My name is Stéphane and I'm a designer at Stack Exchange, you may have noticed some updates to the design lately.

The updates are part of a SE network-wide update which allows us to:

  • Have sharper / more beautiful design on high definition displays
  • Fix old layout bugs
  • to fix any layout bugs more easily (and faster)
  • More easily add new features to all of our sites in the future

If you see any bugs please let us know.


  • 13
    Thanks for this update, I really like the new design. – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 13:08
  • 36
    Ugh! That's horrible. :( I don't like change! – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 13:09
  • 3
    @AsafKaragila It's probably just a matter of getting used :). – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 13:10
  • 7
    @Surb: Yes, probably. Still pretty horrible. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 13:11
  • 15
    @AsafKaragila I completely agree. This change is horrible. Also, the blue bounty indicators are really annoying me. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 13:18
  • 10
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 13:20
  • 6
    @AsafKaragila Do not worry, I will provide you with more cheese that you can place at your sole discretion, which shall never be moved by anyone other than you :P (Please give it a bit of time, and then come back with any specific things that still really stick out at you). I know you don't like change, but please allow a bit of time to acclimate, and let us know what still bothers you. – Tim Post Mar 26 '15 at 13:24
  • 17
    General note to all Feedback is good, we love it, we need it, but we need it in the form of answers that illustrate one particular thing at a time that you find suboptimal with a constructive note as to why :) We understand 'horrible', but that's kind of broad and difficult to process. Thanks for bearing with us :) – Tim Post Mar 26 '15 at 13:28
  • 13
    @Tim: For starters that this is something which just appears. Some warning would have been nice to have. E.g. in the form of a meta announcement that there will be an upcoming change in a day or two. I came to meta to report a bug in the CSS and found an announcement that a change had been made. Maybe I would have felt less visually offended if I'd know it's coming. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 13:29
  • 3
    @AsafKaragila Fair and valid point, duly noted and taken. – Tim Post Mar 26 '15 at 13:31
  • 22
    (-1) The choice of new font face is horrible. it is much thinner than before. Instead of much sharper image as what one naively think, it make it one much harder to read (especially for those with poor eyesight). – achille hui Mar 26 '15 at 13:57
  • 3
    @achillehui, could you make your comment an answer? – Antonio Vargas Mar 26 '15 at 15:23
  • 5
    Wow - I'm amazed at all the detailed and specific criticisms. Thank you for your work on the site. What I really think these criticisms indicate is that people have come to really like the iconic feel of the site, which is entirely due to you (and the others involved in the design process). Thank you! – davidlowryduda Mar 27 '15 at 5:46
  • 6
    I have to say, I dislike the changes in general. The text is smaller and lighter and this makes reading the site a lot more straining to my eyes. It also just seems a lot less aesthetically pleasing to me. Then again, I always dislike change. – Seth Mar 27 '15 at 15:41
  • 6
    Can we have all of the soft gray changed to black and perhaps the font slightly thicker(and darker if possible, it may be the thickness), since the text hurts my eyes now, and unless I suddenly need glasses, this seems to be due to the update. – user142198 Mar 28 '15 at 22:58

33 Answers 33

I am a bit inconvenienced by the use of very light grey hues. This only affects a small number posts, so not a pressing concern. Just this morning I was typing a comment to a new user, whose (totally misplaced) post was getting the usual amount of negative attention. It had reached a score of -3, and was faded out accordingly. Except that I still had to see what I was typing.

enter image description here

I'm in my early 50s, and I could still manage. Barely. But in less favorable lighting it might have been impossible. We have some active users in their seventies. At least one of them has confided that they occasionally have problems here due to impaired vision. Granted, such users rarely need to squint at posts at -3 or below, but anyway.

I realize that changing this one shade will cause an avalanche of other changes in the color scheme (for it to be consistent).

Just a reminder that visually pleasing to the average eye may be near illegible to a weaker one.

