Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Dec 2012 00:32 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Now that the holidays are upon us (happy holidays!) and the year is about to end, we at OSNews thought it time to finally lift the veil a little bit on the next version of OSNews - OSNews 5. I've hinted at this next version of OSNews here and there in the comments, but we think it's time to make it all a little bit more official by taking in some initial feedback.
Thread beginning with comment 546299
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not a fan
by edwdig on Wed 26th Dec 2012 03:44 UTC
edwdig
Member since:
2005-08-22

I can't get behind the new design. First, I'm really, *really* not a fan of the Metro style flat designs. I'm a very firm believer that we need bevels/shadows/etc to give a little depth. I feel that makes a being difference in drawing your attention to things.

Second, I'm not a fan of the gray background. A quick flood fill of it with pure white in an image editor makes it look a lot nicer me. The text also feels easier to read that way. I'm guessing that may be a side effect of Mac font rendering. I like the black version better than the gray, but not as much as pure white.

I'm also a little concerned about the comments section. You didn't show enough to go off there, but I'm guessing there's going to be a lot less distinction between individual comments than there is now, which might make it harder to follow.

Overall, it just feels so bare. I totally understand why the icons are going, but add that in with the new design choices and I think it's just going to end up being a big boring wall of text. I feel like the site is going to be really unappealing to look at, and I don't think elements will be distinct enough. My gut feeling is that I'd read the site a lot less with the new look.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Not a fan
by VenomousGecko on Wed 26th Dec 2012 05:14 in reply to "Not a fan"
VenomousGecko Member since:
2005-07-06

I second some of edwdig's concerns. The first thing that jumped out at me (and I do remember Thom stating that the site might not ship looking like this) is that there is a complete lack of OSNews branding. To me, there is no "feeling" of OSNews in the site design, sans green. Even OSNews at the top of the page is simply text. The other thing is, as edwdig pointed out, the flat design. I too feel like there is this huge pendulum swing toward flat design and it is being overdone. Sure, the design does not have to jump out at you like a webpage from 1995, but using shadows, rounded corners and bevels can be very simple and pleasing.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Not a fan
by Morgan on Wed 26th Dec 2012 05:20 in reply to "RE: Not a fan"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Take a look at the main site as is though. Flat, rectangular buttons and the only exceptions are the "search" and "RSS" buttons with just a bare hint of a bevel. Apart from that, we have the comment box buttons which are themed by the OS/browser. Everything else is flat and fairly simple, and very text-oriented.

The new design just seems to be an evolution of that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not a fan
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 26th Dec 2012 07:10 in reply to "Not a fan"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm also a little concerned about the comments section. You didn't show enough to go off there, but I'm guessing there's going to be a lot less distinction between individual comments than there is now, which might make it harder to follow.


Great that you picked up on this - this is a feature, not a bug ;) . I've often noticed that some people tend to focus on who posted a comment, instead of the actual content of a comment. As such, I wanted to make it less clear WHO posted a comment, so that the CONTENT of a comment gains prominence.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not a fan
by WereCatf on Wed 26th Dec 2012 07:43 in reply to "RE: Not a fan"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"I'm also a little concerned about the comments section. You didn't show enough to go off there, but I'm guessing there's going to be a lot less distinction between individual comments than there is now, which might make it harder to follow.


Great that you picked up on this - this is a feature, not a bug ;) . I've often noticed that some people tend to focus on who posted a comment, instead of the actual content of a comment. As such, I wanted to make it less clear WHO posted a comment, so that the CONTENT of a comment gains prominence.
"

People have differing tastes. I personally would call this a mis-feature as I find the availability of graphical avatars making it much quicker for the eye to latch on and discern where one comment starts and another ends and whose comments I'd like to view first. It's one of the things I hate about e.g. Slashdot: I know several people who tend to make insightful, read-worthy comments, but without such a quick way of finding those aforementioned comments I have to trudge through them all in the hopes of finding those gems. It totally discourages me from participating and results in me skipping 99% of all the comments.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Not a fan
by Moochman on Wed 26th Dec 2012 14:22 in reply to "RE: Not a fan"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

"I'm also a little concerned about the comments section. You didn't show enough to go off there, but I'm guessing there's going to be a lot less distinction between individual comments than there is now, which might make it harder to follow.


Great that you picked up on this - this is a feature, not a bug ;) . I've often noticed that some people tend to focus on who posted a comment, instead of the actual content of a comment. As such, I wanted to make it less clear WHO posted a comment, so that the CONTENT of a comment gains prominence.
"

I love the fact that people's names and identities are tied to their comments. It makes it feel like a conversation with real people, rather than an anonymous horde. I second the thought that this is a "mis"-feature.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Not a fan
by Drumhellar on Wed 26th Dec 2012 19:05 in reply to "RE: Not a fan"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Distinction between individual comments is preferable, and the origin of the comment should be easily identifiable. I mean, lets face it: Not all comments are equal. While I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that there are those who always post garbage comments I'd want to skip, there are those that frequently post insightful, well-informed comments, and it would be nice if it were easier to pick their comments out. Heck, being able to color-code the people you pick as one of your favorites would be useful.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not a fan
by cfgr on Thu 27th Dec 2012 01:35 in reply to "RE: Not a fan"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Great that you picked up on this - this is a feature, not a bug ;) . I've often noticed that some people tend to focus on who posted a comment, instead of the actual content of a comment. As such, I wanted to make it less clear WHO posted a comment, so that the CONTENT of a comment gains prominence.


On the other hand, I use the name as a filter to decide if a comment is worth my time or not. When I read two annoying comments from some hyperactive fanboy who's arguing for the sake of arguing despite overwhelming evidence, then his next posts in that discussion are likely to be annoying as well - and usually they start dominating the whole comment section which ruins other discussions.

It might be an interesting experiment to fold all of someone's posts in a topic when that person has two down-voted posts in that same topic (or perhaps even for x posts with score 1 where x > 10, which means he's spamming the place with non-upvoted comments). Other topics would be unaffected.

Edited 2012-12-27 01:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Not a fan
by Moochman on Wed 26th Dec 2012 14:26 in reply to "Not a fan"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06


Second, I'm not a fan of the gray background. A quick flood fill of it with pure white in an image editor makes it look a lot nicer me. The text also feels easier to read that way. I'm guessing that may be a side effect of Mac font rendering. I like the black version better than the gray, but not as much as pure white.


This was the first thing that jumped out at me too. White is nice, gray off-white is blech, reduces contrast and makes me feel like I'm reading Daring Fireball -- which IMHO is *not* a great association.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not a fan
by Chrispynutt on Thu 27th Dec 2012 22:15 in reply to "Not a fan"
Chrispynutt Member since:
2012-03-14

I regrettably have to agree. If it wasn't for the acid green I would have guessed it was a generic wordpress theme.

In recent years it has been plain I am not on the same page as Thom (and others) for design.

Oh well I wish you well.

The whole content is king look works if you have visual content. A wall of text tends to make it look as inviting as a EULA screen.

Man I hate being the hater, but its just how I feel.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not a fan
by drstorm on Thu 27th Dec 2012 23:25 in reply to "Not a fan"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

I agree wholeheartedly.

This seems like a step back, but that's how I feel about all other metro-ish interfaces out there. It just feels like we cannot display any images because it's '99 and people are using 56K modems.

If you must keep "text oriented" - wall of text design, at least drop the gray background. Please, pretty please!


FTR, I dislike skeuomorphism more, but there is a world in between a paper rendered hanging on a fake wood door, and ASCII art. BTW, ASCII art would be way more cool. ;)

Edited 2012-12-27 23:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2