560190 Thu Sep 25 10:51:41 -0700 2008 543 40 Technical Help 0 4061057 If you've got feedback on the new look for CHOW and Chowhound, or you run into any technical glitches, please let us know here. Thu Sep 25 10:51:41 -0700 2008 227280 CHOW HQ 1 4061073 Very nice and clean UI. We'll see about performance, etc. Any way to set preferences for text size and background color like before? It's quite small text in my Firefox browser at the moment. (Or I'm getting old.) Thu Sep 25 10:55:55 -0700 2008 4061057 10232 yumyum 2 4061457 Using Firefox on a PC, hold the Control ([Ctrl]) key while hitting the plus (+) key. The text will get bigger. Thu Sep 25 12:47:57 -0700 2008 4061073 58743 alanbarnes 3 4061722 Able to make print larger on other search engines also with the Ctrl + keystrokes. And, Ctrl dash (key to the left of +) to make it smaller, right? Thu Sep 25 14:02:03 -0700 2008 4061457 29103 kc girl 4 4061740 Yep. Thu Sep 25 14:06:33 -0700 2008 4061722 58743 alanbarnes 4 4063518 Anyone know how to make the text larger in Internet Explorer? I can barely read the posts now. Fri Sep 26 08:47:00 -0700 2008 4061722 177481 GSM 5 4063964 Toolbar at top, go to View pull-down menu, then to Text Size. Fri Sep 26 11:32:40 -0700 2008 4063518 18222 maria lorraine 6 4064037 Whoa Baby. Awesome. Does two things, makes it larger and moves the crap on the right side further outside the viewing area. Fri Sep 26 12:01:52 -0700 2008 4063964 11290 jfood 7 4064179 Doesn't work for me-- moves everything to the right but text size remains the same. Odd. Fri Sep 26 12:53:23 -0700 2008 4064037 177481 GSM 8 4065384 Ditto for me. This just does not work for me. What is different for other people? I am using IE7 on a Windows XP operating system. There is only one page where this works. http://chowhound.chow.com/boards However on every board other board, all that increases font-wise is the titles and headers. It screws up the screen in terms of photos. I need to use the larger size text because I need that on other sites. So at best I'm just ignoring the screwed up formats. The small type, not so much. I can only read the board for a limited amount of time. Sat Sep 27 01:28:25 -0700 2008 4064179 10264 rworange 6 4064814 Wow! HUGE difference. I can almost read it from across the room! Thanks, ML Fri Sep 26 17:26:15 -0700 2008 4063964 57170 Veggo 5 4064247 Not sure if it a function of the video card and software or my Microsoft Digital Media Pro keyboard, but it has a slider where I can zoom the window. I can also do it with the wheel on my mouse if I hold down ctl and alt Fri Sep 26 13:19:03 -0700 2008 4063518 137946 Scargod 3 4061750 Thanks. I don't want a workaround that I'll have to adjust every time I come here. I find the "body text" to be readable, but the index pages (board pages) text is really teeny tiny. I have a headache from browsing for 20 minutes. Typical user behavior is to spend as much time browsing the index as we do in the "meat" of the posts. Thu Sep 25 14:09:32 -0700 2008 4061457 10232 yumyum 4 4061797 yumyum. We are fixing that boards text... Thu Sep 25 14:21:15 -0700 2008 4061750 227083 Design_Team 5 4063857 yep. i know you guys are on it. thanks! Fri Sep 26 10:52:19 -0700 2008 4061797 10232 yumyum 3 4061754 And it didn't screw up the page formatting. Thanks Alan. Thu Sep 25 14:10:38 -0700 2008 4061457 93805 hannaone 4 4062746 That's the point about Firefox control- and command-+. It enlarges graphics, photos, and text together. Thu Sep 25 22:14:36 -0700 2008 4061754 77350 sbritchky 5 4064495 I love the new firefox I wish every browser would adopt this new feature, it is outstanding Fri Sep 26 15:11:24 -0700 2008 4062746 227083 Design_Team 3 4061808 Also, Firefox allows you to set a minimum font size (Tools / Options / Fonts & Colors / Advanced / Minimum Font Size). Everything smaller than your selected font (10 point, 12 point, whatever's legible on your monitor) is bumped up to legibility. Thu Sep 25 14:24:47 -0700 2008 4061457 58743 alanbarnes 4 4062334 So does IE.... Click on Page on the tool bar then select the size font you want. Thu Sep 25 17:57:31 -0700 2008 4061808 75332 Gio 5 4062640 It no longer works in IE for Chowhound. Thu Sep 25 20:47:32 -0700 2008 4062334 10264 rworange 6 4065440 Toolbar at Top, Page pull-down menu to Text Size. If the font is sized in pixels, then the Text Size tool won't work. Instead, use the Page zoom: http://rhftech.com/hd/ie7-zoom-text.html Sat Sep 27 03:43:55 -0700 2008 4062640 18222 maria lorraine 2 4062481 I found the red/maroon relaxing, now it just looks like any 'other' website. But things are working better along with the visual changes. Thu Sep 25 19:14:58 -0700 2008 4061073 14341 OCEllen 3 4063043 >I found the red/maroon relaxing, now it just looks like any 'other' website > i agree. i hate the "whitewash". it makes things look more cluttered to me. Fri Sep 26 05:50:36 -0700 2008 4062481 16770 psb 4 4063146 agree 100% Fri Sep 26 06:39:22 -0700 2008 4063043 105717 alkapal 4 4063324 I agree as well. More cluttered and harder on the eyes. Fri Sep 26 07:44:23 -0700 2008 4063043 79108 basileater 4 4063411 Reminds me of a web newspaper page. I feel like I should skim the article and click "Close." Fri Sep 26 08:12:25 -0700 2008 4063043 112096 Caroline1 4 4064654 Me too me too... My eyes are actually hurt by all the whiteness on the page. I thought the maroon look was really welcoming. Now it looks like we haven't got a decent designing bone in our body... I liked when they had two color options and if you didn't like the red, you could opt for the other color (what was it -- ecru or something?). My $.02. Fri Sep 26 16:05:54 -0700 2008 4063043 217919 plumtomato 4 4064752 one one other thing: when there was a lot of uniqly colored RED on the page, i could easily tell which was my CH firefox frame even if only a small part of the frame was visible and the rest occluded by other windows. now it s a little harder to tell from a random visible square inch. [i thought of that reflecting on the "now it looks like every other WEEBsite" ... i was wonder why that mattered ... and this is one reason that matters to me.] OK TNX. Fri Sep 26 16:57:48 -0700 2008 4063043 16770 psb 3 4065690 I agree 100% too-- my first thought when I saw the new design was "ow, my eyes..." Not sure why all the white space seems so glaring (I'm ok with newspaper sites, in general), it just does... Might have something to do with the ratio of text/background in a typical CH post vs. newspaper articles. Sat Sep 27 08:19:46 -0700 2008 4062481 49653 another_adam 4 4065844 I didn't know there was a new design coming and when I saw the white I thought there must be an error or something. Or maybe Chowhound had been hacked and taken over by someone with a less sophisticated design sense. Yeah the red was waaayyyy better. This reminds me of the old chowhound that seemed to pay no attention to design at all..The only good thing I can think of is that it might be easier for people who work in an office or something to surf CH undetected.. Sat Sep 27 09:40:14 -0700 2008 4065690 71299 cherrylime 5 4066693 I too thought the page did not load correctly. The white is not pleasant on the eyes. Sat Sep 27 18:13:35 -0700 2008 4065844 135131 fooodie 6 4066832 I agree. I find the white harsh and glaring. I find it hurts to look at it for even a few minutes. I liked the beige/maroon options -- I always went for the beige. I also think the pages somehow look busier -- maybe it's because the areas with text aren't embedded in that soothing beige background...I agree that this is like the pre-CNET Chowhound. I'm curious about the rationale for the change. If it wasn't broken, why fix it? After the CNET purchase, there were a lot of problems initially when the only choice was the maroon background, and y'all added the beige option. I gather some people do like this version, though many seem to prefer the previous version. Would it be possible to have background color options as we did before? Or some simple way to permanently reduce the glare? Jim Leff has suggested some workarounds, but I'd rather not have to readjust a whole bunch of things every time I want to check out Chowhound! Thanks. Sat Sep 27 19:57:22 -0700 2008 4066693 67227 emmy 7 4068435 I am very much with emmy on this. Background options? Please? Pretty please with a cherry on top? Sun Sep 28 17:34:46 -0700 2008 4066832 217919 plumtomato 7 4068991 What she said (and me...) http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/560190#4068163 Mr Taster Mon Sep 29 00:28:58 -0700 2008 4066832 17579 Mr Taster 7 4069707 I'm in complete agreement too. The white is just too harsh. Black letters on a white background make the words disappear as the pupil dilates to receive the light from the white. Mon Sep 29 09:16:21 -0700 2008 4066832 10120 Lauren 8 4079316 Any solution to the whitewash yet? I want my red background back! :) Fri Oct 03 09:01:55 -0700 2008 4069707 115383 Blind Mind 9 4079355 A certain Rolling Stones song comes to mind....... Fri Oct 03 09:12:20 -0700 2008 4079316 131118 Xiao Yang 10 4080000 ....and I'm guessin' it ain't "Let It Bleed" that you're referencing but it should be. As in, bring back the crimson & creme color scheme aka if it ain't broke don't fix it. Harp Fri Oct 03 13:26:28 -0700 2008 4079355 45436 Harp00n 10 4081959 Maybe "Can Ya Hear Me Knockin" since so many people are knockin on the door for a red background? Sat Oct 04 14:59:10 -0700 2008 4079355 115383 Blind Mind 1 4061103 It looks good thanks! But, you are missing the links to the Boards in Canada - the heading is there, but no Boards (ie Western Canada). Thu Sep 25 11:05:36 -0700 2008 4061057 83022 MrsCris 1 4061118 OMG! I couldn't resist an abbreviation! My first impression is great! Easier on the eyes. Larger. Seems a little faster? I just hope it isn't LIPSTICK ON A PIG! Not that CH was totally pig.... I hope that CH has fixed bugs, made it more stable and responsive IN ADDITION to the 'new look". IS CH technical support, or anyone, going to tell us what's up with the changes? Do we just have to guess? Is it a secret? A surprise? I am pleasantly surprised. Thu Sep 25 11:08:42 -0700 2008 4061057 137946 Scargod 2 4061164 Scargod, We are still working on site wide improvements. This project took the resources mainly from our design department. Our technical team is working hard on site stability and we will continue to improve the performance of the site. Thu Sep 25 11:20:16 -0700 2008 4061118 227083 Design_Team 3 4063368 Just getting my first look. I'm sure I'll get used to the white, although I did like the distinctiveness of the red. But the font size is really a problem. I'm using IE7. When I use the "Page" function to enlarge, it does not enlarge the font size of the message itself, only the headline and other peripheral fonts. And when I enlarge using CTRL+, I'm getting an overlap of some of the words in the thread messages which won't go away unless I reduce back down to 100%, which frankly I can hardly read, even with my reading glasses on. And honestly, my eyes aren't that bad. Also, when I enlarge, the text all shifts out of the boxes. It does come back eventually, but I won't be browsing if I have to constantly refresh, wait for the text to shift into place, or reduce to 100% when there's an overlap. I seem to be in the minority, in that I rarely had loading problems, and so far that's still holding true. I know a redesign takes a lot of work. I hope you can take this feedback and find some fixes. Thanks. Fri Sep 26 07:59:04 -0700 2008 4061164 66030 lisavf 1 4061120 Smaller typeface + all that glaring white = Much harder to read. Times Romanish typeface = Too newspaperish. Grey, black, white and red colour scheme = Hard on the eyes, bland to a fault, boring. Overall first impression: Ugly. Suggestions: 1. Provide alternate skins as used to be the case. 2. Provide a font size setting. (Please don't tell us to increase the font size via our browsers. We'd have to reset it each time we visit and leave the site, since nearly every other site gets this right.) 3. Hyperlinks are invisible unless you mouse over them. Very user-unfriendly, a triumph of form over content, looks over usability. Please underline, bold, grey out or colourize them. Glitch: You've left all the Canadian boards off the Chowhound board listing at the top of the page. I know we're invisible to most Americans, but really... Thu Sep 25 11:09:08 -0700 2008 4061057 10520 carswell 2 4061148 What carswell said. All this white is hurting my eyes. Thu Sep 25 11:14:17 -0700 2008 4061120 18488 SnackHappy 3 4061427 It's not white. It is shades of gray. Perhaps you monitor brightness could be turned down? Thu Sep 25 12:35:41 -0700 2008 4061148 137946 Scargod 4 4061431 The background that you see in the posts and in the column for the posts doesn't show as stark white for you? Thu Sep 25 12:36:52 -0700 2008 4061427 10985 MMRuth 5 4061433 Very light gray diagonal lines for the page background, solid white in the post boxes bordered by very light gray.. Thu Sep 25 12:38:12 -0700 2008 4061431 93805 hannaone 6 4061450 Thanks - that's what I'm seeing too. It's a bit of an adjustment as I used the maroon background before. Thu Sep 25 12:44:26 -0700 2008 4061433 10985 MMRuth 5 4061555 It may be white. I was thinking it was a little off-white. I have two very expensive, color-corrected monitors because I do a lot of Photoshop work. I don't see it as harsh or stark. I didn't like the harsh contrast of maroon in the old layout. This is more reminiscent of working on a neutral gray background, like in Photoshop. Sounds like, for a lot of folks there is too much of it that is white. I like the contrast with the text but don't care about the large expanses of white in other areas. For one website I used a slight blue tint that is soothing to view. You pretty much can't tell it's off-white. Thu Sep 25 13:12:10 -0700 2008 4061431 137946 Scargod 4 4061458 On my high-end CRT monitor, the background is stark white. Haven't yet pulled out my portable to see how it looks on an LCD screen. "Perhaps you monitor brightness could be turned down?" Why should I be forced to turn down the brightness each time I come to this site when it's just fine for every other site I frequent and was just fine for the old-look Chowhound? Also, turning down the brightness also turns down the contrast, making the text harder to read. It's a loose-loose situation. Thu Sep 25 12:48:10 -0700 2008 4061427 10520 carswell 4 4062700 shades of gray? hardly hardly hardly. Thu Sep 25 21:29:43 -0700 2008 4061427 12656 bigjeff 2 4061173 carswell, I want to clarify that the body fonts have not changed. The headline fonts have been decreased slightly in board region threads only. We have intentions of including font size setting in a later update. We are also aware of the hyperlink inconsistencies and will be addressing them as we work through bugs. Thu Sep 25 11:23:10 -0700 2008 4061120 227083 Design_Team 3 4061207 The font used in the quote paragraphs is just too small to read. But otherwise, I think that the readability has improved overall - the white is definitely better, the separations, whether with or without lines, much cleaner. Thu Sep 25 11:34:50 -0700 2008 4061173 10312 applehome 3 4061213 Not having captured a screenshot of the old-look pages, I can't do a side-by-side comparison. The thread listing font, the user names identifying collapsed posts, etc. seem smaller. Body font, well, if you say so, but it's still harder to read, less contrasty: to read this text without excessive eyestrain, I have to sit about six inches closer to the screen than I do for any other site I frequent (and I frequent lots of sites) or than I did for the old-look site. Whether that's due to changes in font size, font colour, background colour, glare from the rest of the page, etc., you're in a better position than me to say. But my bottom line is that, much like the last round of changes with its eyesore maroon theme, this redesign has made Chowhound less welcoming. Edit: Viewing the thread listing is positively, painfully squint-inducing. What is that font -- 4-point Condensed Myopic? If something isn't done about that and quick... Thu Sep 25 11:37:02 -0700 2008 4061173 10520 carswell 4 4061270 http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:K0ZcoVXj-BAJ:chowhound.chow.com/topics/555769+brunello+culver+city&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us Thu Sep 25 11:52:34 -0700 2008 4061213 108169 Servorg 4 4061275 We are fixing the font size on the thread listing asap. That font has dropped to a spec that was not intended and I totally agree it's way to small. I share your concerns on readability and yes there are many factors that play into it on the web. Some people on these threads (I'm in this group but open to other points of view) are finding it easier to read...I'm closely monitoring all these comments and we will take them into consideration while working on improvements. Thu Sep 25 11:53:10 -0700 2008 4061213 227083 Design_Team 5 4061291 I really think that the lack of contrast is what makes the font appear smaller than before. That and quite a few users may have their browsers set to an enlarged font which no longer works with the text in post bodies. Thu Sep 25 11:57:21 -0700 2008 4061275 93805 hannaone 3 4061460 This is way too bright! It's also really cold seeming and the fonts are TEENY for the Boards and my eyesight is good. Why couldn't you leave well enough alone, in terms of design? Speed is good, so i wouldn't complain about that. But I weathered the change from the old format to the first new CNET change and I liked what you did back then. Why the sudden change and why is it so cold?? Thu Sep 25 12:48:27 -0700 2008 4061173 16421 brownie 2 4061280 Totally right! I am blinded by the white look and the font size is difficult ( even with glasses) Very bad decisions on the changes!! Hope for changes soon or will give up on Chowhound. Also not easy to log on to "hot post" as was previously. Thu Sep 25 11:54:33 -0700 2008 4061120 10678 marti 2 4061768 The white background is really too bright. Maybe use a darker shade of grey to keep the light grey outline of the posts? Thu Sep 25 14:13:58 -0700 2008 4061120 29746 sharonj 2 4063840 What carswell said (again), but was mainly adding to this post regarding the hyperlinks -I just noticed that there's no way to know if they're real unless you mouse over. There's no underline, no different color on the hyperlink. All three of carswell's suggestions are positive adds/fixes. Still don't get why the cream-colored background was taken away - the maroon red? No problem losing that - that was SO jarring to attempt to read, as is this white background. Fri Sep 26 10:45:30 -0700 2008 4061120 10532 LindaWhit 3 4063968 Here's the FAQ, http://chowhound.chow.com/redesign-faq (found it on "special coverage" menu at the top of this page) Fri Sep 26 11:35:11 -0700 2008 4063840 10039 Melanie Wong 4 4064642 This is definitely a good place for some general answers, Melanie - thanks! Fri Sep 26 16:02:58 -0700 2008 4063968 10532 LindaWhit 3 4064501 Linda, We lost much of our link styling and are trying to get it done in our "bug" list. What you are seeing is not intentional and we will get the links working properly soon. Fri Sep 26 15:13:35 -0700 2008 4063840 227083 Design_Team 4 4064635 Cool beans, Design Team. Thanks so much for the response! Fri Sep 26 16:01:18 -0700 2008 4064501 10532 LindaWhit 1 4061139 I much prefer the old design. The colors, the fonts, the layout was better previously. The white/gray is not as easy on the eyes (mine at least). Darker colors are easier to look at. Plus just about every other message board out there has a white/gray scheme. This might grow on me. But I would prefer to be able to change the colors at least in my settings. Thu Sep 25 11:12:52 -0700 2008 4061057 106932 Agent Orange 1 4061140 The font's too small. Thu Sep 25 11:13:02 -0700 2008 4061057 23415 pescatarian 1 4061152 The edit buttons are missing in Places, are at least this one - http://www.chow.com/places/37625 Thu Sep 25 11:15:03 -0700 2008 4061057 98493 JamieK 2 4061172 Hrmm. I'm seeing them -- can you check some other places and let me know if they're missing all over, or just some? Thu Sep 25 11:23:01 -0700 2008 4061152 10021 Jacquilynne 3 4061181 No, I'm not seeing the edit buttons on the places I've checked either. Thu Sep 25 11:26:08 -0700 2008 4061172 98493 JamieK 3 4061239 Safari/OSX: No buttons. Firefox/OSX: when not logged in, there is a "login to edit" button. When you click it to log in, and finish logging in, you are brought to the main chow page rather than back to the paces page. When you eventually navigate back to the places page, there are no edit buttons. Thu Sep 25 11:43:06 -0700 2008 4061172 25310 Chuckles the Clone 3 4061864 Still not seeing the edit buttons on Places in IE now on my home computer (previous was at work). However, they are there in Firefox. Thu Sep 25 14:41:38 -0700 2008 4061172 98493 JamieK 3 4062913 Jacquilynne, I believe you and the Design Team are trying to do the right thing by asking for input and asking for people to report problems or anomalies. I also think you are not just slapping a coat of paint on a junker or putting lipstick on it for less than honorable reasons. With Safari, Explorer, Firefox and now, Chrome (which I like, but has some compatibility bugs...), and different editions of same, I think it is rather important that people say what they are using, i.e., "IE 6". Until then you have a hodgepodge of information which is somewhat meaningless unless the Design Team says, "ah-ha, it's only doing that on Firefox!". Since this went up in a hurry, for some reason (?-I think that's what Design has said), and went up without de-bugging cross-platforms, I wonder whether this feedback will do them much good-or be researched-without knowing what browser the person is using. My 2 cents. I don't know all the facts, for sure. BTW, I am using Chrome Beta and wide format 24" CRT monitors and Chow occupies more space on my screen. Looks like you re-sized it for 1024 x 768. I have not gone looking for problems, but I haven't seen anything that jumps out at me. I would suggest that Chowhounders be allowed to choose from several color schemes! Many forums do... Fri Sep 26 03:31:24 -0700 2008 4061172 137946 Scargod 4 4064511 We are listening Scargod, I keep dropping out from time to time because we are a pretty small (and dedicated) crew here and I've been working on fixes as much as possible from the design end of things. We are on it, please have patience with us through this as it's going to take a little time to get all the fixes in place. Thanks for the continued great feedback all of you. Fri Sep 26 15:17:02 -0700 2008 4062913 227083 Design_Team 4 4064770 For the record, this didn't go 'up in a hurry' and was tested across multiple browsers and platforms. Our Technical Producers use MacOSX FireFox and Safari for their primary coding tests, with lots of PC, and IE testing. The Safari/OSX issues that many people are seeing aren't issues or problems we saw in months of development and testing. We're gathering reports of those bugs and will continue to tackle them. Fri Sep 26 17:06:21 -0700 2008 4062913 227280 CHOW HQ 5 4071213 but it's not just about bug fixing it's about design (right design team?) and maybe even aesthetics. It seems as thought you're responding to the feedback as though it's all about bug fixes. It is obvious that there is an overall negative response to the new" look" aside from the usability issues. I understand it's a tall order; chowhounds want things to be practical, usable and aesthetic. The new look doesn't address any of the 3. If the change has anything to do with making advertisers more prominent ...i don't even know what to say. Mon Sep 29 20:00:58 -0700 2008 4064770 71299 cherrylime 5 4074275 I've found the page to load very slowly. Also, I am unable to use the site on my iPhone. Can't seem to get the search button to work at all and the rest of the site is frustrating to use now. The old page worked fine, so I dont think it's a bug with the phone. Wed Oct 01 08:47:41 -0700 2008 4064770 135131 fooodie 2 4061206 The edit buttons are showing fine in FF3/winXPSP3 Thu Sep 25 11:33:57 -0700 2008 4061152 93805 hannaone 1 4061166 Hey, great! When I hover over people's profiles their avatar images pop up. That didn't work for me before in IE, only Mozilla. Thanks! I also like the Most Popular Board post box at the bottom right when you're on your own profile page. Thu Sep 25 11:21:22 -0700 2008 4061057 98493 JamieK 2 4062342 Getting the dreaded Red X for your Avatar.... wonder why. Did you move it from the site where it was loaded? Thu Sep 25 18:01:14 -0700 2008 4061166 75332 Gio 3 4062600 Oh lord, don't know. I don't even remember where I got it from. I don't see the red x. I see a glass of red wine. If there's a problem, hope someone can help and tell me how to fix it. Thanks. Thu Sep 25 20:19:20 -0700 2008 4062342 98493 JamieK 4 4062621 It was a glass of wine earlier today. Now it's the default guy. If you have something to upload, move your mouse over the disturbingly spring-loaded "My Chow" in the menubar near the top of any page. When the dropdown menu springs into view, click on "settings". On the right side of that page, under the "search" panel (which is infinitely convenient in this location because after all, what else could you possibly be wanting to do on the settings page but search chow.com :) ) you'll find a button labeled "upload avatar". Click it. Follow instructions. Thu Sep 25 20:32:08 -0700 2008 4062600 25310 Chuckles the Clone 5 4062674 The avater upload button -- along with the search bar -- are on every page of your my chow profile, they aren't specific to settings. Thu Sep 25 21:08:48 -0700 2008 4062621 10021 Jacquilynne 6 4062696 Ah yes. It's hard to tell for me because that side of the page is all mangled and dropped down below the left-column content. I'm not doing anything different here; is this -really- not being seen by anyone else? Thu Sep 25 21:27:49 -0700 2008 4062674 25310 Chuckles the Clone 7 4062767 I'm viewing on mac osx 10.4.11 safari 3.1.2 on a desk machine and the right side column doesn't drop to the bottom when i enlarge the text. HOwever, the window didn't enlarge, so i lost the margins and text on both sides. Thu Sep 25 22:35:40 -0700 2008 4062696 10039 Melanie Wong 8 4062781 10.5.5 here and I'm not enlarging the text. Default everything. Plus I've turned off privoxy so I'm not blocking anything that might be essential. Works ok in firefox for me. Thu Sep 25 22:57:09 -0700 2008 4062767 25310 Chuckles the Clone 8 4062797 Here's a screenshot of the bottom-of-content/top-of-right-column discontinuity on my profile page. Perhaps I am smoking crack. But I'm not going to come right out and admit that in a public forum ... Thu Sep 25 23:15:37 -0700 2008 4062767 25310 Chuckles the Clone 9 4062799 I mean, -here's- the screenshot. Damn crackpipe fell on the "enter" key again. Thu Sep 25 23:17:08 -0700 2008 4062797 25310 Chuckles the Clone 10 4063794 @CTC - are you using IE, what OS? We were seeing the dropping sidebar before, but fixed it. Unless we missed your browser type. Details? Fri Sep 26 10:26:47 -0700 2008 4062799 10038 5 and Dime Eater 11 4064032 Safari. Version 3.1.2 (5525.20.1) OSX 10.5.5 This is happening with both the released version as well as the nightly webkit. The problem began within an hour of my report on the beta board (8:41pm on the 23rd), so in whatever release happened around that time. It did not occur before then. It does not happen with firefox. It happens with any browser window width, from pretty narrow to full-screen. I use privoxy for ad blocking but the problem happens both with and without privoxy enabled. Fri Sep 26 11:59:24 -0700 2008 4063794 25310 Chuckles the Clone 12 4064641 Here's something new: If I use the safari Command-+ to make the text bigger, the right column pops back up into place. But it pops back down when I command-0 (which is "make text normal size", undoing manual size changes). Additionally, the last time I tried the command+ thing during the beta it screwed up the general page layout. But now, it is all fine. Command+ seems to be a perfectly serviceable workaround for the tiny text problem at least for Safari users at this point. Since it only increases the size of text in the single window it's done in, it doesn't screw up any other pages a user may have open, either. Fri Sep 26 16:02:57 -0700 2008 4064032 25310 Chuckles the Clone 9 4062921 Kinda feel like I'm on something (besides caffeine), the way the page flies around when I click a "re: chowhound x". I think one of us needs an exorcism. Also, don't know if it's 'cause I'm on drugs, or not, but when I try and type this, the cursor has a mind of its own.... (but it's been doin' that for a while). Fri Sep 26 03:41:10 -0700 2008 4062797 137946 