Other moderators (judging from the exchange in our chat room) also seem to think that the use of the greyscale spectrum went a bit too far towards the light end.

If this can be fixed by adjusting the settings of my laptop or my browser (FF v36) please tell me :-)

  • 18
    And we should again bring to attention the crowd of color blinded users which may have some issues with particularly similar shades, especially in a low-contrast environment. – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 12:38

Thanks for your feedback, I updated the color to #333 (as it was before). It will be live after our next production build.

The voting arrows/text seem faded, as if they are disabled.

  • 4
    That was actually my first observation before coming to meta to figure out what the hell went wrong. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 19:27
  • 2
    @crash I second that. Improvement suggestion: Make a hover background to emphasize the arrow actually functions. Since the active version is red and the neutral is gray, maybe a dark blue bg on hover will help recognition. – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 19:29
  • 6
    @AlexR Or it could just go back to the way it was... :) – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 19:31
  • @crash Or that. Although I fear a new design pledges for new colors. The old ones have much more saturation. – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 19:32
  • 4
    @AlexR I'll stop clogging things up with comments now, but I'm so disappointed with just the sheer volume of all the changes brought with no warning (I see Asaf addressed this already). Everything seemed to function fine and everyone was happy for the most part. Given the traffic this question has generated in just a few hours, there seem to be more negative things wrought upon us than good (there certainly are some good changes, but I think the negative far outweigh the good so far). It's unfortunate. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 19:35
  • @crash +1 for the lack of announcement. I guess we'll accustom to the changes and some stuff is actually good, but the thread asks for issues, not for positive feedback ^^ I take the upvotes as some sort of approval of the new design. An example of what I like is the added padding around the comment text field and that it is larger now (fits 4 lines without scrolling). – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 19:47
  • 2
    The color of the arrows has hardly changed. – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 7:12
  • 15
    I don't understand this change. New users often miss the arrows and need to be guided to "press the button to accept/vote"; if anything they should be made more obvious. It is true that the arrows themselves have not changed color, but the text was a very prominent bold black and is now lighter and thinner, making some people mistake it for being disabled. I strongly recommend beefing up the text again. – Mario Carneiro Mar 27 '15 at 11:30
  • Where do you click to log in. There used to be a "login" in the header. – Andrew Aug 10 at 22:42
  • @Andrew: Login still seems to be there in the header(tried in an incognito window). If you are already logged in, there is a chat bubble type icon at the top right for me which I can use to logout etc. – Aryabhata Aug 13 at 22:55

Thanks for your feedback, I set the font family to the default font we are using on the site (Helvetica Neue/Helvetica/Arial/sans-serif) instead of the serif font.

Could the typeface in the textbox for entering comments please go back to monospaced? The proportional typeface is not good for editing markdown or (especially) MathJax source.


Edit: The typeface has now changed to sans-serif but it still fails to be monospaced:

new screenshot

"The default font we are using on the site (Helvetica Neue/Helvetica/Arial/sans-serif)" specifically won't do here -- it should be "mono", possibly as a fallback after something like Lucida Console or Consolas.

  • @Stéphane: No, this doesn't seem to be fixed to me. See screenshot. The question/answer edit boxes have monospaced font, but the comment box still doesn't. – Henning Makholm Mar 27 '15 at 11:28
  • 2
    Patience... the new build hasn't rolled out yet. – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 11:33
  • 2
    "The default font we are using on the site (Helvetica Neue/Helvetica/Arial/sans-serif)" specifically won't do here -- it should be "mono", possibly as a fallback after something like Lucida Console or Consolas. – Henning Makholm Mar 27 '15 at 11:33
  • 2
    This might be one of the few times when you can slam your fist on the desk and say out loud " I want to have mono! " and I hope you haven't missed this chance. :-) – Asaf Karagila Mar 28 '15 at 7:57
  • It seems better now. – Asaf Karagila Mar 30 '15 at 12:57
  • @Asaf: No it doesn't. The typeface is now sans-serif, but it is still not monospaced for me. See new screenshot. – Henning Makholm Mar 30 '15 at 13:58
  • Hmm, I think you're right. Although our sans serif fonts are different, it's clear to me that it's not monospaced. – Asaf Karagila Mar 30 '15 at 15:22
  • It seems the comments are now displayed in sans-serif, too. I am not very fond of this mix of fonts, and it would be really strange if this persisted when changed to monospaced. This is not the intent of this proposal, is it? – quid Apr 1 '15 at 20:23
  • 1
    @quid: No, the intention is to get the edit box back to monospaced (and presumably the comments, once posted, back to the usual serif typeface). – Henning Makholm Apr 1 '15 at 20:43

