For those of you just tuning in, we put up a new site design over the weekend. The major change is that we removed the left-hand column and enlarged the size of the editorial column by about 25%. We’ve already gotten an email from Bob Marvin, who may have a year or two on our average reader, expressing his pleasure at the fact that he no longer needs a magnifying glass to read the text. We’ve also gotten an email or two from people who don’t like the new look. We’re interested to hear everyone’s feedback. Nothing’s set in stone so please let us know what you like and what you don’t, keeping in mind, of course, that it can take a few days to get used to a new design. (We’re not entirely sold yet on the Arial font – maybe we should go with the font we use on Brooklyn Record.) How many of you remember what the site looked like a year ago?
Update: Vote on which header you prefer by clicking here.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. 2nd for verdana font.
    its a standard font that is easy to read but not as clinical as arial.
    also the red titles can maybe be in a serif font that is blue or brown closer to the sites colors rathign than a glaring default bright red. “brownstoner” logo and background pic also seems to clinical from previous version. thanks.

  2. Oh, I forgot…Linus, if it was a Scarano designed site, the line spacing would be doubled and we’d pretend there were no paragraphs to mess up the WCR “word count ratio.” 😉

  3. One word: verdana

    PLEASE, no serifed font for the text, very hard to read on screen. The font would have to be SO BIG, since it is serifed, to read well. Perhaps for the headlines only.

    I agree with the header “default” comments, but overall a cleaner, bolder look.

    But content is king, so whatever design you like, fine. Just keep up the great topics and even better debates in the posts.

1 5 6 7 8 9