Scargod 1 4061180 Too much white - tad hard on the eyes. Like 'Recent posts' but would prefer to select only the Boards I'm interested in. Right now I have to use an extra click (v the previous version) to move from Board to Board that I track. Thu Sep 25 11:25:44 -0700 2008 4061057 155034 alwayscooking 1 4061198 chowhound looks fine, but chow.com is messed up--lots of blank white space. i tried it in both ie and firefox (on a pc)--same in both. also agree with all of the comments about the font size--too small to see. Thu Sep 25 11:31:36 -0700 2008 4061057 27586 shivani 1 4061202 I concur on the "too much white". It's a bit painful to read, all this glaring white. Other than that, I don't think the changes are so drastic, it's pretty much the same as before except that depressing burgundy color is gone. I would have preferred the light gray as the background color, and used the white where the gray is right now (in effect, a negative template). Also, I agree that the hyperlinks should be made more visible, it's disconcerting to have to look for them. Aside from that...I've seen site redesigns that were far, far worse. Thu Sep 25 11:32:47 -0700 2008 4061057 19949 bad nono 1 4061208 Reply just now finally worked. For the last 15 minutes I've been struggling to get it to work. Kept getting an error message after the spinning circle stopped. Also, everything sure is slower. I was certainly hoping that would be addressed with this change. And, can you please add an "how-to" increase font sizes for each browser folks might be using (e.g. IE, Safari, Firefox, etc.) in the New Look FAQ. I don't think that you should assume that everyone who you want to use Chowhound is necessarily that tech savvy. You really have to address the speed and the font size asap. Edit: now everything is larger again. What the heck is happening? Thu Sep 25 11:34:55 -0700 2008 4061057 14160 Carole 2 4061260 Waaay too white. Really hard to read. I didn't think the old burgundy was depressing. I thought it was an elegant color. Obviously just a color preference, but the white is just too, too much. Thu Sep 25 11:48:45 -0700 2008 4061208 96172 Mothership 2 4061506 Agreed. The slow speed (after how many weeks?) is utterly ridiculous and, frankly, unacceptable. Edit: After posting this, I was shot up to the top of the thread for no reason. That's new. Thu Sep 25 13:01:05 -0700 2008 4061208 92744 invinotheresverde 3 4061745 The shot to the top has been going on for me for weeks. It's annoying, but less so than so many of the other glitches here... Thu Sep 25 14:08:12 -0700 2008 4061506 58743 alanbarnes 1 4061247 I like the new look. The old red was really garish, in my opinion. Now just get the performance to match the pared-down GUI, and it will be golden! Having configurable cookies for the appearance is a good idea, but you will really need to be careful on that one I think. User options can get unwieldy depending on how many people you decide to listen to. Thu Sep 25 11:45:40 -0700 2008 4061057 123543 Pincus 2 4061255 "The old red was really garish" Agreed. But the old "oatmeal" scheme was warm and eye-friendly. Did you try it? Thu Sep 25 11:47:41 -0700 2008 4061247 10520 carswell 3 4061262 I liked Oatmeal too... that was my preference before. Hope they restore that at some point. Thu Sep 25 11:49:29 -0700 2008 4061255 10232 yumyum 4 4061273 There was an oatmeal colour scheme? Heck, I would have changed over on day 2 of discovering this site if I'd known there was another colour scheme. Thu Sep 25 11:53:00 -0700 2008 4061262 123543 Pincus 5 4061755 It was really nice. We can only hope they bring it back. Thu Sep 25 14:10:46 -0700 2008 4061273 10232 yumyum 5 4062626 Yes, oatmeal was great. Thu Sep 25 20:35:16 -0700 2008 4061273 23415 pescatarian 5 4063846 The Oatmeal/cream color was MUCH preferable. Another vote for going back to that....just do not bring back the garish maroon red. Lordy that's as bad as the white background. Fri Sep 26 10:48:58 -0700 2008 4061273 10532 LindaWhit 3 4067486 I had it set to the 'oatmeal' color scheme which I thought was relaxing to the eyes. All this white is giving me eye strain and I am reading much, much less before I have to leave the site. I have my monitor set with a moderate intensity, so it isn't that my monitor is too bright. Sun Sep 28 09:08:12 -0700 2008 4061255 10732 JMF 4 4068163 If you recall, in addition to the maroon and oatmeal, there was a while color scheme which was removed several months ago. I find it curious that the white scheme was brought back, with oatmeal and maroon eliminated entirely! Mr Taster Sun Sep 28 14:54:45 -0700 2008 4067486 17579 Mr Taster 2 4061484 Another vote against going back to "gawdawful red." Thu Sep 25 12:55:12 -0700 2008 4061247 65531 lgphil 3 4062702 the red at least was a warm, food-related appetizing color. don't make the mistake of epicurious.com with its greengreengreen. skins and themes are easy enough to program; it's just simple CSS. Thu Sep 25 21:31:14 -0700 2008 4061484 12656 bigjeff 2 4061807 Found the old red was too conspicuous at work when I was trying to be sneaky, I mean discreet! Thu Sep 25 14:24:31 -0700 2008 4061247 98493 JamieK 1 4061249 Safari/OSX: The layout of the right column is badly broken. It is pushed down so that the top of the right column is just below the bottom of the left. On the one hand, this is nice because it sortof hides all the non chowhound content. On the other hand, this is bad because it is almost certainly not what you intended. This is happening on all pages: topics, board listings, places, etc. Thu Sep 25 11:45:47 -0700 2008 4061057 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4061293 Agree with this (I'm using IE7). And the video for "how to season a wok" is overlapping other things - looks like spacing on different articles, etc. isn't correct. Thu Sep 25 11:57:49 -0700 2008 4061249 224701 scout1222 3 4061415 We are having lots of issues with the spacing on stories and articles. Those fixes are being prioritized last in the list behind the Chowhound board related fixes. Thu Sep 25 12:31:51 -0700 2008 4061293 227083 Design_Team 2 4061330 I'm using Safari 3.0.4 and am not seeing a problem with the layout of the right column. I don't think that makes me very lucky, though! Thu Sep 25 12:05:42 -0700 2008 4061249 14160 Carole 1 4061296 I liked the old one better. The color was easier on the eyes and the font was easier to read. It's just too white! It doesn't seem as appetizing in this color, if you know what I mean. It's sterile looking. Thu Sep 25 11:58:51 -0700 2008 4061057 113872 diablo 1 4061348 Now it's not remembering what posts I've already read. Also, I also strongly agree that this white gives far too much contrast. Much preferred the softer oatmeal. There definitely needs to be a way (like before) to change the background color. Edit: the not remembering already read posts problem comes and goes. Thu Sep 25 12:11:05 -0700 2008 4061057 14160 Carole 1 4061350 When I go to a person's profile I see the old avatar instead of the new one. Thu Sep 25 12:11:35 -0700 2008 4061057 10516 MplsM ary 1 4061377 - chow.com front page is a mess - different frames are all overlapping over each, looks like a collage. - aside from other gripes on typeface size, the typeface is way too small inside this here "reply" box. I can barely see this - meanwhile, the "Attach photo" and "Link to a place" and "Post My Reply" button are (relatively) gigantic, such that they are taking up almost an equal amount of screen space as this entire text box. - different skin options would be nice - clearly many people don't like the white background (I'm still on the fence). - does seem you've squeezed more content from elsewhere on the site into the right hand and bottom bar of the board pages, which I guess is a good thing, as it's done without interfering with ability to peruse the board. edited to add - why is my post double-spaced? Thu Sep 25 12:17:58 -0700 2008 4061057 35525 Frodnesor 2 4061648 Have you adjusted your font size in your browser for a larger font. For example, in IE7,the drop down for page gives the option of five text sizes from smallest to largest. If going from standard or medium text size to larger or largest, all of the problems you mention happen. In addition you lose "My Chow" on the navigation bar if you select size "larger" For size "largest" it just wraps the nav bar around. The text size is the same as before only if you used the default medium text size. Design team, earlier in the thread you mentioned "We have intentions of including font size setting in a later update" Is that what you are referring to? Also, how much later? I'll have to limit my browsing of Chowhound until the text size is readable. Thu Sep 25 13:38:14 -0700 2008 4061377 10264 rworange 3 4061704 I'm referring to a scenario you may have seen on sites where you see three or four capital letter A's in a row embedded within the sites webpages. Each one gets a bit larger and when you click on one of the letters the text gets larger. I can't say exactly how much later. We have to meet with all of those on our team and scope how much work that is to implement and then prioritize that against the other issues we have. It is something that is on our list and we had hoped to include in this rollout but were unable to due to resources. As I've mentioned previously we haven't changed the body font from the old designs. We are monitoring these comments and will be looking into any ways we can tweak the design and or font spec from here to increase readability in any way. Thu Sep 25 13:56:01 -0700 2008 4061648 227083 Design_Team 4 4061730 Yes, it is the same, but only if you selected the standard text size on your browser. All that changing my text size to 'larger' does now is increase the size of the titles while leaving the text ... the important part ... a medium size. Since I happen to know that it is possible for this tweak to be made ... it was untweaked when correcting the ads on the right side dorpping to the bottom of the page ... it might be an easy, quick fix to resolve many of the complaints about the small text. I also know for a fact that it would eliminate the issue of glare. It is squinting at that small text when you were used to being able to adjust it in the browser previously that makes it seem like a harsher glare. Thu Sep 25 14:03:34 -0700 2008 4061704 10264 rworange 3 4061715 I am always set on "smaller" for font size in IE and am generally happy with it on 80-90% of the sites I visit - it was perfectly fine for CH prior to redesign. Likewise, failure to underline or otherwise highlight links is a pain in the butt and user-unfriendly. Thu Sep 25 13:59:32 -0700 2008 4061648 35525 Frodnesor 1 4061401 Some quick thoughts from a casual user suffering no shortage of opinions: Some emphasis on content gets a little drowned out in all the white and bright, colorful ads sometimes. Giving users control over the darkness and size of default fonts would be a great touch. A high-contrast version(i.e. dark background, light text, larger fonts) might save some with vision problems a lot of trouble. Taking current styles from the video section seems like a good start for something like that. The font and spacing changes are generally a win. I love a good serif. :) The new default user icon is very classy. ;P The home page really pops, but the latest from Chowhound there feels like even more of an afterthought than before. All in all, a step in a better direction. Nice job, everyone. Thu Sep 25 12:27:26 -0700 2008 4061057 88405 loincloth 1 4061405 Generally fine so far, tho' i'm one of those challenged by the glare...too much white... suggest making the "New Look FAQ" stand out (Bright color AND ALL CAPS) so that people register it right away, esp. after reviving from the initial OH WOW reaction and then looking for an explanation. Thanks. L. Thu Sep 25 12:28:21 -0700 2008 4061057 15170 Local 1 4061419 Love love love the clean look. Don't like the blue avatar as it clashes horribly with the red prominent on the site. Really a pet peeve of mine, but otherwise, great. I hated the old colors. Thu Sep 25 12:32:54 -0700 2008 4061057 186887 toutefrite 1 4061426 Thought you'd like to see how when you "edit" recent posts, the text runs off the right side of the screen and cannot be seen. Mr Taster Thu Sep 25 12:34:59 -0700 2008 4061057 17579 Mr Taster 2 4062841 YES. Not all the text of a post shows when you click on Edit. The far right edge of the text is cut off -- you can't tell what is there and what isn't. Fri Sep 26 00:26:55 -0700 2008 4061426 18222 maria lorraine 1 4061448 Too much white. White is a marketing NONO. Bland, and uninviting to the eye. For me, it's slower, too. Thu Sep 25 12:43:58 -0700 2008 4061057 11201 Diana 2 4061473 Sorry to reiterate what I just said, above, but after reading through all these posts, my eyes really do hurt. I love CH, have been using it since 2001 and would hate to give it up now, after all the wonderful things i've learned, but if this white doesn't turn at least greyer, i really will not be able to read this anymore. It's giving me eye-ache and headache, both! Thu Sep 25 12:51:26 -0700 2008 4061448 16421 brownie 1 4061478 Way too much WHITE .. I liked the old style better. Thu Sep 25 12:53:33 -0700 2008 4061057 190360 jmil 1 4061487 I had the old version set on the red background, which I really REALLY prefer. This is... garish. I hate the white. Really hate it. In fact, I hate it so much, I may not be back until I can reset it to something else. Seriously. Also, am I just dense? Did we know this was coming? How did I miss it? Thu Sep 25 12:55:47 -0700 2008 4061057 47694 litchick 2 4061502 We did announce the coming changes about a week ago -- there were threads on each of the three site specific boards, as well as a link to a preview in the teaser in the top right corner. Thu Sep 25 12:59:45 -0700 2008 4061487 10021 Jacquilynne 1 4061493 Way too much white. And the gray tones are too light to provide any eye relief. Thu Sep 25 12:57:22 -0700 2008 4061057 13957 slacker 1 4061497 I like the gray and white. Not as cheesy as the old look and easier on the eyes. I also like the fly out menus. The fonts showing the poster's names are a little too small, and that welcome message on the home page should go away for people who are logged in -- I don't need to be told to sign up and that it's free since I'm already a member. Otherwise, nice job. I like it. Thu Sep 25 12:58:39 -0700 2008 4061057 16011 oolah 2 4061507 It's easier on your eyes? Really? It's killing me. All this white is giving me a headache. It's making my eyes hurt. Thu Sep 25 13:01:07 -0700 2008 4061497 47694 litchick 3 4061917 Really? I much prefer the white. The high contrast makes it easier to read than those hideous colors the site had before. Most reputable content sites out there have white backgrounds for text. Think the NYTimes, Slate, etc Maybe you have your screen brightness turned up too far? My main issue is the font size, which is not a disaster, but sort of annoying. Thu Sep 25 15:01:34 -0700 2008 4061507 16011 oolah 1 4061518 I know the Design Team will be looking at the feedback in terms of the white background, but wanted to offer a workaround for those of you having headaches: Turning the contrast settings down on your monitor can make a real difference. Mine has different pre-sets for 'movies', 'text', 'internet', etc and I had it set on movies, which made the white quite blinding. Switching it to 'internet', which turned the contrast down, made it much more pleasant. The same effect could be achieved by manually adjusting contrast and brightness. Thu Sep 25 13:03:20 -0700 2008 4061057 10021 Jacquilynne 2 4061549 I have mine set on internet and it still gives me a headache after awhile. Thu Sep 25 13:11:03 -0700 2008 4061518 93805 hannaone 2 4061565 I tried changing the contrast, and it helps a little. But because there is also so much gray, the whole screen starts to get washed in gray. Another note: the heading for the board, at the top of this thread ("Technical Help"): I think it would be helpful to somehow show that it is a hyperlink. For now it just looks like more gray text on the screen. Thu Sep 25 13:13:54 -0700 2008 4061518 13957 slacker 2 4061591 Or just narrow your browser window so that only the left column of the content of threads is displayed. The layout adjusts fine for that, plus you don't have to see all the crazy activity in that right-side column of adds and stuff. Thu Sep 25 13:20:01 -0700 2008 4061518 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4061652 I just linked to the cached page of the former Chowhound screen and what a HUGE difference. Immediately my eyes stopped straining. Then I came back here, and it's like staring at the sun--even with the contrast lowered, but I could only lower it so far, before the page just looks like a gray screen. Thu Sep 25 13:39:11 -0700 2008 4061518 13957 slacker 2 4061666 Jaqueline, I hope the issue of the white background is addressed. It is not an acceptable work around to have to change contrast every time looking at chowhound and change it back for all other sites on the web. Thu Sep 25 13:43:53 -0700 2008 4061518 10264 rworange 2 4062421 OMG I feel like Deer in the Headlights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am blinded. Sorry, I work on a computer all day, over many sites and come home to view a few dozen sites nightly. My contrast is set just fine thank you. Having to turn down contrast for one site...well can I say...ain't gonna happen. And it is approaching arrogance to think I need to do that for this site....I am thinking flashbacks of soup nazi. I have been a CHer for several years now and been through several of these "improvements" I mourned the loss of Oatmeal....survived the Maroon. But this is a deal breaker. i really do have a headache, now. Aleve blue is a nice color. Thu Sep 25 18:45:40 -0700 2008 4061518 61669 Quine 3 4063054 I'm not suggesting it as a permanent solution, but for those who are enduring actual headaches while they look at the site, but who want to keep using it, it might bring them some temporary relief while the design team has a chance to address the problem. Fri Sep 26 05:54:26 -0700 2008 4062421 10021 Jacquilynne 1 4061522 The smaller print is a strain on my eyes so I will need Chowhound glasses. My reading glasses don't work well because I sit farther from the screen than from a book. But I think I can find a pair at Walgreen's with a little trial and error for about $15. Thu Sep 25 13:05:04 -0700 2008 4061057 57170 Veggo 2 4062502 Pick me up a pair would you? Thanx. Thu Sep 25 19:20:58 -0700 2008 4061522 75332 Gio 3 4064804 Funny you say that, Gio. I bought two pair of titanium-framed, 1.5 reading glasses today at Walgreen's (it was a buy-one get-one free deal) for $27.99 and the little type looks like a billboard now. One pair will be my Chowhound glasses. They are so good that I can tell what the monitors did last summer.... It would be nice to have a splash of color in the field somewhere. The black and white reminds me too much of the prison newspaper. Fri Sep 26 17:20:04 -0700 2008 4062502 57170 Veggo 4 4064823 I got bifocal contacts 4 months ago so I wouldn't have to wear reading glasses, but they do absolutely nothing for this site. I'm finally to the point where I can wear them almost all day without feeling like my eyes are being rubbed with sandpaper, and now I'm back to where I started with the eye-strain headaches from this site. I will wear my progressive glasses tomorrow to see if it improves things any since they have separate reading and computer powers. The really pathetic thing about all of this is that I'm still in my early 30s and have horrible eyes. Fri Sep 26 17:32:40 -0700 2008 4064804 107671 queencru 4 4064972 Oh and of course you're going to keep both for yourself..... I too would like to see a splash of color every now and then. This white on white reminds me of a hospital. Not very much like a warm, welcoming sit down and have a bite to eat site. Fri Sep 26 18:50:14 -0700 2008 4064804 75332 Gio 2 4081943 I just accidently discovered another option that I don't think has been mentioned before: Sunglasses! I wore my PhotoGrey tinted prescription glasses inside and they cut the white background or increase the contrast just enough. Now, just get rid of the supersmall fonts that don't improve space utilization or readability. Thank you. Sat Oct 04 14:44:24 -0700 2008 4061522 23712 DiveFan 1 4061559 It's very bright, it's very VERY slow again, and I join with those (on the "take a look at the redesign" threads from earlier) who objected to "Places" being renamed "Restaurants and Bars" - on the Boston board, at least, there are plenty of places amongst our Places that are neither restaurants nor bars. Thu Sep 25 13:12:40 -0700 2008 4061057 18512 Allstonian 1 4061573 Make the hyperlinks stand out from the body text somehow. You will get way less click-through if you don't change this -- they are nearly impossible to see unless you accidentally mouse over them. I liked the old colour scheme better. It was easier on the eyes, and was more distinctive. The all-white scheme does look more modern but there are thousands of sites out there that look more or less like this. Thu Sep 25 13:15:18 -0700 2008 4061057 16363 mogo 2 4061716 The links are currently not formatted correctly and are in our list of fixes. Thu Sep 25 13:59:39 -0700 2008 4061573 227083 Design_Team 3 4070098 Thanks. Can't wait to see the final product. Mon Sep 29 11:25:26 -0700 2008 4061716 16363 mogo 1 4061596 Posting a reply causes the browser to scroll up to the top of the page rather than remaining at the location of the new post. This was a bug in the previous redesign, and has returned. Thu Sep 25 13:22:01 -0700 2008 4061057 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4062430 yeah...I just got zoomed to the top of the class after a reply. What a huge pain to have to scroll back...and previously read posts were not condensed. OUCH ouch. Thu Sep 25 18:50:27 -0700 2008 4061596 61669 Quine 3 4062446 Exactly. This is just a pain in the ass. Like having a great English sports car that is always broke. Thu Sep 25 18:56:04 -0700 2008 4062430 137946 Scargod 4 4063467 "Like having a great English sports car that is always broke." Isn't that like an oxymoron? :-0) BTW, the proverbial 2 cents, I loved the '56 Crown Vic rich red & cream (oatmeal) format and I'm "Blinded by the Light" in this latest scheme. Harp. Fri Sep 26 08:30:13 -0700 2008 4062446 45436 Harp00n 1 4061602 Chow.com front page is a huge mess. Layout is wrong in a number of ways. Here's a screenshot from about halfway down the page. Safari/OSX: Thu Sep 25 13:24:09 -0700 2008 4061057 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4061694 Perhaps CNET or Chowhound uses web design interns who are still learning? Some of this is very fundamental, like seeing that it works across platforms before you put it out to the world. Thu Sep 25 13:52:25 -0700 2008 4061602 137946 Scargod 2 4062268 Same deal for me. Please fix this. I don't want to have to load firefox every time I need a chow fix. I am using the most recent version of safari. Thu Sep 25 17:27:11 -0700 2008 4061602 100205 mortarNpestle 3 4062327 No problem for me. Also most recent version of Safari/OSX. Could it have been fixed in the past half hour? or is there another cause? Thu Sep 25 17:53:15 -0700 2008 4062268 11407 JoanN 4 4064637 Still a problem for me. Chow looks just like it does in CTC's screenshots. I can get it to work better if I enlarge the text (command+) but that makes everything else too large and I have to stretch my default window size to see the page. Its not a huge deal i guess, but I would think it should work regardless. Once again, in firefox it works either way. Also, just to be clear, Im running safari 3.1.2 and osx 10.5.4 on a macbook pro. Fri Sep 26 16:01:25 -0700 2008 4062327 100205 mortarNpestle 1 4061643 My biggest beef so far is that the listing of topics within each board uses a much smaller font size than before. For that matter, now that I am replying, so does this text edit box. In the case of this screen, if I use the browser controls for increasing the font size, the rest of the text (i.e. the text in the actual posts) gets too big. So that is not a solution. The text sizing before was perfect. So this is a big step backwards. This is a huge pain. I can get over the change in color schemes and such, but the text sizes should be set as they were before. Thu Sep 25 13:37:09 -0700 2008 4061057 40162 CrazyOne 2 4061733 We are working on restoring the text sizes, for instance in the reply box where they have gotten smaller however that was not the intent but an error in translation. The body text is same as before. The listing of topics is smaller as we felt it would facilitate getting more topics up on your screen at a time making it quicker to scan. We are taking in all this feedback and will address these issues accordingly. Thu Sep 25 14:04:26 -0700 2008 4061643 227083 Design_Team 3 4061790 It's not so helpful to have more topics on a list if you can't read them anymore .... The constant changing of font size is also causing some of the eye strain almost everyone is complaining about I'm sure. Thu Sep 25 14:18:59 -0700 2008 4061733 14160 Carole 1 4061696 Minor thing-- http://www.chow.com/media Steinberg post is showing up four times. It looks like it's tagged with media four times. Thu Sep 25 13:52:49 -0700 2008 4061057 10086 davina 1 4061739 pet peeve...ads that when you happen to accidentally drag the cursor over them open immediately...and that inevitably, given the relationship of the right column ads with stuff on the page, will result in the cursor getting dragged over them...argh. Thu Sep 25 14:06:07 -0700 2008 4061057 15170 Local 1 4061748 I HATE the new look with a passion !! Much harder to read, and hurts the eyes. The type is also horrible. I may well have to abandon CH. BTW it was not broke, so why did you fix it ??? Thu Sep 25 14:08:54 -0700 2008 4061057 13143 souschef 1 4061775 Your redesign is not to my taste, at all. Thu Sep 25 14:15:23 -0700 2008 4061057 83832 fussycouple 1 4061776 For comparison purposes, here are two screenshots of the same part of the same page under the old and new design. Body type size is identical but the line spacing has been increased in the new design which means there's less text on the page. Since one of the announced reasons for this redesign was to put -more- information on the page, this is probably an unintentional oversight. The old design, as you can see, had a background of a very light yellow/brown/pink color which gave the pages less of a white-hot-surface-of-a-star feeling. [This is using the Safari browser on OSX with default settings. Other browsers, settings, etc. will certainly vary.] Thu Sep 25 14:15:35 -0700 2008 4061057 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4061815 Thanks for those screen shots. Just that little bit of contrast makes all the difference for these old eyes. The new version is bland and glaring, at the same time. Very wearing. Thu Sep 25 14:25:52 -0700 2008 4061776 10087 Pat Hammond 2 4061876 Dorking around a bit, I see that the old background color was #faf1d8 which is a very light orange. Thu Sep 25 14:46:22 -0700 2008 4061776 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4063532 That wouldn't be so bad if that's what I was getting in IE6. Fri Sep 26 08:53:07 -0700 2008 4061776 177481 GSM 2 4064293 Yes thanks, makes me miss the old days (of yesterday morning :)) -- I really don't like this new layout either. I thought I might just need to get used to it, but I'm with those complaining about eyestrain, too much white -- and I think white and grey is cold and off-putting, personally, and yes, bland. eta: oh and that happened that others are complaining about, where after I replied it shot me up to the top and I lost my place in this loooong thread. Fri Sep 26 13:39:20 -0700 2008 4061776 112104 mselectra 1 4061820 Using Safari 3.1.2 Powerbook G4 I use "Hotposts" or whatever this is called now. The whole web page does NOT fit on my screen ....it hangs off to the side horizontally...this has never happened on Chowhound or any other sites I surf to... Thu Sep 25 14:26:37 -0700 2008 4061057 10485 ChowFun_derek 1 4061830 (1) Lots of room on the right for "sponsored links' the more replies, huh! (2) In music, reading blue ink is easier than black ink (ask Paul McCartney). But, this gunmetal gery is an okay color also. Not liking the red (as in red, black and white) but I am partial as it reminds me of certain companies. I would prefer most of the red ink be purple (eggplant) (aubergine). Blue and purple are computer colors ! Red and purple are The Red Hat Society ladies ! (3) The "Search this board" and the SEARCH (upper right) could be more pedantic; would you consider "Find it on this board" and "Search website" not so stupid, but relevant? (4) Very professional looking. Putting on the harringbone jacket. Hey can we have optional "tablecloths" to change the background like you can on Windows? VERY VERY GOOD WORK, professional. (5) Gonna see if it still takes a luooooooooooong luong long time to reload after editing a post. THANK YOU $ THANK YOU $ THANK YOU $ VERY VERY GOOD WORK THANKS FOR LISTENING SOUND CLIPS HERE Tune in: Pink Martini's - Sympathique Next up: Michael Buble - Fever (I wish!) Thu Sep 25 14:30:25 -0700 2008 4061057 29103 kc girl 1 4061837 If you guys have your hearts set on white on white, is there any chance you can make the font blacker? I use a formatting software program that has that option and it really makes a difference! Here's hoping you can do it. Thu Sep 25 14:33:26 -0700 2008 4061057 112096 Caroline1 1 4061851 I don't mind the bright white as much as some of the others, but the post text is not only a bit too small now, it also looks like it's grey rather than full black, which makes it doubly difficult to read. Compare it to the body text of the sponsored links to the right, for example - they appear to be the same font size but are MUCH easier to read! Thu Sep 25 14:37:40 -0700 2008 4061057 14386 BobB 1 4061881 REALLY REALLY REALLY like the static dropdown up top to ease navigation. VERY COOL DUDE! Thu Sep 25 14:47:39 -0700 2008 4061057 29103 kc girl 2 4061897 No great shakes. What's with the blast of black when moving between windows? Type is too small. Background is too blah -- and no choice this time? Why the redesign, I haven't seen any improvement at all. Thu Sep 25 14:54:11 -0700 2008 4061881 11104 dolores 1 4061951 Well, it just lost the ability to keep track of New messages again. What I really wanted to report was that when you look at "Hot Posts" (or whatever you changed it to) and then you select "Change Board" on the upper right of the list, it crashes with an application error. Thu Sep 25 15:15:12 -0700 2008 4061057 14160 Carole 1 4061961 Please move up the message boards. Tonight I had to scroll down the entire page, past a bunch of blank space, before I found them. You also have made the print waaaaaay too small. Thu Sep 25 15:20:47 -0700 2008 4061057 83766 brendastarlet 1 4061962 i can't handle the white background - seriously this is killing me. Thu Sep 25 15:21:02 -0700 2008 4061057 60025 winedubar 1 4061965 The blog list shows today's Grinder posts, but the Digest post from April 20, 2007 instead of the current one. If you click on Digest on the Blog pull-down on the nav bar, the page shows entries from March and April, 2007, but if you click on the individual Digest sections, their pages show current entries. Thu Sep 25 15:21:19 -0700 2008 4061057 10074 Caitlin McGrath 2 4061970 reposting since my other post had a reply from the mods that said to post here. hi, i'm really trying to be supportive, because i do like chowhound, but its more than a little frustrating to have unplanned outages that turn out to be total site upgrades. i'm a she-geek by trade, am on numerous forums, both for profite *ie chowhound* and those run entirely by volunteers. in every other instance on every other forum, there are test groups and users that give input (ie beta test upgrades) and at a MINIMUM - everyone gets some kind of advanced notice. it's getting more than a little frustrating to have outages and upgrades without the user community ever being notified. we asked this last time -whats wrong with talking to your user community? esp as a for profit venture, cbs is making money, or at least attempting to make money, off of a site where the content is generated by unpaid enthusiasts. how about a little consideration? and please - i need another background but white. i'm about to go blind here!! Thu Sep 25 15:22:33 -0700 2008 4061965 60025 winedubar 3 4063642 We did do an announcement a week in advance of the change -- it was teased in our teaser line at the top of every page, as well as in a sticky post on the top of each of the three site related boards. You can see some of the early discussion here: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/558836 We also did do a small beta test with a couple dozen regular users of the site invited to test and provide feedback on the changes -- and quite a few changes were made during that testing window. Fri Sep 26 09:36:53 -0700 2008 4061970 10021 Jacquilynne 4 4064462 I managed distributed software development for many years so I've had lots of experience with distributed software changes. We would never have done such a small group to test and provide feedback. Only a couple of dozens .... far too small a group to get enough valuable feedback to give a sense of potential problems. With a viewer-ship of the size of this website, that's way too limited. There is simply no way this could cover the wide range of viewers that you have. Why was this so limited? Fri Sep 26 14:58:52 -0700 2008 4063642 14160 Carole 5 4065362 Analysis paralysis. Sometimes, you just pull the lever. This crew has experience with this - they know how loud we can get after a major change - and they also know how soon things settle down and people mainly do what they come here to do - talk chow. They listen to our complaints and take our suggestions seriously. They go into triage mode, and then they prioritize and fix. Jacquilynne holds our hands. (not meant to be insulting - she does much more than that) It works. Get over it and start writing more chow stuff. Hey Jacqui - tell the guys, Good Job. It's quicker. I haven't gotten a single error page. Sweeeet. Sat Sep 27 00:28:32 -0700 2008 4064462 10312 applehome 6 4065634 Well, I strongly disagree with the "sometimes, you just pull the lever" remark. Luckily this is just a basic forum and doesn't involve anything really important – like handling our money for example. So, maybe you are right ... just pull the lever. The only point I was trying to get across was that better beta testing would have avoided many of these complaints. As I'm sure you can tell, I am not a big fan of the implement first and then fix the problems approach. I am glad it's quicker for you – I'm seeing very spotty performance. Still sometimes takes 30+ seconds to get to the board I frequent the most. Haven't seen any error pages, though, and that's an definite improvement. Anyway, enough said, last post by me on the redesign. Sat Sep 27 07:47:38 -0700 2008 4065362 14160 Carole 4 4068944 i'm a regular user *ie, always open on my laptop* and i never saw any notice anywhere. where's the teaser line? perhaps it would be a good idea to make it more obvious to more users that a change is coming up. so far i haven't found a single regular poster/reader on the southwest board who knew there was a change Sun Sep 28 23:05:22 -0700 2008 4063642 60025 winedubar 5 4069128 The teaser was up around the right-corner of the top menu bar, and I did see it, though barely - though I believe they were trying out the new super-tiny type for it, as it was almost invisible. It was also a static screenshot (and, IIRC, a partial one at that) rather than a beta of the actual site. Mon Sep 29 05:25:50 -0700 2008 4068944 35525 Frodnesor 1 4061974 when i click on 'chowhound' to get to my local southwest board, in the box that expands i can't see the southwest board. thats because it drops down too far below what displays in my browswer window. if i scroll down, then i can't click on the 'chowhound' button/link because its no longer on my screen. Thu Sep 25 15:24:55 -0700 2008 4061057 60025 winedubar 2 4061982 Try clicking on the 'big' chowhound at the top of the page, then scroll down - that's been working for me. Thu Sep 25 15:27:09 -0700 2008 4061974 10985 MMRuth 1 4062000 I love the white background. Very crisp and easy to read. Thu Sep 25 15:33:15 -0700 2008 4061057 131001 c oliver 1 4062046 I'm really not a fan of the white background. Like so many others, I find it much harder to read Thu Sep 25 15:50:12 -0700 2008 4061057 182589 bex109 1 4062082 - i'm a fan of drop down menus and not having to click back and forth to find a board...HOWEVER.....the drop down menu for Chowhound needs to be wider, rather than longer. I have to scroll down the main page in order to get the lower choices to show (also because the advertising on top takes up space), and even then, I can't get the lower ones to all show. -add me to the list of non-fans for the white....too stark...and personally I liked the red, it was rich. -as for the ads that were always there.....can't the ads not be confined to the main page....many sites have ads on their pages, but when you go to the forums, it's all forums, and they're WIDER.....not squashed into one side to make way for other stuff...less scrolling to read. Thu Sep 25 16:03:29 -0700 2008 4061057 153184 im_nomad 2 4062173 You're so right about the forum needing to be wider. This is the only forum I frequent that still keeps ads when you're on a specific board and limits the width of their listings and messages. That's what's forcing them into using a too-small font and presenting this huge area of white that is so jarring. Thu Sep 25 16:38:37 -0700 2008 4062082 14160 Carole 1 4062115 WAYYYYYY TOOOO BRIGHHHHHT!! :) I'm all for a change guys, but I can't even look at the screen for longer than a few minutes....sigh...there goes endless hours of fun Chowhounding! :( If there was anyway that users could have an option of the old red background, or the new white one - then I'm all for that. The old classy red made it feel very cosy I thought. The white (despite being BRIGHT) is too clinical and cold. Thu Sep 25 16:14:22 -0700 2008 4061057 141706 ooglewoogle 1 4062139 There have been many comments about the size of the font but I have a problem with the new style. A font with serifs (what is it - times roman?) seems so old-fashioned. I find it jarring to my eyes and disconcerting. But I guess I'll get use to it. Thu Sep 25 16:24:41 -0700 2008 4061057 98493 JamieK 2 4062166 Georgia, not Times Roman. Sans serif fonts are easier to read/process. I actually prefer them to the cleaner but less legible Helvetica and derivatives, though not so much for the centred, all-caps board name at the top of the page. The Stories / Recipes / Blog / Chowhound lists at the bottom of the page are a sight for sore eyes, however. IMHO, of course. Thu Sep 25 16:36:26 -0700 2008 4062139 10520 carswell 1 4062162 I hate the face that in my maximized browser window, there are two 'margins' of greyspace on either side of the content. If I resize to make things wider, I really want them to get wider. The rollover headings at the top (chowhound, recipes, stories, etc) are annoying. The Chowhound one especially since it extends past the bottom of my screen. Since I have to click on it anyhow to see allthe topics, why not just eliminate it and make itlinks again? "Hey, ThreeGigs | Logout" - Times New? Ugh, clashes with the rest of the text, and it's too small to boot. Can you (finally) make these editing areas where we type in the posts a little larger, *please*? It's difficult to proofread in such a small area, with such small text, in grey. A reply to a reply to a reply to a reply is going to wind up about 15 characters wide. White... hurting eyes... must...get....tissue. So bright. Okay, sarcasm aside, I like black text on white, but only if the text takes up a significant fraction of the whitespace. May I suggest a slightly off-white or tan color for the background? And perhaps something darker and more colorful than the grey? Chisel the edges more on the 'post my reply' button, because it doesn't look enough like a button to me. Attach Photo and Lint to a PLace... why serif text when everything else is sans serif (Hey, ThreeGigs | Logout excepted). The mixing and matching of font families is jarring. To serif or not to serif, that is the question. Thu Sep 25 16:35:11 -0700 2008 4061057 103787 ThreeGigs 2 4062180 Ah, I just saw your post after posting above. I agree the serif font and the mixing is disturbing. Thu Sep 25 16:43:30 -0700 2008 4062162 98493 JamieK 3 4062354 And while we're at it, what about c/lc? It still really bugs me that under My Chow my name is JOANN, not JoanN. There's really not much left in the new design that's all caps. Is there some reason I'm not comprehending that our names need to be all cap rather than initial cap? Thu Sep 25 18:07:35 -0700 2008 4062180 11407 JoanN 4 4064525 What OS are you on? I'm not seeing this in Firefox on a mac OS. Let us know what OS your using and browser and we will look into it. Fri Sep 26 15:23:23 -0700 2008 4062354 227083 Design_Team 5 4064671 On her profile page: "JOANN'S RECENT POSTS" and maybe elsewhere? Good thing she didn't pick a user name like "AnAlbumCover" or "PenIsMightier" ... Fri Sep 26 16:13:21 -0700 2008 4064525 25310 Chuckles the Clone 5 4064905 I'm on OSX 10.4.11, Safari 3.1.2. But this isn't a new issue. I complained about it during the previous redesign (three computers and two platforms ago) and was told it was something the then design team hadn't even considered but that they'd look into it. Evidently I was the only contributor bothered by it and nothing was ever done about it. But as you can tell, it still makes me nuts to click on My Chow and find out I'm JOANN, Fri Sep 26 18:12:46 -0700 2008 4064525 11407 JoanN 6 4064917 I see it that way in IE as well on a PC - the username on someone's My Chow page is all caps in the profile on the right. I bet it makes it difficult for you to do searches under your username as well, since I don't think the search function is sensitive to capitalization. Fri Sep 26 18:20:57 -0700 2008 4064905 10985 MMRuth 7 4065028 >II bet it makes it difficult for you to do searches under your username as well, < Damned right it does! There's at least one poster named Joann, and I have to wade through all her posts to find mine. C/lc sensitivity in the search function would make my life a lot easier, but it would probably be a pain for others so I live with it. I'm not happy about it, but I live with it. Fri Sep 26 19:22:21 -0700 2008 4064917 11407 JoanN 8 4065072 What we really need on that front is to have quoted search terms be searched exactly -- searching user:"joann" shouldn't find user "joanne" or user "joanna". That would also work when people were searching for exact restaurant names and other precise terms, as well. Fri Sep 26 19:47:25 -0700 2008 4065028 10021 Jacquilynne 9 4065080 True, and helpful. But searching for JoanN would still bring up Joann. Hey! I'll settle for whatever I can get. Fri Sep 26 19:56:08 -0700 2008 4065072 11407 JoanN 5 4064949 Also safari 3.1.2, but osx 10.4.11 on a macbook. Guess I won't be upgrading. Here's a screen shot of what it looks like for me. Fri Sep 26 18:34:29 -0700 2008 4064525 11407 JoanN 1 4062168 If we're tallying up here, I'll put my vote in the column preferring the old oatmeal theme. The white here does feel very bright. Take a look at the shade of white used on the old site: http://web.archive.org/web/20011204183558/chowhound.com/boards/sitetalk/sitetalk.html If you're really committed to white, what about something like that? I used to spend hours on that version of Chowhound and I don't recall the eyestrain I'm starting to feel after just a little while here. Thu Sep 25 16:37:16 -0700 2008 4061057 10027 Chris VR 2 4062431 Registering a second for what Chris VR said above....This palette is too bland and very hard on the eyes.. .. Any plans to change that out to something more user friendly? Thu Sep 25 18:50:29 -0700 2008 4062168 75332 Gio 2 4064546 I'm working on fixes and listening to all this feedback. I wanted to upload a file comparing the old CH text vs the new CH text. On the left side of this screenshot is the new look (Arial 13px font on 18px linespacing) vs the old CH text (Arial 13px on 16px linespacing). The background hasn't changed but admittedly the site is brighter which in turn makes the text "feel" smaller. You will also notice that we increased the linespacing for readability but I'm doing tests now because it may in fact be doing the opposite and letting too much white come through increasing the glare effect. I'm also working on background colors and other design devices that will help the glare issues for heavy readers of the site... Please be patient with us as we work through these issues, as mentioned above we are a small and dedicated crew behind the scenes here and it's going to take a little bit of time to put the proper fixes in place. Fri Sep 26 15:33:31 -0700 2008 4062168 227083 Design_Team 3 4064600 Thank you. It's good to know that our comments are being considered. I still think if you had a larger beta group you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble. Fri Sep 26 15:47:30 -0700 2008 4064546 14160 Carole 3 4064656 Design Team (Jacquilynne?), thanks for the quick update that you're working on the perceived font size and the background colors - very good to know you all are listening! Fri Sep 26 16:07:15 -0700 2008 4064546 10532 LindaWhit 3 4065561 Whitespace good. Glare bad. Not mutually exclusive! Sat Sep 27 06:35:58 -0700 2008 4064546 23411 embee 4 4068263 Thank you for working on the glaring white. I couldn't even read the new posts to this topic before my eyes started watering. Other than the "white" issue, I have had no other problems with the site. Not like you're not busy, but could you try to offer some other color options as soon as reasonably possible. I always have food questions and issues to address... Always something bizarre going on in my kitchen. Thanks. Sun Sep 28 15:51:23 -0700 2008 4065561 96172 Mothership 3 4068681 Let me throw in my 2 pence on this particular issue that the old 16px linespacing is both easier to read and gets more content on the screen than the 18px. Going back to keeping reply box text the same size as the regular content would be a welcome fix as well. Sun Sep 28 19:37:50 -0700 2008 4064546 35525 Frodnesor 3 4070135 AH! That is exactly the problem. I knew something was off with the text, but wasn't sure what it was. The higher "density" of the paragraphs in the old version made the site less white, and much easier to read. The white space created by the increased line spacing competes with the actual content too much in the new design. Strangely enough, as I am typing here in the reply box I notice the line spacing appears to be much smaller. Whatever it is you've got in the CSS for these boxes, please apply it to the posted items. It is definitely easier to read! The paragraphs read as one unit, rather than a series of lines. Mon Sep 29 11:37:48 -0700 2008 4064546 16363 mogo 4 4079814 Woo! You've fixed it! Many thanks. It's a great improvement already. :) Fri Oct 03 12:17:46 -0700 2008 4070135 16363 mogo 1 4062231 the topic and the counter for the number of posts seem smaller, and much harder to read. if you look at the "last post" and "date started" column, the words to nearly maximize the space. it's much harder to read, and without enough contrast. it does hurt my eyes as well. can the design team reconsider the ratio of words-to-white space? i feel that there is a lot of unused space! Thu Sep 25 17:06:24 -0700 2008 4061057 12886 kotatsu 1 4062241 My quick, first impression: CLEAN. But there's a small problem in that the page runs off my 15.4 inch PowerBook screen, and I have to move the scrollbar back and forth to view all. I'm presently using Safari 3.1.2 I'll have a look in Firefox. —It looks the same as in Safari, but moments after opening, Firefox (Mac,vers 3.0.1) crashed. I was quite happy with the last version of Chowhound, especially after you provided the light tan skin. I's say it was one of the best forum interfaces on the Web (with the exception of no private messages and a few other minor flaws.) EDIT: Tried this in Firefox again. Another crash. EDIT 2: Trying this in Camino (Mac). Looks better in terms of fitting the screen, but text size is smaller. Horizontal scrolling is necessary when I increase text size. Why are there two, vertical, space-wasting gray bars, one on each side? Thu Sep 25 17:13:21 -0700 2008 4061057 49726 Anonimo 2 4063410 It appears most people used the red background, but like you, I used the tan, and I liked it. I agree white feels clinical, not food-friendly. Fri Sep 26 08:12:12 -0700 2008 4062241 11106 tatamagouche 3 4063483 Maroon was the default theme and an amazing number of users didn't know they could switch to the oatmeal theme. Among my circle of Chowhound friends, just about everybody who knew about oatmeal used it. Fri Sep 26 08:37:23 -0700 2008 4063410 10520 carswell 1 4062245 Thought I would chime in. At first glance the header seemed attractive and I thought WOW. However, I strongly agree that the listings are way too bright and too difficult on the eyes. It is difficult to scan through the posts with this type of contrast. Even as I type this my eyes are burning! I loved it the way it was and also thought that it was one of the best forums out there. It is astonishing to me that you would make such dramatic changes without giving the users a sneak peak and a chance to give feedback! I dislike this new look and contrast very much! HATE IT!! Thu Sep 25 17:14:46 -0700 2008 4061057 48505 deelicious 1 4062264 Another vote for anything but white. I find the whole page blinding, so much so that I'm signing off now before I get a headache. Please, oh please, fix this, so I don't have to give up my beloved Chowhound! Thu Sep 25 17:25:15 -0700 2008 4061057 64696 winedude 1 4062314 Mostly negative from me, sorry to say. Don't like the Times Roman/Georgia font on the header and don't like it being centered -- should be left-justified. Don't like the white background as most have already said. Font size is obviously a problem, hopefully it will be fixed soon. Also I'm not crazy about no longer having a separate Chowhound board page but instead having it as a link on chow.com, but I guess we all knew that was coming. Thu Sep 25 17:48:01 -0700 2008 4061057 12103 Greg B 2 4062475 Well, www.chowhound.com still works, it just redirects to the new URL but it's still a home page for Chowhound. Could be worse! Thu Sep 25 19:12:52 -0700 2008 4062314 10027 Chris VR 1 4062382 Ooh text size is too big, I mean too small. Too much glaring white space, no, not enough white space. Why can't we change the font to Olde Mucca pre-Cambian Scandinavian? Don't you get it? As a veteran of real time applications from when Bill Gates had severe acne, the #1 reason ANY of these apps make it is RESPONSE TIME/CONNECTIVITY! If you don't fix that, all other improvements are tied for last! Thu Sep 25 18:28:03 -0700 2008 4061057 13609 Scagnetti 1 4062392 Um, what's up with the scroll down effect??? it is staggered and making me crazy, as is this white background and small font. Seriously, I adjusted to the last "upgrade", but this is too much. I don't even know if any one else is complaining about the fxxxxx up scroll down cause I coudn't make it through the whole thread without getting a headache. Please let is scroll down smoothly, like before!!! It burns, burrns, burns... Thu Sep 25 18:33:04 -0700 2008 4061057 11225 rabaja 2 4062445 Can you give more details on this? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Thu Sep 25 18:55:02 -0700 2008 4062392 10021 Jacquilynne 3 4063876 Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear. In IE 7 the arrow keys used to scroll down are scrolling with almost a stutter- step. Does that make sense? They do not scroll down smoothly, although my computer is set to 'smooth scroll down'. Interestingly, in Firefox 2 it scrolls down just fine, so that's what I'm using currently. The small font and white screen are sadly still paining me... Fri Sep 26 10:56:30 -0700 2008 4062445 11225 rabaja 1 4062407 add my name to the list of complaints about the colors here... I'm another person who hates change, and is of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality, so it'll just take some time to get used to the new format... except for the colors, please fix that! Thu Sep 25 18:40:10 -0700 2008 4061057 73014 TarheelYankee 1 4062428 Much too bright. Makes me not want to browse and use the site as much as I had. Bothers my eyes. Thu Sep 25 18:48:43 -0700 2008 4061057 13429 chowmel 1 4062454 The WHITE is very unappetizing . If this new page was a restaurant plate I'd eat at home . Without a change in color ( some color ) I'll pick a new restaurant ( website ) . Thu Sep 25 19:02:58 -0700 2008 4061057 160343 TheSFFog 1 4062490 Just in case the Design team isn't following the similar post on Site Talk, I'll summarize: - drop down menus are Good, tweak to be usable on smaller screens e.g. Chowhound forum lists in four columns, Blog options in two columns. - add alternative themes back - I liked the old cream background - isn't that what CSS is for? - add adjustable font sizes specific to this site in MyChow settings, if technically possible - make hyperlinks a Different Color (blue) - it will break up the monotonous black text. - change 'Bars & Restaurants' back to Places or Placemarks for gawd sake Thanks for not changing too much of the look and feel. TIA, Mike Thu Sep 25 19:17:42 -0700 2008 4061057 23712 DiveFan 2 4064567 Mike, Gotta say it's been tough to keep up with these threads and work on fixes! :P Thanks for the summary, agree with most of it and changes will continue to be rolled out. Cheers Fri Sep 26 15:37:59 -0700 2008 4062490 227083 Design_Team 1 4062500 Oooo, pretty. And it seems oh so much faster too. Since you're asking: after a while the full white does seem a little much, perhaps something a little less virginal would work, but the full-on oatmeal didn't do it for me. Something between the white and an ivory might be nice. All in all, very nice. Thanks! Thu Sep 25 19:20:30 -0700 2008 4061057 20717 sailormouth 2 4062681 It is probably faster because fewer people are spending any time on the site because it is unreadable. I know I can't spend more than 10 minutes on the site without without my eyes burining out. Way to go to fix the slow performance ... make the site unreadable to a good chunk of the community. I'll check back from time to time, but until this glare and type size is fixed, this is it for me on Chowhound. Thu Sep 25 21:10:53 -0700 2008 4062500 10264 rworange 1 4062564 MY first impressions are positive. I prefer the new color scheme, and have no problem with the fonts, even with my 67 year old eyes. I also like the new layout -- easier to select a board, easier to search the current board. Thu Sep 25 19:55:17 -0700 2008 4061057 131118 Xiao Yang 1 4062652 Sorry, but count another reader that is having problems with too much white and with the smaller (and lighter) type. Thu Sep 25 20:56:22 -0700 2008 4061057 11617 chrisonli 1 4062703 anyone reading this feedback, I will not return to chowhound for at least a week and hopefully, magically, it will be fixed. who's with me? Thu Sep 25 21:32:52 -0700 2008 4061057 12656 bigjeff 2 4063308 Me. Even though the overwhelming consensus is the sight is difficult to read 1. I know nothing will be done today 2. The handful of positive comments will be picked out of this thread as validation that the right design decision was made 3. I will check back once a day. If nothing is done within a week, that is it for this site Fri Sep 26 07:37:02 -0700 2008 4062703 10264 rworange 3 4063521 WAKE UP, Chowhound! When one of your site's most ardent supporters and enthusiastic posters posts this (I mean the post above by rworange), you have a big problem. Better think hard about this, CH. BTW, nice careful testing. Text gets cut off when editing a post, in IE6. Fri Sep 26 08:48:01 -0700 2008 4063308 15807 Steve Green 4 4063889 Oh puhleeze. This happens every time there is a site re-design. People threaten to take their ball and go home and invariably stay. The team is clearly listening to the feedback and trying to reprioritize the next round of fixes. Threats and hair-fire-setting do nothing to help. Fri Sep 26 11:01:28 -0700 2008 4063521 10232 yumyum 5 4064226 I wish I could believe that, but based upon the fix prioritizing that we've seen from Engineering, I have serious doubts (I know, it's a different department, yadayada). I'm more inclined to believe that the (presumed) twenty-somethings in Site Design don't really care about middle-aged people and their poorer vision -- if the site looks good to them that's good enough. The large number of technical problems in the new design doesn't exactly give me faith in their abilities either. Fri Sep 26 13:10:19 -0700 2008 4063889 15807 Steve Green 6 4064288 It begs the question, "what are Chow's priorities?" Money and resources went into something that wasn't broke. People were already upset with functionality and now they have more to be upset about. If it's like hitting your thumb with a hammer to forget you have a toothache, I think it's backfired. I just don't know what the management