I increased the font size from 10px to 12px. It will be live after our next production build.

The numbers in some places are unreasonably small, which might be a problem for people like me who have limited vision. Examples:

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

Also, little-grey-text-on-white-background doesn't help in the visibility department

Thanks for your feedback, it's now fixed and will be live after our next production build.

The comment author and timestamp are now in the same color. Having the timestamp a less intrusive fade gray makes the username more readable (especially with the "just now" text, it disturbs me):

enter image description here $\ $ as it is now
enter image description here more like it used to be

  • 3
    Yes, this is weird and something I haven't seen on any other SE site. My name isn't "Woodface just now"... – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 0:36
  • 18
    @Woodface This is your fault. It is clearly a tribute to your name changes. – quid Mar 27 '15 at 0:45
  • @quidjustnow Possibly... – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 0:45
  • 13
    @Woodface8hoursago: did you change your name again? :-P – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 8:49

Yet another misalignment: enter image description here

The culprit is the margin-top: -1px of the .delete-tag. A margin-top: 3px produces a proper alignment:

enter image description here

Thanks for your feedback, it's now fixed and will be live after our next production build.

Would be cool to have the numbers aligned with the text.

enter image description here

Properly aligned the list would look like this:

enter image description here

or like this:

enter image description here

  • 1
    This is due to excess padding of the class answer-votes. Judging from the name, it might be used elsewhere as well. See here for a screenshot with disabled padding. A value of padding: 0 4px 8px will keep the old spacing but move the numbers up. – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 14:57
  • @AlexR ok... Honestly I don't know what is a "padding". In the screenshot you linked alignment is much better but still not perfect :). – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 15:11
  • You can look up any CSS reference on padding if you want to know. Else, the linked screenshot (incorporate it in your post if you want) is styled such that the numbers have exaclty the same baseline as the tags. The rest is due to the font used for the numbers. – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 15:13
  • @AlexR ok.. I think I get it (approximately :). "incorporate it in your post if you want" well I propose you that either you incorporate it by editing this answer or to make a new answer with the same point and I'll delete mine. – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 15:17
  • 2
    Done that. I wouldn't edit it in without your consent ;) – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 15:21
  • 1
    @AlexR I appreciate both: the edit and the respect :). – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 15:23
  • It wouldn't be "cool"--it would be correct typography. (+1 for good quibble though) – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 19:26

There seems to be a lot more whitespace in various places than before.

What immediately stands out to me as not-very-pretty is that there's too much vertical space between the question title and the dotted line below it, on a question page.

Also, consider this screenshot from my profile summary page:

cropped screenshot

  1. There's too much vertical space between the subheadings and the horizontal line below it.

  2. The sub-tab buttons (votes/activity/newest) are too far above the horizontal line. At the very least, the bottom edge of the buttons should be flush with the baseline of the subheading.

  3. The frames and other decorations around the vote counts take too much emphasis from the vote counts themselves. Do they need to be so wide? I'm not going to get more than 9999 votes on any of my answers. And even more, the tallness of those frames seems to be what determines the item height in the list, so if the frames were not there, there would be room to display more actual information.

Finally the line spacing in profile > "all actions" > "comments" looks excessive to me.

