on mouse-over with a few px overhang at the top when in the middle of the page, then maybe that's an improvement, but I never want to see it all the time on any site.

    2. wasted space, I suspect it's primarily a play at getting it onto smaller displays and still looking good. Some of us have excellent eyesight and like to use it for information density. The site redesign looks better at somewhere between 50-67% of original size, imho.

    3. colors on article mouse-over. It didn't bother me until it was called out, but now that you mention it, a more subtle animation would be much appreciated. Perhaps a color highlight animation the size of the "similar articles" mouse-over would go over better.

    4. breadcrumbs will be missed, please add.

    5. image of author on post -- I really don't care what the authors look like. I would like a (not-animated) image of some sort with every post. The forums and sidebar are a different story perhaps ..

    6. I actually really like the base colors, it jazzes up the place.

    7. I noticed a few more advertisement slots, they are tasteful and don't get in the way.

    8. quoted text as mentioned is harder to read, the grey on white is not the best color. Perhaps simply a different font, same black on white colors ? I wonder what white text on black would look like -- too harsh ?

  • Mom (unregistered)

    Look, I can see where you're going with that. I do think you should follow your dreams and experiment and all that, but that new logo is just a definite step back from the old one. I think you should reconsider.

    Of course, no matter what you do, I'll still like your site.

  • Craig Ruff (unregistered)

    Overall the new design looks ok and clean, but please, please! Tone down that mouse over background color change. Use a more subtle background color, less saturated. Are you trying to induce epileptic seizures? :-)

  • Sarcasto (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • someone (unregistered)

    firefox couldn't load the page (guess extra secured firewall troubles), but in a text browser on my server it looks okay. The original looks a tad better in my opinion though and is definitely better navigated.

    but yes, I do know i am the only one who cares about links

  • Your Name (unregistered)

    Don't change the logo. Not only is the new one worse, it also doesn't match my coffee mug anymore.

  • Henry (unregistered)

    Would like to see the menus hesitate before dropping down. Often when I come into a site my mouse is at the top of the screen, e.g. because I've just clicked the tab. It's annoying at best when simply moving my mouse down into the body of the site causes menus to start popping up everywhere.

  • Your Name (unregistered)

    Also, while I don't care specifically about Discus or Discourse or whatever the new commenting system is: if you don't provide some way of commenting without registering an account, I won't comment, which probably means I'll get bored and leave after a month or so.

  • rootkit (cs)

    The same "About" section in the footer of every page, seriously? And the same "Recent articles" block too? Has TRWTF become a design pattern or something?

  • Doodpants (unregistered) in reply to Henry
    Henry:
    Would like to see the menus hesitate before dropping down. Often when I come into a site my mouse is at the top of the screen, e.g. because I've just clicked the tab. It's annoying at best when simply moving my mouse down into the body of the site causes menus to start popping up everywhere.
    I don't understand why the web at large decided that menus that drop down on mouseover instead of mouse click were a good idea. They aren't, and never were. I don't want to see the menus hesitate before dropping down; I want them not to drop down at all unless clicked.

    CAPTCHA: I apologize if it sounds like my comment is dripping with VENIAM.

  • Alex Papadimoulis (cs)

    Quick note, thanks for the feedback all; this is exactly what I was hoping for.

    If y'all wouldn't mind, would you mind posting some of these to GitHub issue tracker? It's going to save me a lot of time copy/pasting, plus I think it will help facilitate discussion better...

    https://github.com/tdwtf/WtfWebApp/issues

  • Alex Papadimoulis (cs) in reply to rootkit
    rootkit:
    The same "About" section in the footer of *every* page, seriously? And the same "Recent articles" block too? Has TRWTF become a design pattern or something?

    This is a draft. There are drafty things, like that...

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    The redesign looks great! I really appreciate the responsive mobile layout. Another factor to keep track of is social media sharing, by using the Open Graph tags, so that the "shared content" looks good on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. when I share articles and comments with my other programming friends. Keep up the great work!