is thinking. And, is this "design by committee"? Fri Sep 26 13:37:07 -0700 2008 4064226 137946 Scargod 7 4064376 Well, in your perception it wasn't broken. However, you don't know what the driving reasons were. The designers have said somewhere here that there definitely were some issues with the content management. I can't imagine what major problems could be solved with a new design but presumably there were some or CNET wouldn't have spent money and effort on doing it. I think you're not giving them enough credit if you assume they did this just for shits and giggles. Hey, I've got my own issues with the design too, but I think you can't say there was no reason for doing it. I don't think it makes sense for them to suspend all the development on the site while the engineers work out the (multiple and seemingly worsening) technical problems. These things usually happen in parallel, driven by different areas of the business unit. I also think there's no way one design is going to make all people happy. (I'm actually surprised to see how many people here are happy with it!) I think the best we can hope for is the designers will be able to tweak to make those of us who don't care for the contrast/headache issues happy, while not torquing off the making the people who currently like it. And there are going to be some people who just won't like it no matter what they do, like there were with the last 2 redesigns. I have no idea whether those people grew to like it or drifted away, but that's the way of the world. You can't make all of the people happy all of the time. Fri Sep 26 14:13:06 -0700 2008 4064288 10027 Chris VR 8 4064455 Chris, you've totally misread what I said. We're talking the "look" here. This thread is about the new look. Cosmetics. The look was not broken to the point that it had to be fixed, the functionality IS. It's frikin slow right now and unresponsive! I don't give a shit what the color is till it works better! Yes, there are probably different areas, but there sure was a gaff by the oversight committee or general manager as to priorities. Fri Sep 26 14:52:51 -0700 2008 4064376 137946 Scargod 9 4064531 I don't disagree with your experience, but I'm zipping right along today on a Mac using Firefox. Fri Sep 26 15:25:45 -0700 2008 4064455 10087 Pat Hammond 9 4064693 Sorry for misreading but again, I'll say we don't know what's going on with the business unit. There are all sorts of reasons a site might initiate a change of the look and feel (branding, marketing, positioning, consistency, legal issues, who knows?) and just because we're not privy to those reasons don't mean they don't exist. I stand by my feelings that such a change would not be undertaken lightly- if there's a change of this magnitude, I have to assume there are solid reasons for it, because I just don't believe CNET would take the chance of rocking the boat like this if there weren't good reasons for it. Fri Sep 26 16:24:04 -0700 2008 4064455 10027 Chris VR 10 4064881 I thought Chowhound was now owned by CBS ???? Fri Sep 26 18:03:10 -0700 2008 4064693 14160 Carole 11 4065625 CNET bought Chowhound, CBS bought CNET. So both are true. Sat Sep 27 07:38:06 -0700 2008 4064881 11273 JonParker 3 4064584 rworange, Regarding your #2 point...please, no need to make assumptions as this is not the case. I've been on these boards with you through this process including BETA and we are working diligently behind the scenes on fixes. The fixes will take a little bit of time to unroll since some research is involved to do it right and we are a smaller crew than those of you on the outside may think. Please hang in there with us. Fri Sep 26 15:43:42 -0700 2008 4063308 227083 Design_Team 4 4065392 Thanks for the reply about that. I actually do know how small the crew is and its the reason why I've hung through on so many of the challenges of the site. Hopefully some poster might be able to answer just what is different for some of us. It seems some people on IE can get larger size text. What is different for the rest of us? And the text does change on one page. http://chowhound.chow.com/boards It is not just cosmetic. The oatmeal was soothing, but after a while the new colors are ok. It is just I cannot read the tiny text. It is not just bitching about design. It is about blurry vision, and eyestrain and headaches. I wish I could have beta tested more, but my eyes kept giving out. Anyway, again thanks for the nice reply. I'll just shut up now and hope things work out. Sat Sep 27 01:52:45 -0700 2008 4064584 10264 rworange 1 4062734 My 40 year old eyes have never had to adjust font size on a website before this afternoon on this website. So I adjust begrudingly through my browser and then after browsing here, go onto other sites that I use and have to adjust back down because the font one those sites is now too large. Um, no. Not something I want to have to do on a regular basis. And as a member of the Southwest board, the fact that when you pull down the drop down you can see all the boards without scrolling? Again: Um, no. I"m not crazy about all the negative space with the white. And I am finding even at a larger size the font is difficult to read on the white...don't know if it's because it's too light(not really a black?) or the actual font. Thu Sep 25 22:02:16 -0700 2008 4061057 16406 ziggylu 1 4062747 I'm sorry, but I have to speak up and defend the white again. Every content-based text-heavy site has black text on a white background. Look at the NYTimes. Look at CNN. Look at the BBC. Look at the Huffington Post. The Wall Street Journal. Time Magazine. The New Yorker. Look at ANY site. It's black text on white. Why? Because that's easiest to read. I'd like to hear the complainers name just one content-heavy web site that isn't black on white. Sheesh -- people will complain about anything given the opportunity. I like the white and I think it's a vast improvement aesthetically and also for readability. Thu Sep 25 22:14:59 -0700 2008 4061057 16011 oolah 2 4062763 That's why I'm not sure it's the white that's giving me the problem. I read the NY Times and WSJ daily online as well as do lots of online reading of academic papers for some classes I'm taking. I never have issues with eye strain doing so. Something about this combination of design, background, font and outline is really giving me issues. I think some is the actual color of the font? It seems very light on the white? Also, the fact there's so much white that's completely negative space(no text, no ad, no photo, no nothing) over here -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to make it hard to read I admit I'm not very technologically versed nor do I give this stuff much thought. I'm just finding this new design very difficult to read. Maybe if the font was a bit bigger. Maybe if it were a bit blacker? Maybe if the text spread across the page and there wasn't a vast big white space on the right half of my screen? Thu Sep 25 22:28:48 -0700 2008 4062747 16406 ziggylu 3 4062911 I think you are correct about the design having issues. It's a combination of the vast amount of white space, the font size and type, and the color palette generally. Most of those other sites have fonts that appear much blacker on the screen and are therefore easier to read. In addition, they all seem to stick to blue links that are easier on the eyes than what we have here. I also do a lot of reading online and this is the only site that gives me a headache within minutes. Fri Sep 26 03:30:15 -0700 2008 4062763 107671 queencru 2 4062974 But this is NOT black on white. It's grey on white. Not much of a contrast and difficult to read for any length of time. On IE/7. Fri Sep 26 05:11:46 -0700 2008 4062747 75332 Gio 2 4063287 Here I think is part of the problem - yes, "content-based text heavy" sites often use black text on white background. I think part of the reason this one in particular is bothering so many people is that it is NOT, due to the layout, all that text-heavy. To the contrary, as a result of the layout, the entire right-hand side of the screen is usually blank white space. Likewise, much of the space even within the board threads is white b/c there's so much spacing between lines of text, etc. Noticed as well that many boards help rest the eyes somewhat by alternating light background colors on threads so it's not all white. Fri Sep 26 07:31:46 -0700 2008 4062747 35525 Frodnesor 3 4063435 Yes, this is exactly the issue. I spend a lot of time on news sites, some of which yes, are white with black text. But they are a lot more text based, and so there's a lot less white blank space. Also, comparing this to the washingtonpost.com and nytimes.com, the links and headlines are in blue, and there are a lot of links on each page, and that also adds some contrast to the page. Here, with just the grey, whiteish grey, cold white, and then more grey for links, there's not a lot of contrast on the page, and there's a lot more white than in pretty much all other sites I go to. And yes, the text size (not within the threads, but on the main board pages) is way too small. Fri Sep 26 08:20:02 -0700 2008 4063287 13525 JasmineG 3 4064592 Yes, so much blank white space is a big part of the problem. Black & white is fine--there's just too much white. Fri Sep 26 15:45:44 -0700 2008 4063287 13930 Chimayo Joe 1 4062769 Initial reaction: I hate it. Cold, bright, stark on my large-screen Mac Cinema monitor. Reminds me of the winter I lived in Pierre, South Dakota. Second reaction: ditto + many of the issues raised by others, including font size. chowhound is one of hundreds of Web sites that I visit regularly at home and at work, and I will not make special monitor adjustments just for you. The fact that Jacquilynne suggests it takes me back to the early days of clueless-developer, user-unfriendly computing. People generally have to indicate an interest in becoming beta users. This is the first example in my experience where everyone was just thrown into a poorly tested new version without warning and with no opt-out possibility. Thu Sep 25 22:36:34 -0700 2008 4061057 77350 sbritchky 2 4062807 I for one will not be continuing with Chowhound until/unless the font size and color changes are corrected to something more usable. This reply type, for example, is virtually unreadable in IE6; the topics lists on the individual boards aren't much better. The gray on white is too fatiguing to read. Why bother going on anyway -- what a moronic decision for Chowhound to make all these changes and then to add insult to injury by coming up with ludicrous suggestions like "adjust your monitor" or "change the font size in IE". You guys are just clueless. Thu Sep 25 23:28:04 -0700 2008 4062769 15807 Steve Green 3 4064673 Steve, please read what the Design Team has added to this thread - they are WORKING ON IT. Just as they did the last time the site was redesigned, giving us the option of the maroon or oatmeal/cream after many complaints about the maroon background. Calling them moronic and clueless is so not called for and completely unhelpful. They're AWARE the gray on white is fatiguing to readers. Those suggestions are coming from other users, not the Design Team. While it's not optimal right now, give them time to fix things instead of calling them names. If not, it's ultimately YOUR loss for leaving CH. Fri Sep 26 16:14:01 -0700 2008 4062807 10532 LindaWhit 4 4064738 That's a nice call for diplomacy, LW. In the past on CH, as you well know, changes have occurred very, very slowly. Corrections have happened very, very slowly, if at all. So, based on history, the Design Team/Engineering Team saying they are "working on it," is not much reassurance. I wish it were. I am hopeful the Design Team can re-group, and understand that the overall scheme they chose is not user-friendly. It's a big gulp -- to admit that after lots of hard work, that their efforts were not successful in achieving their goals. More work is in order. And, just as a matter of customer service, to ask the user to "fix" the design by adjusting his monitor settings does add a *little* insult to injury. Even if it's a temporary "fix." It asks the user to put up with yet another thing -- and the Chowhound user is already dealing with many error issues, slowness and other malfunctions. I can understand how a user like Steve may feel an additional layer of frustration in addition to those previously felt. Agree with you on the name-calling, but my sense is that it indicates frustration rather than anger. Maria Fri Sep 26 16:50:20 -0700 2008 4064673 18222 maria lorraine 5 4065556 marie, we're all frustrated. I've posted enough on feedback threads and am able to express my frustration without calling the Design Team and/or the Engineering Team "clueless", "ludicrous", and "moronic". An "I for one will not be staying..." comment seems more like an ultimatum and a stamping-of-the-foot temper tantrum by a kid who can't have their own way vs. an adult who knows "Hey, shit happens" and that hopefully, other adults will be fixing the situation *when* they can get to it. Should Steve choose to leave because color, font size are not changed *immediately* to his satisfaction, it remains his loss of a wonderful CH neighborhood. Sat Sep 27 06:32:19 -0700 2008 4064738 10532 LindaWhit 6 4068670 OK, LindaWhit, let’s frame this in different terms: Let’s say you go to a restaurant where you’re a daily customer, and (although the menu is the same) there’s a new cook, who puts way too much salt on the food and adds a lot of chili oil to all the dishes. You complain to the waitress, and she replies “The cook is adjusting the recipes, just be patient and he’ll be making everything to your satisfaction in a week or two.” Someone at an adjoining table says: “Just take some Pepto-Bismol and you’ll be fine”. You say “That’s ludicrous -- whoever is in the kitchen is clueless, and it was a moronic decision to make those recipe changes. I won’t be coming back until things are straightened out, if ever”. A person at another table overhears and says “No need to be childish, with ultimatums and having a stamp-your-feet temper tantrum! Hey, shit happens – like the waitress said, the food will be fine in a week or two (or “when they can get to” adjusting the recipes). If you choose not to come back, it’s your loss.” Now before you reply that it’s a different situation because Chowhound is free and you have to pay for a restaurant meal, please remember that Chowhound is now a commercial site and accepts paid advertising, so in a sense we are “paying” by having to wade through the ads (we won’t even go into how poorly the site has been working, compared to other, more complex commercial sites). That said, my statement about the “moronic decision” was directed to whoever decided to go live with the new look before testing it properly. As several posters have pointed out, a dozen beta testers does not constitute a proper test. Also, I’d bet anything that at least several of those beta testers pointed out problems that weren’t corrected before the site went live. I stand by my other statements that the monitor and font size adjustment suggestions were ludicrous, and that the team is clueless. YMMV. Sun Sep 28 19:30:57 -0700 2008 4065556 15807 Steve Green 7 4068712 I think that the issue is not that Chowhound is free, it's that if I went to a restaurant where I was a daily customer one time and the food was oversalted, I would not a) insult the kitchen staff by calling them clueless and moronic or b) declare that I was never coming back. Sun Sep 28 20:00:57 -0700 2008 4068670 13525 JasmineG 7 4069222 Apples and oranges comparison (a restaurant changing a menu and CH changing their look). While I might agree that a few dozen beta testers does not a constitute a proper test, calling people names is just unproductive and rather childish. Since when is ANY software ever released with ALL of the fixes recommended by beta testers completed? I sincerely doubt there's ever been a software release that was perfect from Day 1. But I guess if you don't like the site, you'll find another that doesn't make any changes. Mon Sep 29 06:19:36 -0700 2008 4068670 10532 LindaWhit 8 4069365 I had a small bit of insight into the beta test. At the start, there was pretty much universal agreement, often in terms much harsher than anything appearing here on this thread, that the whole thing was a disaster. And that's because there were a large number of bugs and design issues. Over the course of the test period, there were a bunch of changes made, ranging from small tweaks to complete rethinking of a couple of aspects of the changes. By the end, while there wasn't complete agreement, it was at a point where a reasonable argument could be made for release. Mon Sep 29 07:25:31 -0700 2008 4069222 25310 Chuckles the Clone 9 4069393 Thanks for some first-hand insight, CtC. Mon Sep 29 07:36:45 -0700 2008 4069365 10532 LindaWhit 2 4062814 Really like the new clean look. Works well with firefox. No problem. Thu Sep 25 23:37:27 -0700 2008 4062769 10837 erly 1 4062837 Way way too bright, and too much white. The glare and frequency are hurting. Yes, the re-design is, uh, clean, but it's to the point of being antiseptic -- very unfood-like. Fri Sep 26 00:24:05 -0700 2008 4061057 18222 maria lorraine 1 4062858 i hope that the editors realize that a lot of "audience participation" is at stake here.... this board is an invaluable resource, and the collective breadth and depth of knowledge really is quite amazing. wouldn't it be sad if it diminished, simply because of readability issues? one need only spent a few minutes to realize that a clear consensus is forming. if you, the editors, want to improve the system, i think people are all for that. i think the question then becomes, is this (the current design) really an improvement? Fri Sep 26 01:00:35 -0700 2008 4061057 12886 kotatsu 2 4062902 So you ask for feedback and then you delete those posts too? Did you ASK for feedback before you made the arbitrary changes? Like sorting by date, bigger type, NOT messing with the background color? Oh, that's right, you didn't have to ask. No, if you're realllllly asking the question, the new design is NOT an improvement. Fri Sep 26 03:18:10 -0700 2008 4062858 11104 dolores 1 4062957 The new look is very cold and unfriendly. The old color scheme was more comfortable, friendly, and relaxing. This new color scheme puts me on edge and makes me antsy. The text is too small and having to adjust it every time I visit is a nuisance. I really like it better the old way. I also liked that you could set the color you wanted before as well. Fri Sep 26 04:55:49 -0700 2008 4061057 10732 JMF 1 4062963 Just a minor cosmetic bug: the re: in replies is set off to the right of the reply text. (Viewing in Safari 3.1.2) I just dl'd a new version of Firefox. I'll see if it crashes on this site as it did last night. I'll do that later when I have more time. Fri Sep 26 05:01:21 -0700 2008 4061057 49726 Anonimo 1 4062990 One of the things I find especially annoyuing in the new design is NOT having the top-of-the-screen Chow Logo and menu bar stay in place as you scroll through the posts. Please please please put the threads back in a frame and cure this annoying and time consuming problem! For the record, I'm using a Chrome browser reserved for Chow because the site doesn't play nice with IE. And that's a real drag.because Chrome won't build internet shortcuts at the click of my mouse, and they are my prime method of storing research or sites of interest. Bummer! Fri Sep 26 05:21:20 -0700 2008 4061057 112096 Caroline1 2 4063149 That was true in the old design as well -- the logo did NOT stay in place when you scrolled. Fri Sep 26 06:40:20 -0700 2008 4062990 25310 Chuckles the Clone 1 4063050 I like it. I hated the original redesign and the red and oatmeal scheme. I have always found the redesigned site slow and I still find it slow, whether I use IE or Firefox. I think it looks much better, and, importantly for me, it's slightly safer for work now! Fri Sep 26 05:52:41 -0700 2008 4061057 14139 Kagey 1 4063077 I just pulled up the New York Times web site which is also black on white to see why that works and this doesn't. First of all, the NYT is using a well-chosen font. It has serifs, which is MUCH easier to read. The NYT font is actually even smaller the the one that everyone (nearly) is complaining about here. You can go to a smaller font using serif and still keep it legible. I thought it was fairly general knowledge that san-serif fonts should not be used for large bodies of text as they cause eyestrain. Also, the NYT puts in a punch of color here and there: subtitles are in dark blue, the times are in a dark (soothing) red, the side bar listings are in grey, etc. Someone on this design team needs to look at this site to get some ideas. To quote an article found at http://www.charfishdesign.com/: "Some fonts are easier to read than others, so some are well used for main body copy while others are best reserved for chapter headings, pullquotes or any brief area of emphasis. The two basic choices for the main body copy font are serif and sans-serif. Serif fonts have little serifs, or tails, on them like the image to the left. Serif fonts are often considered better used for body copy, as the serifs act as trails or pointers that lead the eye from character to character. This can reduce eye strain and make the reading little smoother. On the other hand, sans-serif fonts (”sans” meaning “without”) do not have the tails. Sans-serif fonts can also work well for body copy, but because they lack the serifs, they often appear to be closer to together and jumbled. This, if not done well, can make for eye strain and tough reading and that’s no fun. So generally the sans-serif fonts are bumped up in size a bit, to increase legibility." Fri Sep 26 06:07:58 -0700 2008 4061057 14160 Carole 2 4063124 Interesting that I found what looks a lot like a clone of your new layout. Attached is a sample of it. Maybe your designer is using the same program... Fri Sep 26 06:31:07 -0700 2008 4063077 83832 fussycouple 3 4063522 Wow, good find. I googled 'woork', found the blog, and when I went to the main site you see exactly how how much better this could look. Fri Sep 26 08:48:17 -0700 2008 4063124 14160 Carole 2 4063137 Just for the record, the old site used -exactly- the same body font. And in my browser at least, a font of exactly the same size. See my screenshots somewhere up near the top of this thread. I'm not saying the experience is the same, but the shapes of the letters might not be the place to go looking for the problem. Fri Sep 26 06:35:58 -0700 2008 4063077 25310 Chuckles the Clone 3 4063232 I think it has more to do with the fact that the font is not black on white, it's grey on white, which makes it harder to read and thus gives many of us (myself included) the impression that it's smaller. Fri Sep 26 07:11:11 -0700 2008 4063137 14386 BobB 2 4063238 Yes, I was just reading the front page of the NY Times and then came to this site. I think the fonts are the same size but on the NYT there is more contrast between the type and the white background than here. Also, lots of blue on the NY Times page which is easy on the eyes and again, together with the pictures and pops of color offer lots of contrast. Very little negative space. This site is also running very slow again for me today. Fri Sep 26 07:13:21 -0700 2008 4063077 16406 ziggylu 2 4064018 "First of all, the NYT is using a well-chosen font. It has serifs, which is MUCH easier to read." Yes. "The NYT font is actually even smaller the the one that everyone (nearly) is complaining about here." No, the NYT font is bigger. Screen shoy showing today's NYT article on left side of screen, your post above on right. Fri Sep 26 11:52:38 -0700 2008 4063077 18222 maria lorraine 3 4064036 Usability studies have actually found that serif fonts are easier to read on paper and sans serif fonts are easier to read on computer screens. Fri Sep 26 12:01:39 -0700 2008 4064018 10516 MplsM ary 4 4064315 The latest usability/readability studies say something different. What those found -- in both print and web media, was that font size was most important, specifially font height, and letter spacing -- and that being a serif or sans serif font didn't matter as much as those other three variables. Here's the Arditi and Cho study from 2005: "On the whole, the researchers found that there was a negligible difference in the readability and legibility of serif vs. sans-serif fonts. In addition, recent research has shown that other factors such as font-height and letter spacing may be more important than the presence of serifs in increasing legibility and readability. "Early evidence suggested that serifs should be avoided online. However, recent studies have shown that using serif fonts online may not be as detrimental to the online reading experience as previously thought. In fact, depending on the purpose for which a serif font is deployed, it might have some advantages over sans-serif font." Other studies, particular the ongoing ones by Michael Bernard, have found that blanket generalizations about serifs or sans serifs fonts aren’t enough to ascertain readability. In 2003, reading times and comprehensibility of the Times New Roman serif font was markedly higher than the Gigi sans serif font, and preferred in both personal and web applicaitons 68%. Another study in 2003 by Bernard also confirmed that font size was more important than a serif or sans serif font. "Researchers compared the readability and legibility of Times New Roman (serif) and Arial (sans-serif) fonts with relation to typeface, size, and format, and concluded that the most important factor in determining font preference was not serif or sans-serif but instead font size." What was also found important: Font color and contrast between the font and background. A number of fonts on the same web page was found to be especially jarring. As was a multiplicity of images, and glaring, bright backgrounds -- both fatigued the eyes. So, for Chowhound: Small sans serif type doesn’t work. A larger body type would be better. Mixing fonts doesn’t work. Grey color fonts aren’t preferable to blue or black. Glaring white background fatigues the eyes. Maria Fri Sep 26 13:49:50 -0700 2008 4064036 18222 maria lorraine 5 4064382 Thanks for the updated info. Seems I've fallen behind using and regurgitating old Nielson info. After I pass my Java certification I'll have to spend time updating my old usability knowledge. Fri Sep 26 14:15:03 -0700 2008 4064315 10516 MplsM ary 5 4064428 Thanks for posting such a detailed and informative reply. It pretty much jibes with my understanding (not totally up-to-date but based on extensive user testing conducted in the lab of a word-processor manufacturer that was one of my technical writing clients). Speaking personally, I generally find serif typefaces more legible for body text, whether on or off screen. Which isn't to say there aren't plenty of hard-to-read serif typefaces, too. Some factors we -- especially the site's design team -- should bear in mind are monitor type, size and quality; environmental issues like ambient lighting; and the acuteness of one's vision and, if applicable, corrective lenses. We each tend to talk about our individual experience as though it's universal, applies to everyone, though nothing could be further from the truth. The site looks quite different -- and harder to read -- on my desktop CRT monitor than on my portable's LCD screen. On the other hand, the CRT is more adjustable. The LCD has only a brightness adjustment -- contrast is fixed -- yet it also comes with a font-smoothing utility that can significantly affect legibility. All this argues for a site design that, unlike the current one-size-fits-all approach, is adaptable to each user's particular combination of screen, lighting, vision and personal preferences. Skins and font-size settings would be a big step in that direction. Still, based on the replies in this and the corresponding Site Talk thread, we can safely say that, for most users, the current setup -- the small, low contrast typefaces, the huge expanses of glaring white -- doesn't work. Fri Sep 26 14:37:42 -0700 2008 4064315 10520 carswell 5 4064471 Excellent discussion of the font issue. Thank you for going into so much detail. Fri Sep 26 15:02:03 -0700 2008 4064315 14160 Carole 3 4064392 Screen shot showing comparison, mentioned above: Fri Sep 26 14:18:26 -0700 2008 4064018 18222 maria lorraine 4 4064405 Have tried 3 times to upload photo...I cannot. I like the car analogy that's been used here -- a shiny new coat of paint, but what about fixing the engine? Fri Sep 26 14:25:35 -0700 2008 4064392 18222 maria lorraine 1 4063209 I hated the previous redesign and complained mightily. While I settled on the "alternative" theme as at least somewhat usable, it was never better than that. As such I applaud the current effort. The new design is less cluttered. The site seems faster, though I have no idea whether this is due to the design changes or whether there simply aren't many people online at the moment. It is more content oriented, while the previous design emphasized the (in my opinion, appalling) design elements at the expense of the content. That said, I have two complaints. These are serious, and I know I am not alone. 