New look for Arch website?

jowilkin · 2010-05-26 00:00:41

I find the news items hard to read with the black text on lilac background. Not a good design from a usability perspective IMO.

smakked · 2010-05-26 00:27:46

jowilkin wrote:

I find the news items hard to read with the black text on lilac background. Not a good design from a usability perspective IMO.

Maybe Calibrate your monitor is in order.

karol · 2010-05-26 00:39:36

javascript:(function(){var%20newSS,%20styles='*%20{%20background:%20white%20!%20important;%20color:%20black%20!important%20}%20:link,%20:link%20*%20{%20color:%20#0000EE%20!important%20}%20:visited,%20:visited%20*%20{%20color:%20#551A8B%20!important%20}';%20if(document.createStyleSheet)%20{%20document.createStyleSheet(%22javascript:'%22+styles+%22'%22);%20}%20else%20{%20newSS=document.createElement('link');%20newSS.rel='stylesheet';%20newSS.href='data:text/css,'+escape(styles);%20document.getElementsByTagName(%22head%22)[0].appendChild(newSS);%20}%20})();

I have this in my firefox bookmarks named as 'zap colors'.

I think I found a bug:
when I click on 'Packages' link, I go to the packages page but it's the 'Home' link that is highlighted, not 'Packages'. All other links highlighting works fine. Should I submit a proper bug report?

gabriel9 · 2010-05-26 00:42:23

Nice, i like it. Also if you need help with html+css+js+php feel free to ask me for help. I will help you when i have spare time. Best regards.

Wintervenom · 2010-05-26 00:47:08

At first, I did this to be silly. And, then, I supposed that someone might actually like this and tune it to their taste. So here goes nothing:

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);

@-moz-document domain("www.archlinux.org"),
               url-prefix("http://archlinux.org"),
               domain("wiki.archlinux.org"),
               domain("planet.archlinux.org"),
               domain("bugs.archlinux.org"),
               domain("repos.archlinux.org"),
               domain("aur.archlinux.org"),
               domain("projects.archlinux.org"){
body { background: pink !important; }
#content { background: lightpink !important; }
a:link { color: red !important; }
a:visited { color: darkred !important; }
.box { background: #FFDDDD !important; }
#pkgsearch { background: #FF6666 !important; }
}

karol · 2010-05-26 00:49:09

@Wintervenom
Ummm, how do I use it?

Bralkein · 2010-05-26 00:57:55

Kind of ambivalent about it as it stands. The lilac looks hideous IMO but it's easy to change I guess and maybe it's a matter of taste. The links in the top-right should have bigger targets to hit, something like what Marcel- suggested would be cool. The search box is a bit too prominent as well, but if it helps alleviate noobular cluelessness then it's probably a worthwhile tradeoff though.

Keep up the good work though, overall the site still looks clean and stylish. Hopefully devs won't get too discouraged by people who don't like it as much (including myself). You never know until you try, and of course you can't please everyone

Allan · 2010-05-26 00:59:16

karol wrote:

I think I found a bug:
when I click on 'Packages' link, I go to the packages page but it's the 'Home' link that is highlighted, not 'Packages'. All other links highlighting works fine. Should I submit a proper bug report?

Yep. Known issues.

Allan · 2010-05-26 01:00:56

jowilkin wrote:

I find the news items hard to read with the black text on lilac background. Not a good design from a usability perspective IMO.

That is just a summary. Click the item to get the whole post on a nice light background.

droog · 2010-05-26 01:02:55

The top looks pretty nice, but as most others said the violet background looks pretty bad with cyan.
the archcon logo is pretty distracting for me too, but maybe thats the point.

karol · 2010-05-26 01:03:13

> Yep. Known issues.
Do you mean "yes, file a bug report" or "yeah, we know it, we're already working on it" or sth else?

Allan · 2010-05-26 01:29:11

karol wrote:

"yeah, we know it, we're already working on it"

That one.

Caliburn · 2010-05-26 01:32:15

Is it bad I first thought the new website to be a knockoff of Gentoo's website? I'm not trying to insult the author of the design, but I am a bit concerned with the odd familiarity. In addition, the lighter blue (#EEEEFF) does look a bit hideous in contrast to the white, IMHO. Maybe if there were an extremely light blue (#FCFCFF) on a slightly darker light blue (#FAFAFF), some other design changes featuring the white.. I really wouldn't know until doing some work with the colorizations.

I'm personally a fan of the original website as it held it's own twofold: a clean look and user functionality. The new design definitely holds it's own with functionality, but the clean look appeal, in particular that of the colorization.. well, it needs a wash.