  • 4
    Second this; I recall being similarly put off when Gmail changed their look to add more whitespace around everything. Designers may think it looks cooler, but it makes it harder to get actual work done due to the added scrolling and eye movement. Yes, some negative space is good; but too much is just drawing attention to the design at the expense of the content. – Mario Carneiro Mar 27 '15 at 11:34
  • 100% agreed @Mario. I deeply abhor recent trends toward excessive marginal whitespace (Facebook, Reddit, etc). I want to spend time reading, not scrolling. – Kaj Hansen Aug 10 at 7:13

The free form flag has a text box which exceeds the size of the dialog.

(Edit: Four months without this being fixed, here's what needs to be changed, the "textarea" class for this input box should be set to 63 columns, and not 80.

Comparing with the CSS contents on MathOverflow, there the width is set explicitly to 575px (which is smaller than what 63 columns gives), by having

.mod-attention-subform textarea {font-size: 12px; width: 575px; padding: 5px; }

in the CSS itself.)

Due to popular demand, here's a screenshot:

Screenshot of the problem

Other relevant details, Firefox 36.0.4 on Arch Linux 64bit (kernel 3.19.2)

  • 1
    Can you provide a screen shot perhaps to add clarity? – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 27 '15 at 0:31
  • I was hoping to avoid this because I'm lazy when it comes to printing screens. Click flag, choose "Other" (the last option), and see for yourself. – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 0:32
  • Maybe I'll add it for you later by editing it into your post :p but I'm too lazy now myself...what a dilemma. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 27 '15 at 0:33
  • No-repro here. Details might be needed. – quid Mar 27 '15 at 0:38
  • 2
    @quid: Fine. I've added a screenshot instead of sleeping. – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 0:43
  • Thanks and good night! – quid Mar 27 '15 at 0:47
  • +1 for useful quibble and not sleeping. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 27 '15 at 1:29
  • 10
    Haha, love how the dialog says "Something not quite right?" – Mario Carneiro Mar 27 '15 at 11:40
  • @Mario: I didn't pick up on that. Nice! – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 12:04
  • Also reported on meta.SE (but marked as a dupe of a status-completed bug there). I've had a CSS fix for this bug in SOUP for some time now. – Ilmari Karonen Oct 1 '15 at 15:07

I think the orange on meta has something pretty agressive (even more in contrast to the surrounding grey/black) and therefore is not meta suited. A more "calm" color would be good, particularly for questions involving opinions.

  • 4
    Specifically, the comment's content gets overshadowed (is it a word?) by its author's name - a completely peripheral info. – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 14:04
  • @AlexR I have no idea if the word exists, but your point is clear (to me at least) and I definitely agree with you. – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 14:08
  • 1
    Seems it actually is a word (definition) and correct in this context :) – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 14:10
  • For what its worth, it is like this on all the metas of sites in beta. (One thing is that it might not go as good together with thet red in the logo and in the top menu.) – quid Mar 27 '15 at 12:51

Thanks for your feedback, it's now fixed and will be live after our next production build.

The gold badge icon is positioned too low in the topbar. For example, here on Meta:


  • This is not an issue only in the topbar; the vertical placement of the badge symbols appears to be different from each other site-wide. See for example here and here. – Daniel R Mar 27 '15 at 9:47
  • 2
    And in Opera, the badge symbols are misplaced horribly all over the site. Screen shot. – Daniel R Mar 27 '15 at 10:13

I think its more a bug than anything else (or maybe there is a good reason for that). In profile, when I pass my mouse over my questions some grey lines appear (one or two, depends where is the mouse). However these lines do not appear for any other list in my profile.

enter image description hereenter image description here

May be relevant: I use Chrome

  • 2
    I have the same thing in Firefox – G-man Mar 26 '15 at 14:24
  • 4
    Thanks for your feedback, I just fixed this one, it'll be live after our next production build. – Stéphane Mar 26 '15 at 16:13
  • @StéphaneMartin Ok, thank you for fixing it so quickly :). – Surb Mar 26 '15 at 16:52
  • 1
    btw I think the icons are so big and therefore seems ugly, at least to me. – Seyhmus Güngören Mar 26 '15 at 17:54

Comment turned answer per request.