1. The fonts. The default fonts are MUCH too small. Many of us are, perhaps, more "mature" than the design team if you have anything like a typical software shop. I am in the IT business and, at most places where I've worked, most designers were under the age of 30 and very few were over 40. I use Firefox and have a VERY good display. I also have a Firefox extension called NoSquint that permits very precise, and specific, font size adjustments at both global and site levels. Using this tool, I have been able to make REPLIES to postings very legible. I have set the text size on Chowhound to 120%. However, I can do nothing to make the Chowhound menus, top level postings, text captions on graphics, and several text elements readable. I cannot easily read what I am typing at the moment. At 120%, these text elements are too small. If I increase the font size to make them read clearly, the text instead distorts and the reply text (readable at 120%) lines run together as their leading goes negative. Whatever you are doing to format the reply text should be applied to everything else. I like the typeface, but you MUST either make the default larger or make it possible to adjust all other text as you can adjust the reply text. I'd be happy to send you screen shots if my meaning isn't clear. 2. The glaring white background HURTS. Other white areas of my browser are very muted compared with the Chowhound window. Other currently open tabs display white that doesn't hurt. Other open applications on my screen display whites that do not hurt. I use Chowhound when taking breaks from work. I can't go to the effort of changing settings on a carefully calibrated screen just for Chowhound. I like the white background. I don't know what colour setting you are using that makes the site go glaringly bright, but PLEASE tone it down. My eyes have started to burn and I am developing a headache simply looking at the screen. In summation, I like the new design a lot. The UI is much better, But you must deal with the font sizes and the glare. The glare issue, in particular could be addressed in a few minutes. The font size issue may be more complex, but I reiterate that I can adjust the reply text flawlessly. Why not everything else? Fri Sep 26 07:02:44 -0700 2008 4061057 23411 embee 2 4063250 The flash of BLACK in your eyes when you move between screens. If you're NOT going to change anything else to a more customer friendly format, at least can't you do something about that FLASH OF BLACK? Fri Sep 26 07:16:16 -0700 2008 4063209 11104 dolores 3 4063288 I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you describe what you're seeing and when in more detail? Fri Sep 26 07:31:50 -0700 2008 4063250 10021 Jacquilynne 4 4063348 I've seen this a couple of times too. Apparently, way down underneath everything, the bgcolor of the pages is black. So what seems to be happening is the browser lays out the black page background first and then layers the rest of the page on top. If there's a delay in loading the rest of the page content (I'm guessing) then the black background remains long enough to be perceived as a black flash. It's a very rare-to-never occurrence here on safari, but maybe on other browsers ? Fri Sep 26 07:52:23 -0700 2008 4063288 25310 Chuckles the Clone 5 4063505 Yeah, I've encountered that too, but frequently in the most recent old design, not yet in this one. I always use Firefox to access CH. Fri Sep 26 08:45:03 -0700 2008 4063348 13525 JasmineG 5 4064758 > I've seen this a couple of times too. Apparently, way > down underneath everything, the bgcolor of the pages is black. While I don't see this effect myself, I think you're right. From the CSS: body { background:#000; <--- This is black, but would be a simple for design team to change it to #fff (white) background-image: url(/images/bg_chow_refresh.gif); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:62.5%; } Fri Sep 26 17:01:23 -0700 2008 4063348 66614 kpzoo 4 4063430 It doesn't always happen, but often the background image doesn't load immediately and the black page background will appear to "flash". Fri Sep 26 08:19:18 -0700 2008 4063288 93805 hannaone 4 4064413 Oh, the Black Screen of Death is quite common while navigating between boards. It appears before anything else does...with the Chowhound banner at the top. Then, it's a nuclear-bomb blinding flash to white. Fri Sep 26 14:29:01 -0700 2008 4063288 18222 maria lorraine 1 4063347 I also find it too white. It's harsh. I need some contrast somewhere. Even the message text is too light for me. I find it very hard to look at. Fri Sep 26 07:52:22 -0700 2008 4061057 79108 basileater 1 4063364 Hate. that's really about the best way to quantify it. Why? -The old design allowed most users to concentrate on the discussion thread, which is why we're here. The maroon isolated the conversation, so you could choose to ignore the commercial crap on the sidebar, if you desired. -This redesign seems to be about a design and advertising, not usability. Its all the same content priority because its on the same background color. Food is about warmth, the site should emulate that. This new site is NOT warm, its cold, stark and uninviting. Fri Sep 26 07:56:45 -0700 2008 4061057 13333 hzp 2 4063800 I'm going to agree with this. The ads seem much more prevelant, and the gray on white makes my water. Fri Sep 26 10:29:31 -0700 2008 4063364 10737 Bobfrmia 1 4063367 the chow boards drop down menu: 1. most people use general topics, make that list first. 2. i suggest large rows -- instead of the columns. you can do small columns within a larger row section. e.g. the first row section would be the general topics, the second row section could contain the regions, like you had on the prior design. much friendlier to use. 3. now, i have to make a special move to ensure i can scroll over to general topics without popping "out" of the menu -- the oblique angle makes the "pop out" much more likely. 4. the menu bar is too close to the section below; i find the drop down boards menu appearing when i'm really just trying to go to my posts...(maybe i just need to be more careful....) don't like the bright white don't like the small type what is with all the blank white space on the right side of the screen? like there ---------> what was wrong with the old design? Fri Sep 26 07:58:46 -0700 2008 4061057 105717 alkapal 2 4063597 FWIW, I display CH in an 800-pixel-wide window, not maximized, making the white space to the right much less of an issue. Fri Sep 26 09:20:04 -0700 2008 4063367 15954 meatme 1 4063375 I love the new design. It's light, fresh, and makes me want to dig into the site. As a web designer that works on major international brands, I give it a thumbs up :) Fri Sep 26 08:01:13 -0700 2008 4061057 180723 smasciana 1 4063496 Sorry, I am not liking this whiter then white look, it's to hard on the eyes and just to plain looking. I am actually finding myself not staying on the boards for long becase it is just to bright. OK, not sure what the problem is with posting my reply but twice I have tried to post this message and I keep getting some page about Summer somebody and the post is not going through. Will try again. Fri Sep 26 08:42:51 -0700 2008 4061057 92092 GIOny 1 4063584 Here's an observation about text being too LARGE: The font used for the Hot Posts page header ("Your Unread Posts for XXX") is so large that the header runs over to a second line of text for most boards. I'm currently looking, for example, at http://chowhound.chow.com/new_posts/40. For that matter, the text used for the title of the first post in each thread is also too large, e.g., "Feedback on the Redesign? Let us know here" on the current page, http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/560190. Fri Sep 26 09:13:47 -0700 2008 4061057 15954 meatme 1 4063711 As this is just another posting of what many people have said, i must repeat that....THE WHITE IS TERRIBLE...besides being more difficult to look at for long periods of time, it seems that the branding that came along with the red has gone away. It now looks like any other board out there. Fri Sep 26 10:00:13 -0700 2008 4061057 221400 luvtoeatwell 1 4063825 Looks totally washed out with all the white...changes the entire warmth and ambiance that this community represents.. It's gone completely to vanilla...not even French vanilla ! Please go back to the old version but make the appropriate backend improvements...like being able to get email alerts on various discussion threads. Fri Sep 26 10:39:01 -0700 2008 4061057 145071 pondrat 1 4063834 One word: Skins. It's very easy to implement, it's easy for users to figure out nowadays, and offers the best of all worlds to everyone. For me personally the new layout is way too bright. Maybe the red was a bit 90's, but giving users some choice is the best and easy solution. Fri Sep 26 10:43:21 -0700 2008 4061057 102873 karamazov 1 4064122 hey, i'm gonna try to keep it constructive (but as you all know, i have a very hungry inner snark-monster). i don't like georgia. she's wussy. i think a BOLDER, more heavy-line font would solve some of the reading problems. i think everyone is working with the site on control-plus (i'm 33 and 20/20 and i need to do this), so the wimpy thin lines of georgia get fuzzy on the larger setting and contribute to the eye strain. certainly can't see screen-shots or more detailed pix very well either. the reply font is especially teeny and will cramp people's responses to posts, reducing their number and also length/detail. you know this already, but i am very concerned about it. if the blank white background spaces <----------------------------here, & here-------------------------> were chilled out to a more neutral color than the glaring white-- beige/tan/oatmeal, a nice warm color, hey anything really. it would really help and i think the whining about headaches would get a lot quieter. is that as simple as i think it is to fix/try? i would like the link buttons on the bottom of each page to have color highlights or be proper buttons, so it's more obvious and user-friendly for newer users/browsers (example on the bottom of this thread, "back to technical help," "back to top," "reply to original post"). it's a little more commercial-magazine-looking, which i don't like but i can get over. the user-friendliness has declined due to these appearance-related, fixable things, and the site does look more sterile and less. . . "yummy". . ? i know i've already said my piece about changing the name of "places" to "restaurants and bars," and i read the FAQ and realize you folks are trying to make it less confusing for new people browsing the boards, but i still think that changing the all-inclusive, pan-chow catchall "places" to "restaurants and bars" will ultimately restrict the content of the site and the general discussion of chow here. can i post about my fave deli in "restaurants and bars?" yeah, probably, though it's borderline. . . but my fave chocolate shop is probably out, huh. as is my summer produce stand, my gourmet grocery store, my state & county fair, farmer's markets, bakeries, coffee shop, hot dog stand, taco truck, seasonal fish shack in the park, etc, etc, etc. . . i think the heading "restaurants and bars" will limit future contributions, and be more confusing than "places" was for new users who may not realize that chowhound is about more than just consumer restaurant reviews. there are many folks who barely eat out, who don't use restaurant reviews and are here mostly for the "home cooking" board, for example, who would shy away from "restaurants and bars," and miss valuable and helpful content. if chowhound is truly "front and center, all about the food," you gotta rename "restaurants and bars" to something more inclusive. too wordy, maybe, but i think "restaurants, bars, & chow-places" would be much more clear and inclusive. cheers. Fri Sep 26 12:32:24 -0700 2008 4061057 46030 soupkitten 2 4064158 I wanted to reply earlier to the switch from places to Restaurants & Bars as I too think it sounds less inclusive, I think I have the the answer - Places for Chow or even Chowish Places. Fewer letters than Restaurants & Bars and relates back to the reason we're all here - Chow. Hey, we all Google so why shouldn't we all Chow? Fri Sep 26 12:47:15 -0700 2008 4064122 10516 MplsM ary 2 4064348 Wonderful! Chowhound Team please pay attention: "The all-inclusive, pan-chow catchall "places" to "restaurants and bars" will ultimately RESTRICT the content of the site and the general discussion of chow here. "can i post about my fave deli in "restaurants and bars?" yeah, probably, though it's borderline. . . "but my fave chocolate shop is probably out, huh. as is my summer produce stand, my gourmet grocery store, my state & county fair, farmer's markets, bakeries, coffee shop, hot dog stand, taco truck, seasonal fish shack in the park, etc, etc, etc. . . i think the heading "restaurants and bars" will limit future contributions" Ah, by being more welcoming to "newcomers" with Restaurants and Bars instead of Places, you became less Chowish -- counterproductive to your goal. Please think this through. Fri Sep 26 14:04:46 -0700 2008 4064122 18222 maria lorraine 3 4064476 Again, second your comment. Fri Sep 26 15:03:56 -0700 2008 4064348 14160 Carole 2 4064366 i was so busy bitching-- erm, i mean, being constructive, that i forgot to say that some of the changes are pretty slick, and i like them. like the subtle stripe/plaid, grid thing going on with the new posts screen. that looks kinda sharp, imho. there's other things i think i'll appreciate more as i get used to them. i just didn't want to be so crushingly negative, i'd hate to be a site wonk on chowhound, it would be as hard as trying to cook all of our breakfasts right-- can't please every person, and it's pretty thankless. . . Fri Sep 26 14:09:49 -0700 2008 4064122 46030 soupkitten 3 4064383 You have no idea how much grudgewank most development teams have to deal with from end users. It's incredibly rare (and incredibly nice) to hear "good job" or "I really like this, even though I don't like that" once in a while. I'm not a shill for engineering and I'm not saying the readability problems aren't annoying, I'm just saying these folks aren't out there to torture us. They'll continue to work on it to get it right. Fri Sep 26 14:15:25 -0700 2008 4064366 10232 yumyum 4 4064435 hear, hear. Fri Sep 26 14:41:17 -0700 2008 4064383 98493 JamieK 4 4064496 Thanks, yumyum. That bears repeating. Fri Sep 26 15:12:08 -0700 2008 4064383 10087 Pat Hammond 1 4064172 Here's one...the drop down menus drop down too far. When you are at the top of the page, and you mouse over to the chowhound tab, about 1/2 of the items fall below the bottom of the page. You have to partially scroll down the page, till just the tabs appear, and even then, you cut off the bottom. Any way to make it like it used to be,so you can see all of them. On my screen everything below the Metro NY header in the first column, and Spain/Portugal in the second gets dropped below the screen Fri Sep 26 12:51:07 -0700 2008 4061057 116345 ChefBoyAreMe 1 4064464 This page is too hard to digest to see whether others have posted something, so in case someone hasn't mentioned it... Mac OS x.4.11 Safari 3.1.2 Background diagonal pattern is much lighter than Firefox 3.0.1 Fri Sep 26 14:59:24 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 1 4064482 "»" is used inconsistently across the site. sometimes it signifies a call to action as a link, sometimes not. Example: Recipes landing page - "» Come browse CHOW's recipes" is not a link but then at bottom of page, "RECIPES »" & "STORIES »" , the carat signifies a link. Also on the BLOG>Green Landing page, "more »" is also a call to action Fri Sep 26 15:06:11 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 1 4064497 Mac 10.4.11, Safari 3.1.2 & Firefox 3.0.1 on this page (and similar pages): http://www.chow.com/recipes/13533 the headline's descenders (the "p" & "y" of "Ginger Ale Apple-Lemon Slushy") touch the photo underneath it. Also the photo is aligned center horizontally, but aligned to top vertically. My opinion is this doesn't look good... it might look better centered on both axis or have the grey background match the height of the photo asset. Fri Sep 26 15:12:15 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 1 4064503 Mac OS 10.4.11, Safari 3.1.2, Firefox 3.0.1 http://www.chow.com/stories/14/category The number buttons for the various pages at the bottom of the page have rollovers that look pale yellow, but the design scheme of the site seems to be greys, reds and white, so why pale yellow? it doesn't look like it matches to me. Fri Sep 26 15:14:38 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 1 4064534 it looks okay so far, bright and clean. BUT the features on the homepage are all over the place... like the background div is much smaller than the content div and everything gets pushed around to the right i'm running firefox on a 14" laptop Fri Sep 26 15:27:00 -0700 2008 4061057 224803 dumpycactus 2 4064537 i meant 14.1" widescreen Fri Sep 26 15:29:07 -0700 2008 4064534 224803 dumpycactus 3 4064714 I much preferred the old lay-out, although maybe I'm just not used to this one. But I REALLY liked the old color scheme better, much more elegant. Fri Sep 26 16:37:15 -0700 2008 4064537 189528 Whosyerkitty 1 4064724 The darker gray background is nice, and helps a little on the eye strain. And alternating white/gray in the list of board posts is nice. Thanks. But there is still too much white space. Fri Sep 26 16:41:55 -0700 2008 4061057 13957 slacker 1 4064736 Here's one for you - why are the names to whom you're replying no longer listed to the right? There's a bunch of white space. For instance, alanbarnes response to yumyum at the top of this thread doesn't show who he's responding to - just a slight indent - and in the collapsed view, it can sometimes be hard to figure out who's responding to who without clicking on that post to view it within the post. Attached a picture to show what I mean. Hope it works. Fri Sep 26 16:49:48 -0700 2008 4061057 10532 LindaWhit 2 4064756 Hmmm...picture attachment didn't work with a .bmp file. Let's try it again with a .jpg. Fri Sep 26 16:59:41 -0700 2008 4064736 10532 LindaWhit 2 4064785 I see the 're:xyz user' unless it's a reply to the OP (original poster, for the acronym police). Fri Sep 26 17:11:59 -0700 2008 4064736 10985 MMRuth 2 4064795 They're there for me and, to the best of my memory, always have been. Windows XP SP3, Firefox 3.0.2 Fri Sep 26 17:16:15 -0700 2008 4064736 10520 carswell 3 4065056 I'm on Windows XP SP3 using IE6. Wonder if it's the IE version as the reason I'm not seeing the person being replied to when the thread is collapsed? Fri Sep 26 19:35:55 -0700 2008 4064795 10532 LindaWhit 4 4065094 Just fired up IE (7.0.5730.11) to check it out. The "re:" names on the collapsed threads are visible, though I'm experiencing all kinds of hiccups and scrolling/loading latency issues. If you haven't tried Firefox, this might be a good time. Performance is much crisper, the add-ins (Flash and animated ad blocking, to name only two) far superior, the interface is user-friendlier and the installation/transition nearly painless. www.mozilla.com/firefox Fri Sep 26 20:09:43 -0700 2008 4065056 10520 carswell 5 4065538 So it's either Firefox or upgrading to IE7. I should have thought to check at work yesterday morning before I came home sick to see if the missing reply names were there (I have IE7 there). Thanks for the info on Firefox, carswell. Sat Sep 27 06:19:31 -0700 2008 4065094 10532 LindaWhit 6 4070078 I just remembered I had posted this query on this thread re: the "re:" names showing - I'm at work, and they do show up with IE7. Will check again when I get home to see if home PC (IE6) still doesn't or if it was a glitch when I originally posted. Mon Sep 29 11:16:25 -0700 2008 4065538 10532 LindaWhit 7 4070700 OK, I'm home. And no - they do NOT show up using IE6. So perhaps a technical ticket should be opened up for this issue. Mon Sep 29 15:33:47 -0700 2008 4070078 10532 LindaWhit 1 4064806 im not a fan: - so much white -- the stark whiteness of it is distressing to the eye. - new sub-nav font -- a serifed font?? its so chunky, hard to read. - in general -- its less organic, its more sci-fi, and.... BUSY, BUSY, BUSY. ...sad. i used to demo your site and point out its cleanness, its clarity. now its all gone. Fri Sep 26 17:20:42 -0700 2008 4061057 143137 kibbles 1 4064809 It's like waking up in bed next to a stranger that you don't recognize :) Fonts was too small, and washed out looking, way too much white. Too much contrast, gives headache, and repels one from wanting to linger more than a couple minutes. It should be warm like a glowing fireplace, or a kitchen that you like to hang out in and chat, not sterile like an examining room. Wrong mood, bad design for this kind of content. It's not an online gallery for Richard Avedon photos, it's a forum for info and other resources,and as such it should be easy on the eyes in terms of text size, font styles, and background color. Warm it up. Also, the thin little grey menu on top is totally overkill, I mean how many choices can you have in the header, and with all those drop down menus, it is just overwhelming. It would have been better to put some stuff on the side and leave the top more sparse with just my chow, and the main chowhound boards, and sign in, in the header, and then have the other menus on a side bar. In the middle area, you could feature your video of the day, and whatever ad junk you have on the right hand side bar. No one is going to scroll all the way down as you are making them after suffocating them with that very dense header. People look at the top, left side, and middle when they get to a page. They look last to the far right. I hope you get it changed, because as a longtime poster, it's really a turn off. Fri Sep 26 17:22:32 -0700 2008 4061057 11727 janie 2 4065886 I prefer the cleaner look the site has now. Font size is under the user's control and has been now for quite some time now across platforms and browsers. If white and dark greys gives you a headache then newspapers, word documents, excel docs and pretty much any other productivity software must be too much for you as well. To be compared to avedon is a compliment. Sat Sep 27 10:02:22 -0700 2008 4064809 110305 cycle10 3 4066000 Not in this particular context it isn't. Sat Sep 27 10:54:40 -0700 2008 4065886 11727 janie 3 4066565 Font size is only partially under the user's control. Most other white site backgrounds I deal with, including other open tabs in my browser (Firefox), do not cause painful eyestrain. The comparison with newspapers is specious and inappropriate. I also like the new look, but I cannot tolerate the inability to control font size successfully other than for posted replies. Toning down the white to a more soothing background (which can still be "white") should be an easy enough task. I tried this on one of my own web sites to verify. It took only a few minutes. This type of font size on white is one reason why e-books haven't made much headway. Overt human physiology is involved in these psychophysical reactions. Sat Sep 27 16:43:56 -0700 2008 4065886 23411 embee 4 4066789 If I hit "cmd+" (mac) all the text becomes bigger. If I do this on Firefox, everything including the graphics gets bigger. NYT & USATODAY all have white backgrounds online and print. I for one don't get a headache viewing their content nor on any other highly trafficked site like yahoo, google, amazon etc. It's interesting that RSS feeds by default have a white background and dark text. Browsers now also allow for users to customize their preferred stylesheets to suit their needs/preference. This feature can be found in the preferences in your browser. Sat Sep 27 19:17:48 -0700 2008 4066565 110305 cycle10 1 4064811 I like the redesign. It is easier on the eyes and works nicely. Some of the responses are still slow, but I hope that will all be sorted out. As I find people looking for sources of ingredients, however, I wonder if a category for seasonal foods might be appropriate. "In the markets now ..." It could be something attached to local boards similar to the cookbook of the month. Oak Joan, please think about it. Fri Sep 26 17:25:13 -0700 2008 4061057 53369 Father Kitchen 2 4064854 I love that idea, Father Kitchen. Of course, it would need to be calibrated to different geographic regions. Maybe an idea for the Digest? By the way, have you ever explored the Ingredients section of CHOW? To me, it's an unfortunate well kept secret, as there has never been a link, that I can find, to it, but you can search the section. For example: http://www.chow.com/ingredients/153 But the only way I know to get to it is to do a search for, in this case, cilantro, in the main search box, and then use the drop down menu to limit the search to Ingredients. I've by no means looked a lot of the Ingredient entries, but the ones that I have looked at seem very useful to me. P.S. Design team - I do wish there were an 'advanced search' hyperlink under that search box - I feel as if it's a waste of time to have to do a general search, and then narrow it down further as a second step. Fri Sep 26 17:50:33 -0700 2008 4064811 10985 MMRuth 3 4064880 We have a search specific project on the horizon that will improve search sitewide. We have plans on deck to improve search here and wanted to include them in this step but for our work flow it makes sense to look at that aspect of the functionality of the site across the site as a whole as it needs much attention. Fri Sep 26 18:03:02 -0700 2008 4064854 227083 Design_Team 1 4064825 Well, I can say this: The new look has certainly helped me with my life goal of becoming an anorexic. I used to be triggered to eat as I browsed Chowhound. Now, nothing. Wait, I take that back. I AM triggered to read the newspaper. From cover to cover. Every time I log back on I am more and more dismayed at the state of things. At least, as other users have requested, give us an option on the colors. For a website developed on good eats, this is just not visually appealing. And we all know eating is almost as much about the visual as it is about the taste. Fri Sep 26 17:33:57 -0700 2008 4061057 113872 diablo 1 4064871 Just for fun, here's one of the Site Talk threads that accompanied the first major redesign after the CNET sale: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/304127 It's interesting that the most common complaint is that the font is TOO BIG :) Fri Sep 26 17:55:23 -0700 2008 4061057 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4064942 I believe that was after the first redesign, this one http://web.archive.org/web/20060715061846/www.chowhound.com/topics/show/304392 which was different from the one we've had for the last year or more. I think we were all just in shock after losing that dated typewriter font :-) Fri Sep 26 18:32:05 -0700 2008 4064871 10027 Chris VR 1 4064963 Love the darker grey on the side! So much better. Fri Sep 26 18:44:50 -0700 2008 4061057 13525 JasmineG 2 4065455 Yes, the dark gray helps - thanks! Sat Sep 27 04:24:57 -0700 2008 4064963 10985 MMRuth 3 4065543 Still don't have the dark gray on the side, no matter what font size I use (I just clicked down to the Smallest size - just the darker gray around each post box - still lots of white on the right side of the posts. Sat Sep 27 06:21:20 -0700 2008 4065455 10532 LindaWhit 1 4064977 too bright! lose the white! Fri Sep 26 18:53:50 -0700 2008 4061057 204873 jim bachinski 1 4065352 Me likee. Sat Sep 27 00:04:37 -0700 2008 4061057 110328 Steve2 in LA 1 4065465 When I resize the text so I can actually read it (Ctrl-+), the page expands past the monitor width. Horizontal scroll bars are annoying and the sign of fairly crappy design. Windows XP & Firefox 3 Sat Sep 27 04:35:46 -0700 2008 4061057 120833 Enso 1 4065672 As a user who pretty much just reads a few select boards, I hate having to scroll down the boards list (at http://chowhound.chow.com/) to find the boards I want to enter. There is so much other stuff at the top of the screen now (and on the right side of the screen), that the links to certain boards no longer fit within the screen frame when you open that page. My vote would be to rearrange that page to allow all of the boards, or at