  • Valued Service (unregistered)

    The problem I have with it is the bottom part.

    Advertise Contact Privacy Policy & Disclaimer RSS

    Should be horizontal if possible. The the whole section above that is unnecessarily redundant. You already have that in the sidebar, and the main section, no need to repeat it down there. Also, the about part, don't frontpage things things. I'd even go so far to say they're unneeded altogether. You have it on the dropdown, that's plenty good enough.

    I want content to be the most if not only important thing. Everything else should viciously minimize the space it consumes.

    The other thing that's driving me nuts is the fact that the whole section highlights the same color as the left hand "tab". It's overpowering the content.

    I like the ad placement, I like the nav bar and search.

    As for the article pages, again, the stuff at the bottom needs to go. It's just too much. But the article itself is good.

    Overall I like it. It's much cleaner than the current design. Good job.

  • Bananafish (unregistered)

    TRWTF is not having read any posts on thedailywtf.com before trying to redesign this site.

  • DO NOT WANT (unregistered)

    Oh god this looks horrible. Intrusive colors, distractincly large sidebar, bigger fonts ... it's just this busy and all-around irritating characterless yuppie style that almost every site is implementing nowadays. The old design was good enough and should not have been changed.

  • Jim the Tool (unregistered)

    When I got to the bottom I had to check the date. But no, it's not 1414 (keep the yyyy-MM-dd dating system, or else I'll rip your arms off). So it mustn't be joke. Well.

    1. The highlight on hover is awful. Shit awful. Like really really awful.
    2. I don't need stupid share buttons for stupid websites.
    3. Keep the stuff on the left like "random article" and the article categories. Wait, is that it up the top? When I click a link it just gives me two ads.
    4. The ads are stupid. Or maybe I'm just not the target audience and I don't get the in-jokes. There are too many ads.
    5. When I hover over an article, the "by Alex Papadimoulis in Announcements" shit should have links on the name and 'series' like the current design.
    6. I'm not commenting or putting a bug report elsewhere. You'll read it here, or not at all. And that's my final offer.
    7. If you require JavaScript for reading anything, I won't read it. If you require JavaScript for commenting, I won't comment. If you require anything off a domain that's not thedailywtf.com, I won't see it. If anything off a domain that isn't thedailywtf.com is essential for the site, I'll go elsewhere. I.e. put all your assets on the one domain (or subdomain) and don't require JavaScript, or else you'll lose me.

    Cheers.

    captcha: cogo. I don't cogo, therefore I'm not.

  • Evan (unregistered)

    I've been reading this site for about a decade now... and no "full article" view is probably more likely to make me leave this than the /. redesign is to make me leave that.

  • Method (unregistered)

    1/3rd of the screen being dedicated to ads is a serious WTF. Make it 1/6th or smaller or toggle-able. Now that I look at it more - why is there even a sidebar if the top scrolls with you?

  • Simon Johnson (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Covarr (cs)

    I feel like the new logo could use some originality. The current logo is distinctive, and not just because of the wtf face guy. Everything about it stands out.

    The new logo? Seen it before. Just off the top of my head:

    [image]

    For what it's worth, it might not be a good idea to use a two-tone "Daily WTF" even in a less overused color scheme or font, because The Daily Show already does that between Daily and Show.

  • the way you motherfuckers need to leave Blakeyrat alone. (unregistered)

    Oh gee oh man nothing I need more than a gigantic fucking avatar plastered in the upper right so I know with every second that THIS WAS MADE BY THIS PERSON. And oh, whats this? Generic copypasted "SHARE THIS ARTICLE" links right at the top? Wow, thanks! I always wanted to be asked to share something before I even have a chance to read it! Oh and oh man, no more being able to just click back into a category at the top like you used to. Nope, have to dig around every time I want to do something. And the sidebar? WHO THE HELL LOVED THAT THING ANYWAY?

    Fuck you, I'm never coming back to this shitty website.

Leave a comment on “Survey Results & Site Redesign”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article