Poll: How do you like escapist's new look?

[Osalot_TH]

I liked the scrolling topics, sometimes the picture was the deciding factor to reading the article.

 

[Mephisteus]

I don't like the clutter on the front page. There's no organisation for the columns and reviews. Apart from that, it's ok, but it'll take some getting used to.

That, exactly that

 

[Skeleon]

Right now?
Not so much.
It's kind of confusing.
But I'm sure I'll get used to it.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

But that's just because you increased text size. :-/ What did you expect?

I do expect it nowadays, but doesn't mean I like it or anything. I have to increase the text size, otherwise I can't read it, so lots of websites just look shit to me. I just found it better before, when I could actually see the logout link and such. Just a small gripe, I suppose.

edit: ZOOMING? OH FUCKING HELL thanks

 

[neuromasser]

I liked the scrolling topics, sometimes the picture was the deciding factor to reading the article.

Yeah me too, I forgot to mention that before.

I almost wrote: "Welcome to the escapist" and you're here longer than me

edit: ZOOMING? OH FUCKING HELL thanks

xD

 

[ffxfriek]

It is interesting. I rather like the new look.

seconded

 

[Virgil]

I hate it when websites do this whenever the text size has to be increased, it's way too common nowadays, makes it look bad. LOOK AT THAT TEXT. LOOK AT IT.

But that's just because you increased text size. :-/ What did you expect? If you want everything to be readable to you and without clutter you should just zoom in (CTRL & +), not increase text size

That's exactly it, and why it's becoming far more common to use positioning to lay out elements in modern layouts. I know that Firefox 3, IE8, and Safari (PC) do a beautiful job of zooming the entire layout to a larger size (instead of just scaling the text). Chrome only does text size right now, but I'm sure it'll be updated to zoom in a later version.

The kind of layout we wanted on the front page isn't possible at all without very fixed dimensions. It has a lot of advantages though, and with modern browsers commonly able to zoom, the negative to doing is this way it significantly less.

 

[Syntax Error]

I liked the old flash widget thingy in the old lay out that showed all articles in the current issue. Also, some of the stuff in the front page really should be labeled (there is the column for videos and reviews, if you're new to the site, you'll probably be confused).

 

[Easykill]

Too much white, not enough blue. Plus they only have one of the cool pics on the front page, instead of one per article. Don't like those parts, but I like everything else.

 

[Gerazzi]

I refreshed the page thinking it loaded wrong.

But yeah, I like this one better

 

[S.H.A.R.P.]

It's alright. I liked the old one too though, perhaps slightly better even. I'll wait with final judgment for a while though, but for now it's "Both".

 

[Cid Silverwing]

It's unintuitive and confusing.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

[sup]That's exactly it, and why it's becoming far more common to use positioning to lay out elements in modern layouts. I know that Firefox 3, IE8, and Safari (PC) do a beautiful job of zooming the entire layout to a larger size (instead of just scaling the text). Chrome only does text size right now, but I'm sure it'll be updated to zoom in a later version.

The kind of layout we wanted on the front page isn't possible at all without very fixed dimensions. It has a lot of advantages though, and with modern browsers commonly able to zoom, the negative to doing is this way it significantly less.[/sup]

Ah, I think I understand now. I guess if there was less necessity for a very structured web page it would be easier with text zooming, but for that particular layout it needs a more *tight* layout or it'll just get more messed up. I zoom my page now though, can't believe I never even knew that.

now all i can complain about is a lack of subscript code and I've never seen that here (yet superscript is there.... I'm probably not doing it right, i'm assuming its [sub])

 

[Grimm91]

I like it, its not so bland.

 

[Virgil]

now all i can complain about is a lack of subscript code and I've never seen that here (yet superscript is there.... I'm probably not doing it right, i'm assuming its [sub])

Subscript wasn't a tag. I [sub]added it[/sub] though, so it should work now.

 

[SilentHunter7]

The only part I have a problem with is how they're trying to cram the top news together into a wonky 3 column grid. It feels...well...crammed.

 

[MusicalFreedom]

Subscript wasn't a tag. I [sub]added it[/sub] though, so it should work now.

Now that was quick. Thanks. now i can go

[sub][sub][sub]aaaa[/sub]aaaa[/sub]aaaa[/sub]aaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

properly now. a great service