least the most popular boards, to fit in a single screen frame on the chow entry webpage. (I mean, is the Caribbean board as popular as the Manhattan board?). (At the moment I am using Firefox 3.x with a display set to 1440 x 900 pixels, but I have had this same problem with the current design while using other computers with presumably different display setups.) Sat Sep 27 08:08:08 -0700 2008 4061057 48389 racer x 2 4065723 racer x, IIRC, that fix is going to happen. I'm pretty sure I read the Design Team saying they were aware of the largeness of the pop-down Board window and were going to fix it. Sat Sep 27 08:35:47 -0700 2008 4065672 10532 LindaWhit 2 4066198 Not sure what browser you are using, but jfood just marks his selected boards as a "Favorite" then click between the fabes. no biggie. Sat Sep 27 12:57:33 -0700 2008 4065672 11290 jfood 1 4065695 I can't log in to My Chow. Sat Sep 27 08:21:27 -0700 2008 4061057 11995 pikawicca 1 4065708 Someone said that it's a childish ultimatum to say I'll stop reading Chowhound if the design doesn't change, but the new design hurts my eyes and overwhelms my brain. The font discussions are very edifying and help me understand part of it, but the overwhelming, boring whiteness is the trump card. And I've been reading for, what, five or six years? Sat Sep 27 08:28:34 -0700 2008 4061057 15331 missliss 1 4065897 Why are new posts at the bottom? I think that paradigm should be shifted to new items 'floating' to the top. Sat Sep 27 10:05:55 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 2 4066171 That works for non threaded discussions, but not here. Sat Sep 27 12:43:25 -0700 2008 4065897 10027 Chris VR 2 4066181 New posts have always shown at the bottom. Changing the structure of threads would be a much greater change than the fixes needed to the new look, and would also destroy the threading of the CH boards. i.e., the embedding of replies. Sat Sep 27 12:49:02 -0700 2008 4065897 10074 Caitlin McGrath 3 4066230 Every site I visit with threaded discussions puts the new posts at the bottom. Since we read from top to bottom, it does not make sense to put the newest posts at the top and make the user scroll down to read one post and then up again to read the newer posts referring to older ones. Sat Sep 27 13:15:27 -0700 2008 4066181 107671 queencru 1 4065913 Overall I think the site looks more refined with the new background colors and less dated with the superfluous arbitrary dominating colors of beige and maroon. I'm glad to see slab serifs. Sat Sep 27 10:12:24 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 1 4065914 I like the nav and the dynamic menus, but I'm not a fan of the buttons in the nav menus (ex. "publish a recipe"). The chowhound menu though has some issues to me. First, it's gargantuan. And why doesn't "hot posts" and "latest posts" have a similar rollover as the rest of the menu items? Sat Sep 27 10:12:31 -0700 2008 4061057 110305 cycle10 1 4066231 I do not like the white background! Please change it back to the way it was before. This is hard on the eyes and looks unfinished. Sat Sep 27 13:16:05 -0700 2008 4061057 228957 lisalnj 1 4066674 I like it. You might want to contact FoodNetwork and show them how it is done. They just changed theirs, and it is horrible!! Why change something that is working to something that does not work??? Beats me! Sat Sep 27 17:53:32 -0700 2008 4061057 115579 Mother of four 1 4067081 Has anyone else noticed that the ordering of the boards (not just the number of columns) is very different in the CHOWHOUND mouse-over menu and the Hot Posts "Switch Board" listing? Sun Sep 28 00:19:42 -0700 2008 4061057 15954 meatme 1 4067243 I've tried all the tricks suggested and can't get the font size (in the body of the posts) to be any larger. When I increase text size (using IE6 here) only the header and title fonts increase (to gargantuan proportions) but the body text remains miniscule. I'm not about to switch browsers for one site! Is there a workaround or will Chow be addressing these issues more directly in the programming and design? Sun Sep 28 06:23:15 -0700 2008 4061057 177481 GSM 2 4067506 Marie Lorraine way, way up in this thread said instead of changing the text size use the zoom option. http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/560190#4065440 It seems the font is sized in pixels. That seems easy enough for engineering to change and NOT size it in pixels. As does changing to a darker text and a different, less glaring white background. In the mean time, anyone who wants to take the trouble to adjust their pages accordingly for Chowhound can give that a try. It works pretty well, except occasionaly the type is scrambled. Also it changes textsize to medium which means since I read all other sites using the large text size option, I have to change back and forth when I move from Chowhound to any other site on the web. As others have mentioned the comparison with newspapers and other black on white websites is irrelevant. There are too many variables ... font type, colors, etc. The point is that people who read other similar websites without problems are having problems here. What makes me sad about all the problems with the website is that I can no longer get new people to read the site. The long time readers like myself might continue to read, though probably less frequently. But if I tell my friends they can read the site better if they use a different browser, the steps that they need to do to change the background color or text size ... and when they get server and timeout errors they just need to keep trying trying to refresh the page until something appears and if the machine freezes while reading Chowhound to clear the spyware cookies and if that doesn't work to shut down and restart ... they tell me just to send them an email if I see some restaurant that will interest them. I Google a lot. When I come to a site that is badly formatted and difficult to read, it is rare I'll stop to read the content to see if it is worthwhile. When I come to a page on an unfamiliar site that gives me an error, I just move on assuming the site is broken. If that site comes up again in Google, I don't even bother clicking on a link a second time to see if things are fixed. I assume they are broken and it is a dead site. Besides turning away more and more long time readers, how many new readers will never know how great Chowhound is. And as mentioned, there was a beta test with some chowhound posters, including me. That was a step in a good direction. There were lots more bugs prior to the release. I'd only suggest next time in giving a little more test time, and involving a few mo more posters. As mentioned, lots of people would have volunteered. A few of us who tested asked not to release this until a few more issues were corrected. However, thinking about it, at that time, given the smallish group of testers and the fact that the big stuff was fixed, I think it was time to hear from a bigger audiance and get feedback. Maybe next time have two test phases ... an initial small group and when the big stuff is fixed, opening it up to a larger second test group. Sun Sep 28 09:23:16 -0700 2008 4067243 10264 rworange 3 4067921 Diff between IE6 and IE7: IE6: Toolbar at top, go to View pull-down menu, then to Text Size. IE7: Page pull-down menu to Text Size. If that doesn't work, use Page Zoom. GSM, just above, uses IE6. Sun Sep 28 12:52:00 -0700 2008 4067506 18222 maria lorraine 4 4069225 Ok, I tried upgrading to IE7... making text size larger still changed only the header font size, not the body text size. I tried page zoom-- this resulted in overlapping text. Grrr!!! Mon Sep 29 06:21:50 -0700 2008 4067921 177481 GSM 1 4067823 I, for one, think there is NOTHING wrong with black on white; it's used on a majority of text-intensive websites (OK, throw in a little blue, like Google) and it's suited books and newspapers throughout their whole history. And how many times do you have to explain that you actually didn't reduce the font size after all, to get people to stop complaining that it's too small now? I'd advise the designers to just kick back until all the steam is let off. Chowhounds don't like change, apparently, even when they only THINK it's a change. There were a lot of tantrums thrown when the C|Net desgn kicked in Those that threatened to walk then are still here. Call their bluff. All you have to lose are a few whiners. Sun Sep 28 11:51:19 -0700 2008 4061057 131118 Xiao Yang 2 4068015 A majority of posters here think it looks awful for whatever reason. That's all that matters. Your advice for the designers should be ignored. Sun Sep 28 13:36:31 -0700 2008 4067823 12103 Greg B 3 4068251 A vast majority, to go by the comments on this and the Site Talk board. Also, many of the hounds who threatened to leave in the days following the CNET software rollout (largely due to the hard-on-the-eyes maroon theme) didn't because the design team was responsive to many of the issues they raised and quickly introduced the eye-friendly oatmeal theme. One assumes a similar fix is in the works this time around. Sun Sep 28 15:42:26 -0700 2008 4068015 10520 carswell 4 4082280 Excellent points, Greg B and carswell. I certainly hope the design team is responsive this time as well. Though books and newspapers may be white (though actually they are often more of a beige), unlike a computer screen, they do not glow with their own light. Sat Oct 04 19:09:17 -0700 2008 4068251 67227 emmy 1 4068173 Safari is my "new" favorite browser for CH. The type is super simple to increase/decrease from the VIEW tab and the black against white, blue outline surrounding the post box, red box and grey all look fabulous! And, I absolutely love the use of the color blue! Day three in redesign and I'm still jazzed! Sun Sep 28 15:06:41 -0700 2008 4061057 36312 HillJ 1 4068214 Cannot link to a place in a reply to a post. When I click the "Reply" button, the icon displays as it should in the Reply window. When I click the "Link to a Place" button, all that displays in that window is a drop-down list of chow areas. Appears to be happening on all boards. Using IE 6.0 Sun Sep 28 15:27:46 -0700 2008 4061057 10514 KTFoley 1 4068219 I've been able to increase the font size successfully using CTRL+, so that's a good fix. However, when I do that, the words on the menu bar (the one where the words are red) shift all the way to the far left and overlap completely. Refreshing the screen does not help. The only fix is to reduce back to 100% to see the menu bar, then increase to 160% or so in order to read the threads. Sorry to add another glitch to your plate, but I thought you would want to know. BTW, I'm using IE7. Sun Sep 28 15:29:38 -0700 2008 4061057 66030 lisavf 1 4068226 Also, I just noticed that with the far right menu item, VIDEOS, at 100%, appears as VII. There is some sort of blank bar on top of the rest of the word. Sun Sep 28 15:32:14 -0700 2008 4061057 66030 lisavf 1 4068715 A laundry list of additional comments more aesthetic than functional (I consider the font size issues and the over-bright white page and lack of skin options functional issues) -> - too many different fonts. On my usual "Boards" page, the Chowhound logo is in one font; the "Special Coverage" heading is another; the items in the Special Coverage bar are in yet another (or are not in allcaps like the heading); the control bar (Chow, Chowhound, etc.) is in still another; add if I'm not mistaken, the "Search" button is still another. It just looks jumbled and slapped together; oh, and the "Attach photo" and "Link to a place" in the reply box are yet another different font. - the control bar has an odd "blank space" after the "My Chow" button which is a different shade of grey, a slightly skinnier size, to fill in a gap until you get to the right side of the page. Looks choppy and sloppy. - the "Search" button and "Add New Post" button are different shades of red - the "Search" button being the new glaring, unsettling red, the "Add New Post" being the prior, calmer maroon-ish red (not my favorite color but much easier to look at) - the "New" highlight in the boards (used to highlight new threads, and new posts within threads) appears to be continuing to use the old oatmeal and dark red color theme - intentional or vestigal? - the Special Coverage bar has a diagonal cut on the right-hand side, right in the middle of something, but there doesn't seem to be any ability to scroll or expand it. - the right-hand side content is not appearing at the top of the page next to the board, but rather at the bottom, so that the page has all of the left-hand side content (with blank white space on the right side), then all the right-hand side content/ads (with blank white space on the left side). Sun Sep 28 20:02:32 -0700 2008 4061057 35525 Frodnesor 2 4069399 >>" the right-hand side content is not appearing at the top of the page" I've started a separate thread about this problem. Glad to see I'm not the only one it's happening to: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/561005 Mon Sep 29 07:38:20 -0700 2008 4068715 25310 Chuckles the Clone 1 4068748 The new Search is too limiting and if you don't put things in quotes it becomes too unlimiting. Poor design quality, harder to read. Who's new partner convinced him or her to tinker with something that was already good?! Sun Sep 28 20:17:08 -0700 2008 4061057 56766 Pesel 1 4069049 yeah, why are searches limited to results in the last year? why was that decision made? it really restricts the ability to search -- esp. in topics tht are not "time-sensitive" -- like resto reviews..... Mon Sep 29 03:45:58 -0700 2008 4061057 105717 alkapal 2 4069123 The 'search this board' results have been initially limited to the last year since we introduced that feature -- it was part of an effort to help people find the most recent threads on a topic, as we got a lot of complaints about people bumping old threads. As always, you can adjust your search timeline on the results page to include everything back into the 1990s when the site was started -- a single year is just the default. Mon Sep 29 05:23:34 -0700 2008 4069049 10021 Jacquilynne 3 4069213 ah, its the default....ok! thanks! (was it always the default, cause i've pulled up old threads without changing any settings? oh well, anyhoo....) Mon Sep 29 06:14:06 -0700 2008 4069123 105717 alkapal 3 4069316 Oh thanks for clarifying ... I wondered about that too. I often look at posts from older than a year but I think the default might stop people bumping up ancient posts as often. I just found the search preferences, but they are a little hidden. There must be an easier way to adjust them than I did ... is this in the FAQs? Mon Sep 29 07:03:27 -0700 2008 4069123 10232 yumyum 4 4069325 This thread might help with your searches: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/505554 Mon Sep 29 07:07:07 -0700 2008 4069316 10985 MMRuth 4 4069706 If you search the whole site (the search bar that's now in the upper right corner), you get all results across CHOW, including Chowhound results from the beginning of time, sorted by relevance. To adjust your results, you hit the 'more options' button and that brings down the search options -- I do agree that could be more prominent. When you search just this board (the search that's now showing prominently above each board, which used to be just a small text link next to the title), you're limited to the one year -- but the 'search options' should open automatically on the results page, hopefully making it more obvious that you can change those dates. I think the difference between the two searches and how prominent they are to how prominent they were might account for the discrepancy you're seeing, alkapal -- you probably used the main search more often before because it was much higher visibility. Mon Sep 29 09:15:09 -0700 2008 4069316 10021 Jacquilynne 1 4069212 love the drop down menu from "mychow" on the navigation bar. love the fact that recipes have large font ingredient list! how about doing the same for the instructions? (and is there a "print" function that will give a clean printout of just the recipe/intro -- without the site's headers, ads, etc?) that would be great. thanks. still hatin' the frozen tundra-white look. i'm goin' snow blind! ;-) Mon Sep 29 06:12:31 -0700 2008 4061057 105717 alkapal 2 4069928 Using XP Pro, SP3 with IE7, usually browse with Firefox 3, no significant problems. Noticed the reply to button not present, other than that, the white background is less stressful with more ambient light (a good practice with any lengthy monitor use). I know this is a work in progress and the feedback from the hounds should help address the major issues. Mon Sep 29 10:30:00 -0700 2008 4069212 140436 fresnohotspot 3 4069997 hey I just noticed the reply to feature is now re: - that works for me... dang! I'd like to think that was in response to my post, I can fantasize. Okay let's try this, my new concern is that the new pages have no sweepstakes offers for round trip tickets to Bali. Mon Sep 29 10:51:11 -0700 2008 4069928 140436 fresnohotspot 1 4070546 I have real difficulty believing this statement in the New Look (redesign) FAQ: "We changed the name of Places to Restaurants & Bars to provide a better description of the majority of the content. Places, although inclusive of all food-related establishments, was too vague for most people. Restaurants & Bars is much more descriptive for the majority of people looking for those establishments. It still contains other great food-specific locales like farmers' markets and stores, but we couldn't fit that into the navigation." I Rarely see topics requesting info on or reviewing bars. Unless I hear differently, I think the design team just searched for 'bar' in the places db and came up with 3,073 places that happen to contain the word 'bar'. OTOH there are 1,425 places containing 'market' and 535 containing 'grocery'. Mon Sep 29 14:26:00 -0700 2008 4061057 23712 DiveFan 2 4070634 And some 2000 for "bakery" (but sadly, only 20 for "dive"). This does seem like a pretty clear case of treating the site as "let's remake it into what we wished it could have been," rather then "let's facilitate what it has become." Mon Sep 29 15:03:49 -0700 2008 4070546 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4070664 Yep, I read that statement too and just shook my head. While I'm sure there are discussions about bars here, I honestly cannot recall ever bothering to read one. I suspect the statement is from a similar mindset as the one that stated the redesign was to make the white background less intrusive and easier to read... Mon Sep 29 15:19:34 -0700 2008 4070546 12103 Greg B 2 4070780 This was a collective decision heavily debated behind the scenes here not primarily by the design team but the edit team. (Design did participate in the debate but were not the main driving force) The feedback we had suggested that people didn't understand what the term places meant. This is a tough one to solve, Places is to vague and Restaurants and Bars may be too limiting, as we very much want people to find bakeries, Farmers Markets etc there. We are open to suggestions and appreciate the ones that have been offered. The good news in all of this is that it's not written in stone but in pixels. The edit team is reading these threads and should a better solution present itself we will follow the wisdom of the crowd. Mon Sep 29 16:05:22 -0700 2008 4070546 227083 Design_Team 3 4070784 You could, if there is space, change it to Restaurants and Stores, if, indeed, there are more food stores than bars. Mon Sep 29 16:08:36 -0700 2008 4070780 10985 MMRuth 3 4070864 I think the wisdom of the crowd is telling you that of the two options known to have been on the table, "places" beats "restaurants and bars". Still, since the thing that happens when you click on the button is you get a map of places where chow may be found, "chow map" is probably a less astonishing label. Mon Sep 29 16:43:48 -0700 2008 4070780 25310 Chuckles the Clone 3 4070935 The phrases "Chow Spots" or "Chow Places" or "Chow Locations" or "Chow Maps" all come to mind. Mon Sep 29 17:15:05 -0700 2008 4070780 12103 Greg B 4 4070981 Probably too esoteric but the punster in me can't resist CHOW DIR (as in Chow Directory). Mon Sep 29 17:33:34 -0700 2008 4070935 10520 carswell 3 4071402 How about "Restaurants and Chow Places" instead of "Restaurants and Bars"? Mon Sep 29 22:13:49 -0700 2008 4070780 10850 jhammon 3 4071467 Places for Chow Chow-Worthy Places Find Good Chow ChowHounding Places Chow Places ? Mon Sep 29 23:09:31 -0700 2008 4070780 58039 ElsieDee 4 4071754 I like ElsieDee's "Chow-Worthy Places". Tue Sep 30 06:15:56 -0700 2008 4071467 10532 LindaWhit 5 4071764 The concern I have with attaching 'Chow' to the description is that it implies that all the 'Places' are 'chow-worthy', and I don't think that's the case, as I think Places get created even for places that (some) 'hounds don't like or recommend. Tue Sep 30 06:20:57 -0700 2008 4071754 10985 MMRuth 6 4071820 Fair enough. But as Chuckles said above, when you click on the button, you get a Chow Map. So perhaps that's the easiest, most common sense naming convention. There are *always* going to places that (some) hounds don't like - but the list isn't supposed to be the "best of the best", is it? It's just supposed to be a list of what others have recommended, good or bad. Each Hound should be diligent enough to read through various posts to determine whether a place is to their taste or not. Tue Sep 30 06:44:25 -0700 2008 4071764 10532 LindaWhit 7 4071877 Even though the design team has this one, I'll just throw it in this section with the other suggestions. Restaurants and More There was another good suggestion during the test, but I'm not recalling what it was but I'm sure it is on some list somewhere Tue Sep 30 07:15:21 -0700 2008 4071820 10264 rworange 8 4072063 Restaurants and More is thus far my favorite of the suggestions. I think it captures that Restaurants are the biggest piece of what's in that section, but that there's a variety of other stuff there, as well, without highlighting any one specific thing. Tue Sep 30 08:38:15 -0700 2008 4071877 10021 Jacquilynne 9 4072069 Restaurants and Hash Tue Sep 30 08:42:44 -0700 2008 4072063 137946 Scargod 9 4072318 I also like ElsieDee's suggestion Places for Chow Maybe a slight change Places to Chow or Places to Chow & Drink To keep the real estate down, only two characters more than the current Restaurants & Bars Places to Chow & Sip Any of those use 'Chow' in a playful way, tying it to the site without saying the places are approved or Chow-worthy. My own opinion is that you need to include the unworthy joints, not only in the Places databases but on the boards so that people are warned not only where to eat but where NOT to eat. Tue Sep 30 10:32:14 -0700 2008 4072063 10264 rworange 9 4072469 I like Restaurants and More a lot! Tue Sep 30 11:39:54 -0700 2008 4072063 13525 JasmineG 9 4072551 "restaurants and more" doesn't distinguish the content behind the link from the content in front of it. That is, all of chow[hound] is about "restaurants and more". If the purpose of the change in wording is to encourage people who were not clicking on the link before to suddenly start clicking on it, you need to promise them something other than what they get without clicking on it. The one thing that's back there that isn't anywhere else is a map. Tue Sep 30 12:12:29 -0700 2008 4072063 25310 Chuckles the Clone 5 4071885 i like "chow-worthy places" or "chow-places" too. or maybe something like "chow-spots & reviews/recs" would highlight that it's a place to find pertinent threads, recs and reviews on the places on the chow-map from other hounds. a little worthy though. only brainstorming, maybe someone else will have brighter lightning flashes than me this morning ;-P Tue Sep 30 07:17:23 -0700 2008 4071754 46030 soupkitten 4 4073894 I vote for "chow spots", it's simple and direct, and because duh, it's like the spots of a dog, hence hound. Something that the hound is comprised of. Wed Oct 01 06:10:16 -0700 2008 4071467 11727 janie 3 4071915 I propose Restaurants and Markets, as markets can be construed to include shops of all sorts. I agree with the posters above that bars are not a common topic on Chowhound. Tue Sep 30 07:38:19 -0700 2008 4070780 14386 BobB 4 4071928 Along the line of recommendation, Places Chow Recs Hound Recs Rec Room Tue Sep 30 07:42:50 -0700 2008 4071915 36312 HillJ 4 4072894 Expanding on my previous suggestion: - Chow Placemarks - Chow Places The official Google Maps term for places is 'Marker'. I don't like the sound of 'Chow Marker' though. Tue Sep 30 15:10:17 -0700 2008 4071915 23712 DiveFan 3 4073228 Perhaps go with something less specific and more all encompassing such as: 411 Information Directory Locations & Information Who Where What Why & When (Wiki) Find Out or Tell Us More Tue Sep 30 17:59:17 -0700 2008 4070780 108169 Servorg 1 4070654 I have a question. Didn't the reply box used to have a scroll bar? Has that scroll bar been replaced by the capability to expand the size of the reply box? This is absolutely not a complaint. I LOVE being able to read a long message without having to scroll. That's a truly great improvement. But the scroll bar is still there, isn't it? Is it operative? ETA: Just testing to see if the expandability of the reply box is operative in edit mode. Yooo hooo! Fantastic! Mon Sep 29 15:14:05 -0700 2008 4061057 11407 JoanN 2 4070881 That expand-o thingie is a Safari feature. Works on forms on web pages everywhere on the net. I'm not sure if it exists on other browsers. It came out with Safari 3.0, I think. The missing scroll bar looks like a bug, though. Mon Sep 29 16:47:41 -0700 2008 4070654 25310 Chuckles the Clone 3 4070998 Oh. Had no idea. Sorry. I usually access CH from my home PC, but am away now and logging in from my Powerbook. Really terrific feature. Thought CH had added it. Perhaps they can? Would love to have it available at home as well as away. Mon Sep 29 17:39:18 -0700 2008 4070881 11407 JoanN 1 4070695 unless i am going crazy or blind, the site is a couple shades darker now. the white does not seem so glaring, & i particularly notice the gray on both sides being a lot darker, i can now actually see the subtle texture pattern in it. anyway, it seems like an improvement from where i am sitting, and i can browse the boards longer. do the rest of you also see this?? thank you site team! Mon Sep 29 15:32:23 -0700 2008 4061057 46030 soupkitten 1 4071557 The font used for subject titles on the boards is not a clear font. Overall font size needs to be larger. The grey on white is a PITA to read. AND, the current format makes it difficult to scan down a board. Seriously, if you were going to fix anything , it should be eliminating the archaic replies within replies within replies format of the boards and using a more straightforward board style. One that has an alternating pattern of slight differentiation in background colors between the posts makes it much easier to read. One that has post numbers, and doesn't have nine jillion posts all strung together in some hodgepodge format that makes it almost impossible to locate a post once read (there's a reason most boards have 20 or 30 posts per page -- so you don't have to scroll down endless pages). I find it all so annoying and difficult to peruse now that, instead of my normal visits to the boards on a frequent basis -- I can't see myself bothered to do it more than once a week or so. I note that other people must feel the same way -- the board I often frequent (Florida) has slowed down considerably. p.s. color doesn't cost more than black and white, so using some would be nice. Tue Sep 30 02:28:56 -0700 2008 4061057 156760 karmalaw 2 4071561 The threaded replies is what makes this site what it is. It's been thus since it was a Compuserve BBS, and those of us still here are here because through a couple of major changes, the managers/owners cared enough about us to go out of their way to recreate the"archaic replies within replies" with new generations of systems/code. If people feel the same way as you do - ie, they're signing on only once a week, why is the Florida board slower? Wouldn't it be the other way around? Everybody's entitled to an opinion as to the color combos. I'm sure that we're all getting the consideration we deserve. Most of us come here because we enjoy sharing food info - places, recipes, lore. If you get your fix by signing on once a week, wonderful. But if you need info or have something to present more often, then the color combo isn't going to keep you away. I don't get that people feel they should threaten to leave or stay away if they don't get their way. Who do they think they're hurting? That isn't to say that the Design Team should ignore comments. But they should