posted by JCooper on Wed 30th Jan 2008 10:25
Conversations I hated, a strong word I know, the "new" v4 layout, colours and design.

This new .1 look is awesome and really brings osnews into 2008.

Thank you for your continued hard work and efforts ;)
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
Comment by pandronic
by pandronic on Wed 30th Jan 2008 11:10 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

Yup, v4 was pretty bad. 4.1 however looks nice and functional. Great work.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by pandronic
by kadams on Wed 30th Jan 2008 16:46 in reply to "Comment by pandronic"
kadams Member since:
2007-08-31

Yep, I think it looks great.

Reply Score: 1

Comment's font color
by BiPolar on Wed 30th Jan 2008 11:57 UTC
BiPolar
Member since:
2007-07-06

4.1 is better than 4 beta, that's for sure.
Still, I sorely miss v3.

Regarding 4.1, it would be far better if the comment's font color was black. That gray has not enough contranst with the white background (which I would like more if it wasn't so white :-)).

Reply Score: 1

Two suggestions
by WereCatf on Wed 30th Jan 2008 14:42 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Sure, 4.1 looks better but there are still a few things in need of improving IMHO. F.ex. the number of comments on a story is too light color, you have to look a lot harder to see it and it's not possible to just have a quick look on the front page as to which stories generate a lot of discussion. And well, I also think the content area should be separated more clearly from the sidebar.

Otherwise it looks pretty good, nice work ;)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Wed 30th Jan 2008 15:28 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Cleaner, but now even SMALLER text - and WELL below accessability minimums at that, while the inputs are STILL in a dynamic font...

Meaning large font users have a choice, have input text absurdly oversized, or have content text absurdly undersized.

/FAIL/ /FAIL/

Remember, anything smaller than 12px is almost guaranteed to be USELESS to 'large font/120dpi' users (or 100dpi *nix users), an increasingly common setting with smaller laptops at higher resolutions.

The original theme at least was all dynamic fonts. All these px metric fonts are ****ing stupid. It's not 800 friendly when there is NO content that couldn't at least work in a semi-fluid layout, (and before someone chimes in with "Most people are 1024 or higher" ask what percentage of users actually run their browser full width?)

... and it's still at least three times the markup it should be. 253k main page in 64 files - wow, welcome to 20 seconds overhead on BROADBAND before you even figure in transferring data.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by Adam S on Wed 30th Jan 2008 15:58 in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Very helpful comment, thanks!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by aaronb on Wed 30th Jan 2008 21:22 in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

full width?)

... and it's still at least three times the markup it should be. 253k main page in 64 files - wow, welcome to 20 seconds overhead on BROADBAND before you even figure in transferring data.


It loads in about 3 seconds here (4Mbit connection). Maybe you should use a computer instead of a printer to view OSNews !

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Thu 31st Jan 2008 14:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

loads in about 3 seconds here (4Mbit connection). Maybe you should use a computer instead of a printer to view OSNews !

What's your ping time to OSNews?

I'm averaging 114ms here, which with at LEAST two pings per file on first load, that's a minimum overhead on the OSNews main page of 14.952 seconds, a real world actual of 21.88 seconds. Once it's cached it's a LITTLE better coming in at about 4 seconds overhead... WITHOUT EVEN TALKING about filesizes.

It's called a handshake - to be getting a 3 second pageload you're cache probably isn't verifying files for changes (status code 304), AND you are likely having ping times around 30ms... which is three times what the average DSL user sees.

It's actually one of the biggest causes of slow loading/painful to watch pages, and the least discussed or understood by web developers. When the browser requests a file it has to send the request, receive back that the file is available, THEN acknowledge to start sending. Due to overlap and the ability to start another request while listening to the first this can reduce it to about 1.5 times the ping time total, if server connection limits are maxed out or local connection limits (like XP SP2's little 'connection limit reduction) are maxed, you can see up to three times the ping time overhead PER FILE

If nothing else, it makes it painful to watch all those images tick by, especially in browsers like firefux with their piss poor handshaking and caching models.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by deathshadow
by aaronb on Thu 31st Jan 2008 18:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

My ping to OSNews is 125ms.

I have cleared my cache and tried it again and its still about 4 seconds.

Could my ISP by caching some of files?

I'm using Firefox here.

In IE7 it takes around the same time as fire fox.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by pandronic on Thu 31st Jan 2008 07:10 in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

ask what percentage of users actually run their browser full width?

aaa ... 99.9%?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Thu 31st Jan 2008 13:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

aaa ... 99.9%?

Try 1% of mac users since MacOS doesn't have a real 'maximize', 5% of users running resolutions higher than 1280x960, maybe 10% of users at 1280x800 (since increasingly people are setting their taskbar to portrait mode on the left)

There's more out there than 'Joe Windows' running 1024x768 small fonts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by deathshadow
by Adam S on Thu 31st Jan 2008 18:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

It's time for you to stop then whining. We rolled out a MAJOR new version, the overlap was a bug, the OSNews main page now loads comfortably in under 1000px, which is as designed. Themes are back.

We get it, you're unhappy, your complaints are noted... please get over it.

Reply Score: 1