43°Partly Cloudy

Home > General Discussion > Hope the ArlNow folks are cool with site redesign criticism

Hope the ArlNow folks are cool with site redesign criticism
  • Bard August 29, 2014 - 2:24 pm #113361 Reply

    I’m gonna go on record as NOT LIKING the site redesign. It hurts my eyes a little, to be honest.

    Still love y’all, though. Keep up the good work in general.

    Swag August 29, 2014 - 4:28 pm #113376 Reply

    I like the grey/cyan, but the magenta highlights are overkill.

    Also, the links in articles suck. I know, I know–SEO. But still, they pull the eye so much that they make it straight-up hard to read the actual articles. Your eyes just bounce from link to link.

    Also, I turned off ghostery and adblock to check out the new site–and promptly turned them back on. I don’t know how people tolerate the internet without them.

    ahum August 29, 2014 - 4:30 pm #113377 Reply

    I like it. Still haven’t landed yet

    Tom August 29, 2014 - 9:08 pm #113394 Reply

    I’m not in love with it either, but I said the same thing about Windows XP when Microsoft ditched the 95/98/2000 aesthetic. Ditto for iOS 7. I really enjoy the site, so I’m not going to stop using it; I’m content with silently grousing to myself while I adjust to the changes. It only takes a few days.

    Rick August 30, 2014 - 2:26 pm #113401 Reply

    The highlighted story tags give off a gossip-site vibe, and the black-text-on-grey-background links for the forums and real estate sections make it look like an afterthought and not something worth looking at. I saw nothing wrong with the old layout but what do I know…

    redstang423 September 2, 2014 - 9:00 am #113414 Reply

    “I know, I know-SEO”

     

    Funny enough, search engines actually frequently devalue pages with links styled in that way. They do it for the same reason “hidden” words (words styled in the same color as background to make them not normally visible) – it simply appears spammy.

    ARLnow.com September 2, 2014 - 10:16 am #113423 Reply

    We have heard the criticism and our list of planned post-launch changes include reverting back to normal-style hyperlinks. That should be complete later this week.

    Our UX designer liked the “highlighted” links but it’s admittedly not very common across the web, at least for now. Maybe it’s the future? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q&feature=youtu.be&t=2m00s

    ksu499 September 2, 2014 - 10:59 am #113425 Reply

    Thanks for the reversion to normal-style hyperlinks.  I find the current style to be very distracting.  The rest is fine, but honestly, I do miss the “Return to Top of Page” button that the format two formats ago had.  Clicking it after scrolling numerous stories down into the content would send your page view just flying (super-rapid scrolling) back to the top of the page.

    ARLnow.com September 2, 2014 - 11:22 am #113442 Reply

    ksu499 – you can achieve that by pressing the “home” button on a windows keyboard or command-up arrow on a mac.

    Arlington, SSR September 2, 2014 - 2:12 pm #113469 Reply

    The thing I hate the most is the new article font.  It’s like trying to be too fancy and is ending up too grainy and hard to read.  Whatever the old font was is much easier to read (for my eyes anyway).  Ive tried 3 different rigs and they all look bad so it’s not the monitor or resolution.

    ARLnow.com September 2, 2014 - 3:54 pm #113475 Reply

    The new (old) link style is now live on the site.

    Bard September 2, 2014 - 6:53 pm #113490 Reply

    It looks a lot better today than it did a couple of days ago. A lot cleaner and easier to read.

    Swag September 2, 2014 - 9:57 pm #113493 Reply

    The thing I hate the most is the new article font. It’s like trying to be too fancy and is ending up too grainy and hard to read. Whatever the old font was is much easier to read (for my eyes anyway). Ive tried 3 different rigs and they all look bad so it’s not the monitor or resolution.

    Not sure exactly which one it is, but it’s likely a print font and not intended (or at least not optimized) for use on-screen–very few serifs fonts are. That’s why it looks fuzzy. Screen + serif + small = blurry.

    ksu499 September 2, 2014 - 10:17 pm #113494 Reply

    Sans serif fonts are generally preferred for web presentation due to the low DPI — Ariel, Verdana, Tahoma, etc.  The cleaner letters tend to be more discernible on a monitor.

    ARLnow was pretty fast in fixing the hyperlink presentation; I’m sure the font isn’t far behind.  You try out new things — see how they fly, and fix the ones that don’t fly too well.

    ARLnow.com September 3, 2014 - 1:07 am #113495 Reply

    Sorry to disappoint our amateur font analysts here, but the font we’re using is Merriweather, which is in fact designed specifically for screen readability: http://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Merriweather

    Serif fonts are not unheard of on news websites. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are two examples.

    We suspect that those who don’t like the font are viewing the site on Google Chrome in Windows. Past versions of Chrome were poor at rendering many fonts, even Google fonts like Merriweather. The just-released latest version of Chrome, ver. 37, improves font rendering in Windows.

    Those viewing the site on the latest versions of IE and Firefox, or on a Mac, should already be seeing the font as it is meant to be seen.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list