definitely ignore people's threats to leave or stay away. Tue Sep 30 02:47:07 -0700 2008 4071557 10312 applehome 3 4071863 I assume when karmalaw says the Florida board is slower, s/he's referring to activity on the board, not page-load-time (and I have noticed the same thing). The "I'm going to take my marbles and go home" reaction of some may be a bit overwrought, but it's not at all implausible or inappropriate for people to say that they will visit the site less often if the experience of visiting isn't a pleasant one or if the functionality of the site is lacking for them. It sure seems that is the reaction of a vast number of people, and something that anyone running a site (which, after all, sells advertisements based on eyeballs) would want to pay attention to. Tue Sep 30 07:08:37 -0700 2008 4071561 35525 Frodnesor 3 4071910 I think the Invision and Vbulletin types of forum boards are so pervasive that a custom multi-threaded one is hard to get used to. It was for me. I like and use the Permalinks. Now I like it and prefer it, except for it zooming around, willy-nilly, not going to the latest new post and a few other niggly things (about 10 Brazilian). I like the clean look and found that with a simple push of a button on my monitor I can go from retina searing brilliance to a fairly tolerable gray. I have at least five "looks" to choose from. When I get the setting I like then the text seems a little fuzzy or muddy. YMMV. I know this is not a monitor (with features and sharpness), that everyone has and that nobody wants to be tweaking their monitor just for this site. What I am suggesting is that (for me), it is possible to find a level of gray that is not hard on my eyes. This gray could be warm, or cool, as well. Tue Sep 30 07:33:21 -0700 2008 4071561 137946 Scargod 1 4071965 OK, seem to be having an issue with one of the ads that doesn't load and slows this thread down drastically. I've attached a screen shot of what is noted on the gray "menu bar" at the bottom of the site just above my taskbar. I'm either getting an exclamation point with a "Done, but with errors on page" message OR the one I've circled in red. Don't know if you can determine which ad it might be - right now, I'm seeing the "Recipe-Free Cooking STEAK: Sear It UP>> CHOW" ad to the right of the box in which I'm typing (although it won't be there when this posts.....Ahhh, the ad just stopped (i.e. the fire coming up from the Recipe Box stopped) and I could no longer type and my cursor wouldn't click anywhere until the first started up again. So I do believe that could be the issue. Yes, this has happened 3x while typing this post, and each time the fire stops, I can't type (or my type freezes) until the fire starts up again. Something in that ad is slowing typing, clicking links, and scrolling WAY down. Tue Sep 30 07:59:23 -0700 2008 4061057 10532 LindaWhit 2 4071979 Just press the Esc key when that happens. You should be able to see all the board text minus the offending ad. Tue Sep 30 08:03:00 -0700 2008 4071965 15954 meatme 3 4072012 Tried that, meatme (the ESC key and I are very familiar with each other! ;-) ) Didn't work when I came into the thread. This time opening it up, everything seemed to load and that URL isn't showing at the bottom of my screen. And I was able to quick-scroll down to the bottom of the entire page to find your new post without any issues. Tue Sep 30 08:13:00 -0700 2008 4071979 10532 LindaWhit 1 4072288 A choice of styles, particularly for the background color, would be nice. The white is very hard on my eyes. Tue Sep 30 10:19:50 -0700 2008 4061057 10715 rcianci 1 4072417 Not sure if you'll budge from the white background. But can you PLEASE at least darken the thread text color? It needs to be a darker shade of gray, closer to black. As it is now, there's not enough contrast, so that it's a little hard to read. And frankly this is all just exasperating now. It seems like there was more form over substance in your discussions about changing the look of the site. I don't personally care too much about the colors you choose. Just make it user friendly. After all, this site is nothing without its users. Tue Sep 30 11:11:12 -0700 2008 4061057 13957 slacker 1 4074459 OK, regarding the text size, it appears to be a broswer issue. At home I use firefox and IE 7.... both display text fine at this point in the redesign. However when I view on IE 6.0 at work, the fonts appear very thin, and are much more difficult to read. I'll try to remember to post a comparison pic when I'm home later today. EDIT: OK, it's not a browser issue.... it's a Clear Type issue. CH is MUCH easier to read when Clear Type is turned on. (Control panel-- display--- appearance--effects--- change 2nd drop down menu from Standard to Clear Type) Mr Taster Wed Oct 01 09:49:53 -0700 2008 4061057 17579 Mr Taster 2 4074488 And here are the two combined. Mr Taster Wed Oct 01 10:01:36 -0700 2008 4074459 17579 Mr Taster 3 4074526 And here they are combined and zoomed in to a point where you can make out the details in Chowhound's little compressed letterbox version of my original file. Mr Taster Wed Oct 01 10:14:18 -0700 2008 4074488 17579 Mr Taster 4 4074534 Alright, well I've tried this a few different ways and now I've got to get back to work.......... design team, please email me with some directions on how to post this large enough so that people can actually read it. Mr Taster Wed Oct 01 10:18:07 -0700 2008 4074526 17579 Mr Taster 5 4075005 Unless you can re-crop your screen shot in Photo shop or some other image editing software you are out of luck as the image upload is a fixed size in threads. If people are interested in trying this option, below is a link to a page that illustrates the effect and sheds some light on the issue: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tuner/step1.aspx Wed Oct 01 13:24:10 -0700 2008 4074534 227083 Design_Team 6 4075121 And while we're on the topic, the ability to preview how pics will appear on chowhound would be very useful.... I didn't see any way to actually preview beforehand, hence the several crappy screenshots posted above. Mr Taster Wed Oct 01 14:10:56 -0700 2008 4075005 17579 Mr Taster 5 4076118 AH HA! The Design Team has seen the LONG REPORTED issue with posting images but has redirected us. PLEASE review the old posts - we need to know specifics about what dimensions (in pixels) of uploaded images the current site is designed for, not some background info on a Microsoft site. Thu Oct 02 00:27:46 -0700 2008 4074534 23712 DiveFan 6 4076219 I believe the maximum width is now 520 pixels. It used to be 550. I used to post 550 X 550 images. I still have some that are 550 wide. It seems impossible to get any technical information out of anyone at Chow. I have asked numerous times for clarification on size limits and why they resize or don't upload. Mainly, you cross your fingers and pray/curse. If you do anything over 520 it will resize it down and it doesn't always make sense, what you end up with. Right click on the image and you can select properties to see the size of the uploaded image after their magical conversion. Avatars are 65 X 65 max. If png or tif or gif files will upload, they will resize better than a jpg (and not suffer quality loss in the resizing like jpgs do). However, I don't think Chow up-sizes images. My suggestion would be that you, 1. Crop your screen shot as much as you can. 2. Use one of the internet's picture posting sites (or upload to your own site), and refer to it in your post. I hope the Design and Technical/Engineering teams appreciate that there are a lot of people trying to help and support the improvement of the site. There are many who have technical knowledge and are doing more than complaining. Thu Oct 02 04:04:11 -0700 2008 4076118 137946 Scargod 6 4076243 Ever since this response from Jacquilynne: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/478891#3446709 I've had no problems uploading jpgs from Photoshop (or any other program, for that matter). I resize the photo for 520 W (assuming it's a landscape photo). Keeping the same ratio as the original, Photoshop automatically returns 390 H. No distortion, no downsizing when posted. I crop only if absolutely necessary, since that throws the ratio off. Thu Oct 02 04:38:20 -0700 2008 4076118 11407 JoanN 2 4075250 I tried posting this a minute ago but it seems to have disappeared... anyway, I tried the ClearType fix and while it does have the effect of making the fonts darker/thicker, it is at the expense of making them blurry. If anything, it is even more headache-inducing than before. Wed Oct 01 15:01:44 -0700 2008 4074459 12103 Greg B 3 4075338 That's the point of Clear Type... it blurs out the edges of the fonts to shades of grey, which helps them blend into the (blinding white) background. Compare this with the sharp, jaggedy black lines of the 'standard' font, which contrasts sharply and abruptly. It's those sharp contrasts which induce headaches, whether it's the former maroon and beige or black and white. The softness (or blurriness as you say) is more relaxing to my eyes. Mr Taster Wed Oct 01 15:41:41 -0700 2008 4075250 17579 Mr Taster 1 4075520 Design Team, hello, One of the aspects of good design is that it appears pleasing to the eye. It makes you want to look at it, stay longer. Good design also means that the design is resolved -- it seems peaceful. It graphically "hangs together." Unfortunately, the new design isn't resolved -- it jerks or lurches on the page. It lacks harmony and a peaceful structure. It doesn't hang together. Some of the design decisions lack logic. Which shows the choices weren't thought through. An example: At the top of the right column, the user name is in all caps in bold red, but just above that, very near, "hey, user name" is in lowercase and black. Weird. Inconsistent. More visual inconsistencies that are jarring: There are a mixture of banners across the top, and at least two vertical sections, but they don't seem to provide the vertical structure or harmony you're after. The banners often intermix with the columns, and get jumbled. The GUI for the reply, edit and report boxes exceeds the margin layouts for the column in which they appear. Weird. Not logical. Moreover, when these boxes are opened, the font is super small, or the box margins are different from the box size so that the text on the right side is cut off, and you cannot see what you're writing or editing. Weird again. Surprising all this wasn't thoroughly checked and corrected before launch. There are several different type fonts, and a lack of logic when they're applied. The mixture of fonts is a big part of the "jerky" overall visual. The hot issue, obviously, is that the grey type face shows a lack of design sensitivity. Not only the choice of body type font and its color, but also the choice of point size, font height, and the huge amount of white space between letters (kerning). And leading. Font details are always tweaked by art directors and designers.Please consider the logic with which font details are chosen, and look into a font with variable width spacing (easier to read). Consult with a designer who is *current* on readability/useability font and design issues. Put all those type font issues against a pulsing blue-white background and the problem grows exponentially. Clean isn't better if it gets in the way of readership. One more thing: Every font has a different mood. The lowercase "hey, user name" and other lowercase headings had a friendliness and a whimsy to them. C'mon in, hang out for a while, they said. ALL CAPS are different. They have a formality, a stateliness, that doesn't say the same thing. They're not as friendly. When I worked in advertising and design, one of the goals always set before us was that the mood of the communication matched the mood of the product. This design doesn't match the mood of food. It's more appropriate to a hospital, or the opening of page of Google, where one lingers for only a moment before leaving. Food is about warmth, and hospitality about the details that welcome the guest and make the guest feel comfortable. Food is about color, richness, bounty, an embrace of cultures and wellness. It's not about sterility, an antiseptic quality, or disharmony. So, the overall lack of resolution to the design, the lack of a pleasing structure, the lack of design continuity -- and that the mood of the design doesn't match the mood of the product -- all add up together to an experience that isn't conducive to maintaining readership and -- get ready for the money issue -- meeting Chowhound/CBS/CNET goals of increasing readership and consequently the advertising rate base that corporate can charge. Chowhound is this amazing exchange of information about food. But if the design gets in the way of that exchange, if it actually hinders that flow, then both the readership and corporate number goals are affected. So, Design Team, please address the many visual "palatability" issues. I know you folks try very hard. But I have a good inkling that you may be in over your heads, that it may be time, or past time, to consult a professional web-design team with a good track record of designing and managing sites with a large interactive user base. I feel the same way about the Chowhound computer system and server issues. It's time for an outside team who is eminently gifted at this sort of thing to take a look at the inordinate number of Chowhound computer issues, make recommendations for server, programming and other changes, and then have CBS pay for those changes to be implemented. It's time to make the design and computers work FOR the Chowhound experience, rather than against it. Respectfully, and with thanks for all that I've enjoyed and learned here, Maria Wed Oct 01 17:07:44 -0700 2008 4061057 18222 maria lorraine 2 4075578 Wow. What she said. Wed Oct 01 17:32:42 -0700 2008 4075520 35525 Frodnesor 3 4078384 TOTALLY what she said. Thu Oct 02 20:02:54 -0700 2008 4075578 10532 LindaWhit 2 4075653 boy howdy. why do you assume the chow design folks are so inexperienced? i am with you that some of the operational issues should be addressed asap by a service provider that can manage the load, but the design team shouldn't be assumed to be a bunch of 20 something babes in the woods, or do you have different information? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, given my own experience in dealing with end users with a myriad of opinions on look and feel (see this thread). There are many consistencies in the feedback, and also other outliers that need to be evaluated. but assuming they are in over their heads is out of bounds, i think. Wed Oct 01 18:06:53 -0700 2008 4075520 10232 yumyum 3 4075725 Res ipsa loquitur. I did not say the design team was inexperienced. They may not have the expertise needed for this massive design project, however. Wed Oct 01 19:11:01 -0700 2008 4075653 18222 maria lorraine 4 4075868 I guess I'm more impressed with your assumption that there is expertise out there that will fix this (quickly or otherwise). That's a helluva assumption. I've been in IT for over 30 years. My experience says that when you go down the proprietary path (code, systems, network), you pretty much become your own best expert. Certainly, various experts can help in specialized areas. But with integration and service delivery of the final product you're on your own. CNET could have bought an off the shelf system for Chowhound. I assume that they are in that part of the product cycle when the VP's are glaring at the department heads that made the decision to go proprietary. It's that what the fuck did you get us into glare... But personally, I would not have stayed if they had gone with any of the major off-the-shelf bbs systems. There is nothing out there that provides the level of responsiveness and connection that one gets here. I have a high tolerance for irregular glitches because I want the irregular benefits. I've dealt with customers in such boring, steady-state environments like banking, for many years. Many just want basic systems that work the same way every time. But others want value added features - ways to easily customize transactions and reports that just can't be done with off-the-shelf products. Those folks are typically more willing to live through the glitches and the generations of changes that are necessary to get to a relatively steady-state, but complex and feature rich environment. That's what I see this site as - a complex and feature rich world that requires a little more patience and care than some of the straightforward, boring sites that are out there. Wed Oct 01 20:24:29 -0700 2008 4075725 10312 applehome 5 4077860 I get the sense the structure of the layout is from a pre-existing template. There was a link to a site with a very similar structure in this thread somewhere. Not to say that the design team haven't expanded upon and refined it, but I don't think they sat down, opened BBEdit and said, "Well, let's start coding the site!". It might be that they were trying to mix new stuff and also maintain code they already had in place that USED to work with the old design elements that is causing the glitches people are reporting. Thu Oct 02 15:10:25 -0700 2008 4075868 123543 Pincus 6 4078056 That is almost always the case - integrating what you have in a new environment is what creates the learning curve and the proprietary environment that follows nobody's rules. (Proprietary meaning you've gone well beyond any normal range of customization - not necessarily that you rewrote the OS in assembler.) It's like Sandra Dee... if you use a Campbell's soup instead of stock from scratch and someone comes by and asks you whether you put in the salt yet or not. You KNOW not to put in any salt - you're the one that made the decision to use the canned soup. Someone coming from the outside may be an expert on the item you're making, but they don't know what you've done and what your initial requirements were. Bad example - you're not improving anything by using the soup as a shortcut. But you get the idea. Troubleshooting a proprietary product (including one that is integrated from off-the-shelf pieces) doesn't always lend itself to outside experts. When Maria says that the problems are evident - the question is what problems are evident? It's evident that the team is over their heads? That outside help will fix these evident problems? Not to me. I don't think that she's right - that this site is anywhere near that level of crisis or problem. Every major change I ever participated in lost customers. Sometimes they were just pissed that you no longer supported DOS or a TTY interface, when the rest of the world was on the second release of Win98. I have seen that level of problem, where you back out the change completely - even after prolonged betas. And I understand the point of saying that it's the underlying paradigm that needs attention - the page design here is not done to "well accepted" Web standards. (It's almost like accounting - the WEB is now standardized to the point of having a GAP.) I don't think that this change is anywhere near that level of crisis, and I have the sense that the underlying problems are part and parcel of the fabric that makes this site what it is. There are some problems and there are fixes coming. I'm happy to wait for them. In the meanwhile, I'm continuing on, as ever, posting on threads that are of interest to me. Thu Oct 02 16:36:54 -0700 2008 4077860 10312 applehome 7 4091352 We each have relevant work experience that informs our distinct but different points of view. "That outside help will fix these evident problems?" With a skilled website design firm, you not only get great design, but brilliant fast coding, fewer errors, and a huge boost in the overall speed with which changes are implemented. My experience is that skilled web design firms are best at troubleshooting because they troubleshoot *all* the time (and have uually seen the same error before). They also design websites all the time, and not just every couple of years (which may be true for an in-house design team.) A good design firm starts by ferreting out the history of a site's proprietary design (and may not need to ask the salt question because they see the empty Campbell's can), original intent and new intent. I have design/media/website experience that backs up my opinion: 12 years design for national adveritising agencies, 20 years as an almost-geek, many years in publishing/media. Many different clients and projects with great website design firms that made implementing a new interactive design scheme almost painless. My sense also is that the money you pay an outside design team saves money later on with less in-house time and labor spent addressing design/coding errors. "this site is anywhere near that level of crisis or problem." There are problems but I would not use the word "crisis." "It's evident that the team is in over their heads?" I didn't say "evident," but I did say I had a "good inkling" about this. I still love the Chowhound site, and marvel at the exchange of information. I'm glad you're a contributor, applehome, especially about food chemistry stuff. We look at the design situation a little differently because we have different frames of reference. Best, M. Wed Oct 08 13:48:17 -0700 2008 4078056 18222 maria lorraine 2 4075719 Why are you giving this away for free?? You could have sold this for a Brazilian dollars!! OK, now five cents, American Wed Oct 01 19:08:52 -0700 2008 4075520 137946 Scargod 2 4076065 Maria, While I have a great amount of empathy for the frustrations you are describing in your thoughtful note I will not enter into a public debate regarding the abilities of myself or the incredibly talented team of experienced people that work tirelessly behind the scenes to keep these gears turning. Are there still outstanding details to the design that need to be addressed, You bet. We are working on fixes to many of the issues you mention above and will continue to do so until the site is in tip top shape. It's my hope that over the next few weeks the adjustments we continue to implement will ease your concerns. Jeremy Wed Oct 01 22:52:55 -0700 2008 4075520 227083 Design_Team 3 4076113 You and the Design Team are doing a great job. I keep seeing fixes to reported problems nearly every day. Darker background, link colors changed, etc. Keep it up. Thu Oct 02 00:08:14 -0700 2008 4076065 93805 hannaone 4 4076119 when they fix the 900 post long threads all on one page -- that zigzag back and forth -- then we'll really be somewhere. Sorry if a bunch of intractable oldtimers are so used to the format that they can't bear the learning curve of an easier to read and use use format.. but that hang on to the old format will, IMO, eventually sink the board. The good news is, most people can't be bothered to sift through the inane long threads -- so they don't add to them. P.S. The drop down menus still have too small of a font in too light of a color.. I'm not interested in tweaking my browser for the benefit of one board (I frequent a number of boards and websites).\ PPS: why bother to have avatars if they're the size of a zit? Thu Oct 02 00:30:14 -0700 2008 4076113 156760 karmalaw 5 4076157 Which, I'm sure will be why you will ultimately contribute much less to the site, and get much less from the site, than those of us that have been here a long time and will continue to support it. And I think that's perfectly ok. Not every site can be for everyone. The concept here has always been about getting a high signal to noise ratio - not just turning up the volume, which increases both noise and signal. But the signal is not just a single piece of information about a food or place or recipe, because that piece of info could turn out to be all wrong - either wrong altogether, or just wrong for you. The quality of the info, the signal, is commensurate with the time and effort one puts in to understand it. The more you understand who thinks about food the same way you do, the more you'll get good hits - the higher the SNR. Food is subjective. Food vocabulary is dynamic and full of connotation. Sushi isn't always sushi and tacos aren't always tacos. "I found a great taco place", can mean completely different things to someone from Texas and someone from Massachusetts. It takes a little effort to understand who you're talking to here - what they're saying. But the result is a much better understanding than you get from the Yelps of the world. People come and go all the time - they don't understand the threading or the chowhound ethos. They're foodies - they want to be told where to get the good stuff, and they want to get that piece of info without a lot of digging into who's telling them that, why they're telling them that, what else there may be to learn about that food or place or recipe... who's got the time? But the real learning takes place with the dialectic - the pros and cons, the arguments - that's where you get to the real nuggets of information. Is this person who recommended a place really knowledgeable about that kind of food? Do they value the same kinds of things that you do? Do they share an ethnic background or a foreign experience? The seeking of deliciousness takes some effort. Ultimately, the volume at the site, in terms of hits, will keep growing, because the site keeps getting written up as a source of great food info. Each time chowhound gets written up as a great resource of food information, more people come to the site. If the quality keeps up - if the SNR stays high - more and more people will come, even as some go away because they can't bother to understand why it's such a jewel. People will try the other sites and eventually learn why it takes some digging to get to the real information - and the ones that really want to know and learn and share what they've learned will come back here, because we value the right things and we do it right. We're in complete agreement on the avatars - we never had them before CNET, and we still don't think they're worth anything. I never did understand the desire to have silly pictures, sayings, and little yellow smiley faces on bbs's... of course, I'm an old geezer who used M28 teletypes and punch cards to enter upper case messages and code - just how these silly goo-gaws are supposed to enhance communications is beyond me. Thu Oct 02 01:56:56 -0700 2008 4076119 10312 applehome 6 4076253 Yes, the threading and the conversations within conversations is the best thing about CH, for me, at least, why it's a regular read for me and many other sites that might have some good content aren't. I assume and hope there's no plan to change this. Most threads are not hundreds of posts, those that are are easier to deal with this way. Thu Oct 02 04:47:19 -0700 2008 4076157 112104 mselectra 6 4076916 EDIT: the karmalaw post I am replying to was yanked Since I see you're new here, let me show you something. This is what Chowhound used to look like, from the mid-nineties to 2006. http://web.archive.org/web/20000816201454/www.chowhound.com/california/boards/losangeles/losangeles.html I still believe that this is the essence of Chowhound... forget the flashy interfaces and corporate slickness of recent years. The soul of Chowhound is information and communication, and as applehome said, a high signal:noise, and for over 10 years, people have been coming back. Mr Taster (who has been working in entertainment PR on Oscar campaigns for 12 years) Thu Oct 02 09:47:28 -0700 2008 4076856 17579 Mr Taster 7 4081117 Actually, I've been on Chowhound quite awhile --- I changed my sign-in a year or two back after a long absence. I won't even get into my opinion of the moderation here (which I have found to be spotty, inconsistent, and prone to favoritism). They ask for feedback. They have a feedback forum. But make you link from the feedback forum to the technical forum to this thread (isn't this a feedback thread?), then you get moderated because you dare say something critical (and, I can assure you there was no profanity or bashing, but merely an educated differing opinion on the matter of the importance of facilitating communication). Meanwhile -- there are SIX DAY OLD THREADS on the first page of the Florida forum -- an untoward occurrence that coincides with this revamping. Coincidence? I think not. Let the reduced numbers speak. Sat Oct 04 06:17:24 -0700 2008 4076916 156760 karmalaw 8 4081132 "Meanwhile -- there are SIX DAY OLD THREADS on the first page of the Florida forum -- an untoward occurrence that coincides with this revamping. Coincidence? I think not. Let the reduced numbers speak." Care to link to one of the SIX DAY OLD THREADS on the Florida board that has you so concerned. Add: I just looked at the Florida board. All the latest replies look to be in a proper chronilogical order, from newest to