NSLog();

18 Comments »

18 Responses to "Some Stylesheet Changes"

1. | Reply Paul Hailes
   Posted 23 Apr 2004 at 12:33pm #
   

   I like the new stylesheet, nice fresh squeezed colors :o)

2. | Reply Eric Czarny
   Posted 23 Apr 2004 at 12:49pm #
   

   For some reason the new stylesheet makes me crave orange juice...

3. | Reply allan
   Posted 23 Apr 2004 at 4:05pm #
   

   the new stylesheet is awesome.

4. | Reply Matt
   Posted 23 Apr 2004 at 7:57pm #
   

   Ha!

   I couldn't see the new stylesheet in Safari until I dumped my cache. Looks neat.

5. | Reply Ryan Zachary Hale
   Posted 23 Apr 2004 at 11:00pm #
   

   Thanks Matt. That did the trick! Looks super cool!

6. | Reply Paul Scandariato
   Posted 24 Apr 2004 at 1:25pm #
   

   You've really gone too far with the orange theme.

7. | Reply Erik J. Barzeski
   Posted 24 Apr 2004 at 2:00pm #
   

   I dunno, have I? I still think the site looks good. I do.

8. | Reply Jeff
   Posted 24 Apr 2004 at 10:55pm #
   

   I'm actually currently working on a design with very similar colours. Now if I use it for my site, it will look like I've copied you! My green is a little brighter and my orange a little darker.

9. | Reply richie
   Posted 25 Apr 2004 at 6:43am #
   

   looks great! an improvement imo. the colored background helps focus the eye on the actual content.

10. | Reply Ryan J. Bonnell
    Posted 25 Apr 2004 at 3:50pm #
    

    Sorry, Erik, I can't honestly say I like anything about the new design. The old color scheme was much easier on the eyes, and a pleasure to read. The new design is just … well … can I say "icky" ?

    The green color reminds me of rotting garden tomatoes, and the orange just doesn't go with the green.

    You should really go back to the old stylesheet / theme, OR at least make the old one a user-defined preference.

11. | Reply jazer
    Posted 25 Apr 2004 at 10:08pm #
    

    Readability has taken a huge hit. Body text should never be set in a bold face.

12. | Reply Erik J. Barzeski
    Posted 25 Apr 2004 at 11:15pm #
    

    It's not bold.

13. | Reply Jo-Pete Nelson
    Posted 26 Apr 2004 at 4:29pm #
    

    For some reason, I see a new style, but it doesn't look nearly like what you have in your picture. Did you change it again, or is the new stylesheet not compatable with PCs?

14. | Reply Erik J. Barzeski
    Posted 26 Apr 2004 at 4:39pm #
    

    I changed it back. People were whiny and afraid of change. 😀

15. | Reply Erik J. Barzeski
    Posted 27 Apr 2004 at 1:30am #
    

    And now I switched it back. I like it. It's my site. I'll cry if I want to. Oh wait, that's a different song.

16. | Reply Caleb Jaffa
    Posted 27 Apr 2004 at 1:50am #
    

    I'm glad you did Erik, while I am excited for PulpFiction, and getting the news my way, I enjoy well designed sites. I think this design is more appealing than what you had, and doesn't feel so plain.

17. | Reply Graham Ballantyne
    Posted 27 Apr 2004 at 1:36pm #
    

    I agree with jazer -- readability took a huge hit. The fonts look both bold and condensed (screenshot). I think the problem stems from using "myriad" as the default typeface in your CSS. On my system, at least, Myriad only has Condensed Semibold, Bold Italic and Bold as typeface variations. Myriad Pro, OTOH, does have a Regular variation. I disabled Myriad in fontbook (never used it anyways) and all is well. Changing your CSS to list "font-family: myriad pro, myriad, verdana, sans-serif;" should cover everyone, though.

    Other than the typeface, the new design looks great! 😀

18. | Reply jazer
    Posted 27 Apr 2004 at 9:54pm #
    

    Whether or not it is called "bold," it is clearly a bold face (as Graham's screenshot demonstrates. At least you have an RSS feed...