But I digress, that's my opinion. I just thought I'd throw it out there.

karabaja4 · 2010-05-26 01:50:59

I kinda liked the old style better, it seemed cleaner. But, generally I dislike any kind of change, so I may not be objective here.

Also, green colored "code" frames in the wiki hurt my eyes (cannot read them as easily as before).

Anikom15 · 2010-05-26 01:55:53

Yeah green code = bad. I think CGA style code frame would be cool, if you get my drift.

anonymous_user · 2010-05-26 01:56:09

BTW whats the lilac/purple everyone is referring to? The background color looks gray to me.

Also I like the new header. Very slim and dark.

karol · 2010-05-26 01:57:50

@anonymous_user
It's rrrrrroyal bl- I mean lilac. Maybe you use some custom styles.

r6 · 2010-05-26 02:07:07

Looks great!

Borosai · 2010-05-26 02:35:23

I like what I see.

superchango · 2010-05-26 02:52:03

Wintervenom wrote:

At first, I did this to be silly. And, then, I supposed that someone might actually like this and tune it to their taste. So here goes nothing:
...

Great!!

AugustePop · 2010-05-26 03:00:41

i think the new look of the archlinux website seems dark.

i personally prefer the brighter and lighter theme before.

however, the new design compressed the vertical space occupied by archlinux logo, that's a progress in usability, i guess?

Last edited by AugustePop (2010-05-26 03:02:51)

thayer · 2010-05-26 03:01:24

I'm sure the forums, wiki and other sites will make an appearance sooner than later.

Regarding the background, it's definitely blue. The color is #eeeeff; equal parts red/green and a brighter concentration of blue. Purple (and it's variants) imply a higher concentration of both red and blue over green. That is not the case here.

Unfortunately, not all monitors are created equal; some do not show the full spectrum of any one particular colour. For whatever reason, the proper rendering of the red spectrum seems to be the trickiest hue for LCD/LED displays. If it appears purple on your screen it is simply a misconfiguration or limitation of your monitor.

AugustePop · 2010-05-26 03:06:21

the background seems a pale grey to me. although it seems a little bit blueish.

Anikom15 · 2010-05-26 03:13:32

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, technically it is blue (hue is 240), but you have to realize that the 6500K color temperature favors red over green and blue. On a laptop's LCD it appears blue, so it's probably 7500K or 9300K. Considering 6500K is the photographic standard, it is purple. Also, purple is not straight red and blue, that would be magenta, violet has a hue of 274, about a ratio of 1:0:2. And my final proof is the color lavender, whose code is #e6e6fA, has a hue of 240, so although it is technically blue, it is considered a shade of violet.

I win. This debate is over.

ALSO: Make the package search font larger.

Last edited by Anikom15 (2010-05-26 03:17:26)

Vintendo · 2010-05-26 05:52:49

It does feel a little less KISS if you catch my drift

Arch Linux

#51 2010-05-26 00:00:41

Re: New look for Arch website?

#52 2010-05-26 00:27:46

Re: New look for Arch website?

#53 2010-05-26 00:39:36

Re: New look for Arch website?

#54 2010-05-26 00:42:23

Re: New look for Arch website?

#55 2010-05-26 00:47:08

Re: New look for Arch website?

#56 2010-05-26 00:49:09

Re: New look for Arch website?

#57 2010-05-26 00:57:55

Re: New look for Arch website?

#58 2010-05-26 00:59:16

Re: New look for Arch website?

#59 2010-05-26 01:00:56

Re: New look for Arch website?

#60 2010-05-26 01:02:55

Re: New look for Arch website?

#61 2010-05-26 01:03:13

Re: New look for Arch website?

#62 2010-05-26 01:29:11

Re: New look for Arch website?

#63 2010-05-26 01:32:15

Re: New look for Arch website?

#64 2010-05-26 01:50:59

Re: New look for Arch website?

#65 2010-05-26 01:55:53

Re: New look for Arch website?

#66 2010-05-26 01:56:09

Re: New look for Arch website?

#67 2010-05-26 01:57:50

Re: New look for Arch website?

#68 2010-05-26 02:07:07

Re: New look for Arch website?

#69 2010-05-26 02:35:23

Re: New look for Arch website?

#70 2010-05-26 02:52:03

Re: New look for Arch website?

#71 2010-05-26 03:00:41

Re: New look for Arch website?

#72 2010-05-26 03:01:24

Re: New look for Arch website?

#73 2010-05-26 03:06:21

Re: New look for Arch website?

#74 2010-05-26 03:13:32

Re: New look for Arch website?

#75 2010-05-26 05:52:49

Re: New look for Arch website?

Board footer