oldest. Have you selected some other type of listing (other than newest to oldest posts) via the choices presented on the CH site (such as date started rather than newest first)? Sat Oct 04 06:29:59 -0700 2008 4081117 108169 Servorg 9 4082092 no. I haven't selected anything. who can see what to select anyway? Now the oldest thread on the first page is 4 days old (someone posted since I posted here). Big whoopee. It used to be that the oldest posted to thread on the page was about 24 hours old. Sat Oct 04 16:51:41 -0700 2008 4081132 156760 karmalaw 10 4082192 Not sure what you mean. I'm looking at the Florida board and the oldest thread there is Eating in Naples, Florida, last post by alkapal on Oct 01, 2008 13 threads have been active today, and another 14 in the previous 24 hours. No, that's not as busy as some other boards, but it's still pretty healthy. Are you perhaps sorting by "Date started" instead of "Last Post"? You can toggle between those two choices at the top of the 3rd column on the board index. Sat Oct 04 18:06:50 -0700 2008 4082092 10027 Chris VR 5 4076920 The threaded conversation isn't something we're even looking at changing. We want the threads to be conversational, to be able to drift into sub-threads that are readable as sub-threads, and for replies to be physically related to what they're replying to. Thu Oct 02 09:49:28 -0700 2008 4076119 10021 Jacquilynne 6 4077053 great! i love them, they are truly unique and special to this site, and i love all the tangents and little conversations a long thread can get into sometimes. i haven't been around nearly as long as some posters here, and haven't seen as many changes, but i hope that this aspect of the chowhound format never goes away. you don't want to read the subthread on chili dogs in tulsa, you can see where it begins and ends, and skip it! i * always* read the sub-threads though, that's where all of the little gems are. thanks site crew for keeping the thread format! Thu Oct 02 10:41:15 -0700 2008 4076920 46030 soupkitten 6 4081126 You also choose to use less than half of the existing page to maintain those long and winding threads with no way for anyone who is looking at a long thread for the first time to "get" what is happening. There is no easy way to identify where you left off reading the thread (this IS why many boards have a post limit per page and/or post numbers). It's a format that's not terribly user friendly except to the long-timers who are so used to it that it's "comfortable". Oh - and I find it particularly annoying that after I make my post to an insanely long thread that I am kicked out to the top of the thread.. so I get to hunt down the page in the sea of scribble to try and find my own post to correct it for typos. Sat Oct 04 06:23:38 -0700 2008 4076920 156760 karmalaw 7 4081133 Yeah, the "kick to the top" is very frustrating, especially on super-long threads. And it just happened when I clicked the Reply button to respond here. Had to grab the scroll bar to drag it back down here so I could type this response. ETA: And YET....when I posted the above response, it did NOT kick back up to the top. Sometimes it happens; sometimes it doesn't. Sat Oct 04 06:31:16 -0700 2008 4081126 10532 LindaWhit 3 4076488 Definitely already some improvements. The colored links are a big help (though it'd be nice if this were applied not only to the site's own links, i.e., "Permalink" "Report" "Reply" etc.) but also to links with a post (which still are not highlighted or underlined unless you hover). I even think the extra color helps relieve some of the eyestrain issues. The text spacing also looks like it's been adjusted (for the better). Also looks like the text in the reply box has stopped rolling over the right side of the box. It's still awfully small, though (as is the text for several other things - the info for "Last Post" and "Date Started" on the chowhound boards, etc.). The font for the "Attach photo" and "Link to a place" continues to be a different font than anything else used on the page (perhaps the font is not coded at all and it's just using my default IE font). The issue with aligning left and right side columns on chowhound board pages seems to be resolved (though the format still results in an awful lot of blank white space on the right-hand side of the page on boards where there's more discussion than there is right-side content). It looks like there's been a change in the "control bar" at the top with the pull-down menus, but now mine cuts off the "MyChow" button on the right side with a slightly different-sized silver bar. Interesting that I just noticed that if I change my text size from "smaller" (which is what I routinely use) to "medium" (using I.E. 6.0) all the text size issues resolve themselves, as do the layout issues on the Chow front page. Of course the problem is that I happily use the "smaller" setting for just about every other website I visit. However, when I go to medium text size, the page size is too big and there's a horizontal scroll bar unless I maximize the window (which again is not my usual browsing habit). A site ought to be designed to adapt to settings routinely used by many visitors (rather than the other way around). Thu Oct 02 07:02:31 -0700 2008 4076065 35525 Frodnesor 4 4077071 I want to be clear that the text size issue is NOT resolved in IE as indicated by Frodnesor. At least not in IE 7. I retried all text sizes from smallest to largest and the body of the post remains the same hard-to-read size. The only changes are to headings and titles. Using Zoom was not a work around. It moves the whole page to the right, on every page so you have to scroll back to the left. If opening in tabs it needs to be selected from the drop down menu for each tab. It resets the text size to medium. The text is often scrambled. I just didn't want anyone to close out the issue of text size. It is not resolved. Thu Oct 02 10:49:46 -0700 2008 4076488 10264 rworange 3 4077506 Dear Design Team, Your evolving work and forebearance is appreciated. Now where are those sweepstakes offers to Bali? Doug Thu Oct 02 13:15:43 -0700 2008 4076065 140436 fresnohotspot 1 4076120 Yikes - after 449 posts I just discovered something else - sorry if it a duplicate. Some of the text in MyChow/Favorites is ABSURDLY small. Microscopic, in fact. This is not a constantly expanding list of new Chowhound topics that I need to scan, this is the relatively static list of My Favorite recipes. PLEASE increase the point size by about two or four. TIA! Thu Oct 02 00:32:27 -0700 2008 4061057 23712 DiveFan 1 4076233 I'm using Google Beta Chrome for most browsing and just now I refreshed this page and I get a black background, not the normal, diagonal fine gray lines. Then I'm scrolling, scrolling, scrolling- keep those doggies movin'... ooops! Sorry! So, I'm scrolling madly down towards my post near the bottom, and about halfway down the solid black background changes to the normal gray! Thu Oct 02 04:27:32 -0700 2008 4061057 137946 Scargod 1 4076838 for all the negative talk about white background, let me add a positive. People no longer asks me which porn site that I was visiting when I am on CHOW. For some reason, red/maroon background conjures up images of a whorehouse. Thu Oct 02 09:18:00 -0700 2008 4061057 81557 الشره 2 4082249 For a while, the only choice was a red/maroon background and many people complained that it was hurting their eyes -- at one point I taped a piece of paper on my computer so I could flip it down to cover a large expanse of glaring red/maroon. The Chowhound team listened and gave us the option of maroon OR beige -- the beige option only had a little red/maroon -- it was great. As I mention above, I hope they give us color options this time around as well. With the glaring white, I find it physically painful to look at the site. I hope they respond to the other concerns as well. I assume the designers have put a lot of effort into this change, but many people have concerns about it -- maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board, or at least to the old design. Sat Oct 04 18:48:12 -0700 2008 4076838 67227 emmy 1 4076966 The san-serif font you used (Arial?) is very hard to read because it's too small and narrow and all the letters blur into each other visually... I thought that the posts were difficult to read but I just looked at an article and it's even less readable there! My eyesight isn't perfect, but it's not THAT bad. And why oh why aren't links even underlined so that people can know they're there to click on? Thu Oct 02 10:09:28 -0700 2008 4061057 67657 Kajikit 1 4076981 The blog roll on the right side of the page now lists only three items. The pointer to outdated The Digest was removed rather than making it current --- was that intentional? Also, the wine blog is no more, so why wasn't that removed instead of leaving a pointer that will never be updated? Thu Oct 02 10:17:13 -0700 2008 4061057 10039 Melanie Wong 1 4076985 This thread illustrates the need for a "Jump to first unread response" feature. Thu Oct 02 10:18:02 -0700 2008 4061057 15954 meatme 2 4077105 AMEN and hallelujah brother! I know I'm wearing out the scroll sensor in my mouse, not to mention the pain in my arthritic finger. So much to fix..... so little time. Thu Oct 02 11:01:38 -0700 2008 4076985 137946 Scargod 3 4077201 Try giving your thumb a workout instead- you can scroll down the page pretty quickly using the spacebar. Thu Oct 02 11:30:09 -0700 2008 4077105 10027 Chris VR 4 4077207 What a grea tip! I never knew, and I'm relatively web savvy. Mr Taster Thu Oct 02 11:32:19 -0700 2008 4077201 17579 Mr Taster 4 4077292 I'm laughing my ass of that I didn't know this. I knew I could us the up and down arrow, but let's face it: you often have the mouse in your hand (no double-entendre meant), and it's is too ingrained to just roll the wheel. With these long threads I have to do something else! Thu Oct 02 11:59:15 -0700 2008 4077201 137946 Scargod 5 4079769 Shift Space scrolls up. Fri Oct 03 11:54:53 -0700 2008 4077292 93805 hannaone 4 4077362 Not on my machine. Spacebar does nothing re. scrolling. Thu Oct 02 12:27:02 -0700 2008 4077201 12103 Greg B 4 4077678 Also - I have no idea how universal this is, but you can click the scroller down to give you a "scroll hold" (my name),and then you just mouse up and down to set the speed - like a fast forward/reverse. Works on both my Logitech wireless on my desktop and the el cheapo mini-optical I have on my notebook. Thu Oct 02 14:10:42 -0700 2008 4077201 10312 applehome 5 4077760 You *can* teach an old dog new tricks! Had no idea. Gonna be playing with that scroller for days, now. Oh, the fun things we're learning to do through this thread! Thu Oct 02 14:37:50 -0700 2008 4077678 11407 JoanN 4 4078921 Also, in Safari at least: You can instantly scroll to the bottom (or top) of a page by holding down and pressing the up or down key. Useful if you are browsing a long page. Additionally, you can scroll in long increments by holding down OPTION and pressing the up or down key. Fri Oct 03 06:33:13 -0700 2008 4077201 14160 Carole 4 4093915 You win for most helpful tip in this whole thread. I never knew, but now I use the space bar all the time to scroll down the page. Thanks! Thu Oct 09 13:23:52 -0700 2008 4077201 10232 yumyum 1 4079000 A humble suggestion that may help address the eyestrain and readability issues - on the main chowhound boards (with the list of the threads), the background color for the posts alternates between white and a light grey/blue. If the same scheme were applied to the threads within a post (alternating background colors) it would probably do much to relieve the complaints about the blinding white background. Fri Oct 03 07:07:01 -0700 2008 4061057 35525 Frodnesor 1 4079077 Your linking system "Link to a place" cannot handle foreign roman characters properly. We're left with a " " or something else when we want to put an ä, ö, ü etc. Fri Oct 03 07:39:12 -0700 2008 4061057 224157 girobike 2 4079459 This happens even with some standard characters like apostrophes in links. For example, a recipe I posted, "Bob's Cheese-Olive Balls," looks fine on the actual recipe page but shows up in the link as "Bob&#8217;s Cheese-Olive Balls." But it's not related to the redesign, it's been doing that sort of thing for years. Fri Oct 03 09:54:07 -0700 2008 4079077 14386 BobB 1 4079977 In addition to continued font size issues with no workaround, I've encountered another issue. When I mouse over the red "mychow" header at the top of the home page the drop down menus refuse to stay expanded to allow me to select "my posts." Fri Oct 03 13:17:56 -0700 2008 4061057 177481 GSM 1 4088152 Interesting that no one has complain about degradation of performance due to Adobe Flash Player movie script. To me, this is most critical. So, please get rid of it!!! Tue Oct 07 10:55:15 -0700 2008 4061057 81807 intomeat 2 4088789 Ditto - I have almost doubled my browsing speed by using Firefox 3.03 with the Flashblock add-on. It is amazing to see all the flash script most pages run turn into a motionless "F". You still have a choice to run the flash, simply click on it to play. Tue Oct 07 14:22:13 -0700 2008 4088152 140436 fresnohotspot 1 4092378 Here's a nice little quirk I'm not sure has been noted yet - if in a board thread you click on somone's username in order to expand the post (i.e. "click to expand"), it will do so, and then one second later will jump to that person's profile. Wed Oct 08 21:50:02 -0700 2008 4061057 35525 Frodnesor 2 4092427 I hate that. Especially if I am reading new posts on a particularly long thread. It jumps to the profile and when I hit the back button all the posts are expanded and I completely loose my place. Wed Oct 08 22:37:46 -0700 2008 4092378 226303 keith2000 3 4093258 Yes yes yes...... that drives me crazy. I love the fact that threads only show new posts, but you're right... if you click off, the browser crashes, etc then you're totally lost with a fully expanded page of posts and no way to sort. I usually do a ctrl-F for the last few recent days, but this is annoying, especially if the post you've been reading is older and the new posts date back quite a ways. Perhaps an option to "expand by date" would be welcomed here? Mr Taster Thu Oct 09 09:40:56 -0700 2008 4092427 17579 Mr Taster 4 4110804 same problem. good suggestion, mr. t. Fri Oct 17 08:46:29 -0700 2008 4093258 105717 alkapal 2 4093362 Frodnesor, I have not been able to duplicate this particular quirk, could it be a function of an accidental double click? Thu Oct 09 10:10:48 -0700 2008 4092378 140436 fresnohotspot 3 4094668 It is most definitely not the function of an accidental double click, as it happens every time. Linda apparently has the solution by clicking on the date rather than the username - however, if you hover over the username in a collapsed post you still get a "click to expand" help bubble, and pre-"upgrade" this was how I always used to expand a collapsed post. Thu Oct 09 19:43:35 -0700 2008 4093362 35525 Frodnesor 3 4095356 I've not had this problem either. Fri Oct 10 07:43:59 -0700 2008 4093362 10985 MMRuth 4 4095546 Now it's not doing it. Go figure. Fri Oct 10 08:54:58 -0700 2008 4095356 35525 Frodnesor 5 4103728 Using Firefox 2 I just click on the white space in the middle of a collapsed post to expand it. If I were to click on the poster's name I would expect to be taken to their home page. Tue Oct 14 11:44:30 -0700 2008 4095546 14386 BobB 6 4104953 It's interesting what happens when you move the mouse cursor over someone's name in a collapsed message: The status line at the bottom off the browser says, "Go to http://www.chow.com/profile/23232xxx". But then a tooltip pops up that says, "Click to expand". So there are a couple of competing things going on at the same time. Maybe one wins in some browsers and the other wins in others? Tue Oct 14 19:59:10 -0700 2008 4103728 25310 Chuckles the Clone 2 4093578 Don't click on their name - click on the date right next to their name. That'll expand the post without flipping to their profile. :-) Thu Oct 09 11:33:16 -0700 2008 4092378 10532 LindaWhit 1 4095102 I find it so incredibly hard on the eyes to read that I will not visit this site as often, which is a shame as I used to find it so useful/entertaining to participate (I am not just a lurker). It's unfortunate, but I am convinced that if you keep the current font you will lose a lot of people. Fri Oct 10 05:33:18 -0700 2008 4061057 13143 souschef 2 4100535 So from the first posts on 9/25/08 of tiny type (We were told to use different browsers to fix it ourselves) and Bright Light, Bright Light (we were told our to adjust our monitors to a special way to use chow with less anount of eye stress) ANd yet, here, 10/10/08 sosuschef, just above mentions the same font and bright. So IN all this this time, nothing is being done???? We are just supposed to adjust OUR STUFF because ah....why? Mon Oct 13 05:44:26 -0700 2008 4095102 61669 Quine 3 4100678 Agreed. I look every day at least for the color option to tone down all this white. I haven't given up yet, but it sure is discouraging what with all this feedback that nothing has been done. :( Mon Oct 13 07:04:08 -0700 2008 4100535 113872 diablo 4 4101182 I may be mistaken but the white background appears more muted since the original overhaul. It is at least near the shade of my Google pages, maybe even darker. The fonts also seem to be clearer. Maybe it is the lack of choice for a color scheme that is missing. I'm sure the Team is considering this... my point is there have been numerous changes over the last couple of weeks. I think the site is improving, and the Team has been responding to posted concerns. So - thank you Team. I still think we should have sweepstakes offers to Bali. Mon Oct 13 10:26:58 -0700 2008 4100678 140436 fresnohotspot 5 4101336 I really haven't noticed any changes, but my main request is for the color options. I just thought the old colors were better and easier on the eyes. And more appetizing. Mon Oct 13 11:20:29 -0700 2008 4101182 113872 diablo 2 4101474 I hope we can keep you all in the mix. As I have mentioned above the font style seen in posts is actually the same as before the refresh of the site. That being said I am aware that the amount of visible white is having an effect on readability in particular on these long threads. Small tweaks to the design have been implemented over the last couple of weeks with a focus on these long threads and how we may make them easier on the eyes. We are trying to be careful to make improvements that will not only work but scale well over time. Stay tuned as we have come up with a design adjustment I think will have a big effect on readability especially on long threads and I hope to implement it over the next week or so. Thanks for your patience during this time as we continue to make improvements to the site. Mon Oct 13 12:26:53 -0700 2008 4095102 227083 Design_Team 3 4101497 The font may be the same but against the white background there just isn't enough contrast now. It's too light or too thin or both against the white. I have decent eyes. I read online quite a bit in any given day - including sites like the NY Times as mentioned above and academic journals that are all black on white but don't have the strain issue I have on this site. Saying over and over again it's the same font does not take away form the fact that with the redesign the font is now less readable. Please listen to your users on this issue. Mon Oct 13 12:31:39 -0700 2008 4101474 16406 ziggylu 4 4101536 I hear you ziggylu. We have been closely monitoring this thread for feedback and we know that readability is currently compromised especially on these long threads. We are working on adjustments that will help improve readability. Look for more of them to be implemented over the next week to two weeks time. Mon Oct 13 12:44:56 -0700 2008 4101497 227083 Design_Team 5 4101608 Thank you! :) Mon Oct 13 13:06:50 -0700 2008 4101536 113872 diablo 5 4101697 Appreciate the update, DT and looking forward to the aforementioned adjustments! Mon Oct 13 13:38:20 -0700 2008 4101536 10532 LindaWhit 5 4104961 Really long threads are the exception. If you have to make any tradeoffs, maybe figure out the median thread length and optimise readability there? Tue Oct 14 20:02:08 -0700 2008 4101536 25310 Chuckles the Clone 1 4116280 the grey background is SO MUCH BETTER!! Thank you! Mon Oct 20 10:47:49 -0700 2008 4061057 16363 mogo 2 4119702 I'd been gone for several days in Las Vegas (no time to try any good food, unfortunately due to a family wedding) and didn't have time to read today at work. Reading tonight I thought "Hey - there's a grey background now - when did THIS show up?" Thought it had been there for several days but it's brand new - thank you! This is a HUGE help for readability! Tue Oct 21 16:39:09 -0700 2008 4116280 10532 LindaWhit 3 4120683 OK, after an evening and morning of some reading, while the grey background definitely helps, it would be even MORE helpful if the text was darkened to a very dark grey or black. The lighter grey tone still makes it difficult to read. Why do website designers think a grey text is a good thing? So many redesigns of my frequently visited sites have done this - and it's NOT a good thing! So please - use a darker text? Wed Oct 22 06:30:15 -0700 2008 4119702 10532 LindaWhit 1 4116492 ditto - it's easier to look at and and I think it pops out the text blocks nicely Mon Oct 20 12:09:04 -0700 2008 4061057 10312 applehome 1 4116562 Please don't say this is the solution. While it cuts some glare, the text size needs to be able to scale within the IE browser. I would hope that is still on your list to fix and high on it. Mon Oct 20 12:35:33 -0700 2008 4061057 10264 rworange 2 4120209 I'm not sure if this is to what you are referring, but you can increase the text size in both IE 7 and Firefox 3 under the View section on the toolbar. For IE 7, simply choose a larger text size and for Firefox, click on Zoom In (or Ctrl++). I tried both for this site, they scale fine, no problems I may be repeating previous posts, but this is a site in progress. Tue Oct 21 20:45:22 -0700 2008 4116562 140436 fresnohotspot 3 4120436 Yes that is what I was talking about. I have IE7 and it does NOT scale the text size in the posts. It only increases the size of the titles and throws the bar at the top of the page off. It has been a site in progress for almost a month now as far as the redesign. I am hoping that this fix does not get assigned to the bottom of the heap. This makes the site unreadable to me for any amount of time, grey background or not. I have to put on my glasses to read the site and take them off to go anywhere else on the web and put them on for Chowhound ... on, off, on, off, The majority of sites on the web do accoodate this and for almost ten years Chowhound accomodated it until last month. . Wed Oct 22 00:24:56 -0700 2008 4120209 10264 rworange 4 4124124 This fix has been deployed. Thu Oct 23 10:48:05 -0700 2008 4120436 227280 CHOW HQ 5 4127189 Thank you so much. Yeah, I get to catch up on past posts. Just a FYI, though it doesn't bother me. In IE7 when you use size 'largest'; the bar at the top of the page trucates at blogs nothing beyond that like 'my chow' is displayed. I've bookmarked 'my chow', but others that use the larger font might be confused. Fri Oct 24 15:36:14 -0700 2008 4124124 10264 rworange 1 4124178 Something I haven't seen since early in the launch of the redesign --- when I posted a reply, the typeface was a larger size. ETA: and it just did it again now. Thu Oct 23 11:07:40 -0700 2008 4061057 10039 Melanie Wong 2 4124555 Happening to me too - but Melanie's post appears (to me) to be the same as everyone's. Just my recent posts are coming out with a much bigger font size (too big - doesn't look good) to me. Thu Oct 23 13:08:51 -0700 2008 4124178 10312 applehome 2 4124598 Just posted a reply to another thread and the type remained large only until I closed out of that thread. When I returned to it, the type was the same size as usual--as is yours now. Just seems like an odd--but temporary--glitch. Thu Oct 23 13:18:27 -0700 2008 4124178 11407 JoanN 3 4124666 At the start of the redesign, the length of time it stayed large coincided with the 2-hour editing period and was visible only to the poster of the message. Maybe it has reverted to the same. Thu Oct 23 13:40:39 -0700 2008 4124598 10039 Melanie Wong 4 4124700 As a test, I closed out of my message and returned to it just a minute or two later; it was back to normal size. The increase in size doesn't seem to me to be triggered by the editing window. Perhaps just the reopening of the thread? ETA: And indeed, closed out and came back immediately to edit this message and the type was the normal size when I returned. Thu Oct 23 13:51:04 -0700 2008 4124666 11407 JoanN 2 4127465 That has happened to me, as well. It was a pleasure, while it lasted! Fri Oct 24 18:10:51 -0700 2008 4124178 10087 Pat Hammond 2 4131588 yep just did that to me as well. while extremely legible, seems more like a glitch than anything else. regardless, my first time posting on the boards in a coupla weeks and I gotta say, the improvement is a mere increment. c'mon design team, get on it! the sheer volume of discourse on this thread is your indicator. Mon Oct 27 08:41:51 -0700 2008 4124178 12656 bigjeff 1 4150821 i like the "big text" "glitch" when you post an edit -- it distinguishes the edited version from the older version. once you leave the thread and return, it is gone. i think it is purposefully done by the designers. (oops, now with my first edit (below) i didn't notice the big print glitch.) hmmmm......let's see if it is only on the third time? nope. i guess it IS a glitch, after all. i still wish they would fix the drop down menu with all the boards, and put the topic -specific boards directly under the chowhound menu button -- instead, now, you have to go down and then over. also, the drop down menu is popping up whenever i inadvertently mouse over it just by trying to get to "my latest posts", e.g. the key word is "inadvertently" because the chowhound menu button is too, too close to the main area of the page, e.g., "my latest posts." Wed Nov 05 08:02:14 -0800 2008 4061057 105717 alkapal 1 4177946 I realize I'm a little late replying to this thread, but the truth is I just couldn't bear to be on this site after the redesign. Whereas I used to relish a couple minutes of chowhound nearly every day, I'm afraid that I'll only be using the site now to look up particular things on certain boards. I work in design & usability, so when I first saw the new design I appreciated the improved palette but assumed that the infinite number of design eyesores (font-weights, weird widths on the ads so that they frequently jut out of the side column, positioning problems in general) were so obvious that they would surely be remedied soon. I keep checking back...but ugh. Still icky. The main problem is that all content is now squeezed into a tiny column that comprises about 25% of my screen space. The banner ad at the top of the page, together with the huge sidebar ads, consume a huge amount of space. And move to a fixed width design probably throws in an extra 3 inches of dead space for most users. I LOVE chowhound, and always will consider it the best source for gastro-discussion online. But I can't visit the site recreationally any more. I just refuse to let my visits rack up ad dollars after such a blatant sell-out. *sigh* au revoir. UPDATE: Phew! I cleared my cache and I have to amend my criticism. Much, much much better than I thought. Looks great in Safari especially, okay in Firefox. Still kind of miffed about the big ad on top, but I can live with this. Sun Nov 16 11:48:41 -0800 2008 4061057 100356 RubySue 1 4201794 Looks like there was another recent change in column widths and the fonts look cleaner. I like it. The grey borders look like they had tiny diagonal lines added, and they are easier on the eyes. I have been trying out the IE 8 beta 2, and there have been no problems with this site. I still like Firefox 3 with the flashblock add on because it disables the flash ads (sorry advertisers)... nice work on the improvements. Tue Nov 25 15:06:57 -0800 2008 4061057 140436 fresnohotspot 2 4241287 Why hasn't the header and the line of sites above the headers been moved farther apart yet? It's no small feat to refresh a header (which used to be a piece of cake in the past) by clicking on the header without opening up one of the sites above the header, because they are in such close proximity. If I wanted to read all my unread posts, I'd click on my unread posts. So? Fri Dec 12 06:05:55 -0800 2008 4201794 11104 dolores 1 4241585 CHOW HQ -please check http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/578504 Fri Dec 12 08:06:22 -0800 2008 4061057 224157 girobike