The choice of the new font face is horrible. It is much thinner than before. Instead of a much sharper image as what one would naively think, it makes it much harder to read (especially for those with poor eyesight).

  • 1
    Can you pinpoint the change that happened? I think (but am not sure) than the color of the body of posts went from #111 to #222. (I didn't save the old stylesheet for comparison.) I don't see any other changes; the font family is still Georgia. – user147263 Mar 26 '15 at 19:12
  • 6
    @Woodface, I cannot. I don't know what is the old/new font family used. I'm sure the font has changed because the serif of the font now looks more prominent. That part is not the problem, the problem is the new font now too "thin". I now feel very uncomfortable simply looking at the text. – achille hui Mar 26 '15 at 19:30
  • 4
    @achillehui I agree with you. Much harder to read. – Daniel W. Farlow Mar 26 '15 at 19:37
  • 1
    I’ll have to disagree here: there are quite a few things about the change that I don’t like, but the font isn’t a problem, though my eyes are deteriorating significantly. I’m not sure whether the image is sharper, but it’s definitely not harder for me to read. – Brian M. Scott Mar 27 '15 at 2:27
  • In particular, the font used in the side bars for 'Related questions' and 'Hot network' is much less readable. – daw Mar 27 '15 at 8:15
  • 1
    @Woodface Actually we didn't change the font, we just un-bolded it, do you really think a 17px regular serif font is hard to read? I do agree sometimes designers can get crazy with super-light font, but this one seems to be pretty mainstream for me – Stéphane Mar 27 '15 at 10:23
  • This is now fourth monitor on which I look at it and it feels better on all of them. – quid Mar 27 '15 at 12:47
  • 1
    @StéphaneMartin I'm not the one complaining... It seems achille hui is talking about the main font (post body), while daw is bringing up sidebar headings. I have no issues with either thing; and I don't know why anyone would call dark-blue 17px font "much less readable". – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 14:39
  • 1
    @Woodface , please take a snapshot of what's on your screen and your previous comment. If you re-read it 15 years from now, you will know the answer. – achille hui Mar 27 '15 at 16:16
  • ^ Better yet, take a good photograph of your screen. On the two screens I use regularly it is indeed harder to read, @StéphaneMartin. – Antonio Vargas Mar 27 '15 at 16:43
  • @achillehui With or without browser zoom? My zoom setting is 110% on large desktop screens and 125% on my laptop. – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 16:45
  • @Woodface I'm using firefox and I don't know the exact zoom factor. I'm using the zoom setting with 3 "+" before. Now I need to zoom it with 4 "+". – achille hui Mar 27 '15 at 16:56

Some of the link colours have been darkened to such an extent that they are hard to discern from the other text (particularly on some backgrounds):

enter image description here

As one can see, "help center" and "edit the question" are hardly identified as links. Once clicked ("improve the question"), the contrast is a bit better, but something needs to be done about this. I want links to clearly stand out (compare links on meta).

Personally, I don't care about all the other changes, really, but please keep the "last seen" status $\color{red}{\text{red}}$ for users who logged on SE less than 30 minutes ago. The $\color{orange}{\text{orange}}$ color was reserved for those who logged on between 30 minutes ago to 1 hour ago. Now this is confusing for me to see $\color{orange}{\text{orange}}$ for just "9 minutes ago".

enter image description here

Speaking of $\color{orange}{\text{orange}}$ though, I must remark that for some reason, the person who designed this new layout may be obsessed with this color. Look at our names and timestamps on this page, for example, just as @Surb pointed out in his own answer.

  • 4
    Totally obsessed. I liked the grey background for block quotes; but now it's some variant of orange. Just like the rest of the palette. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:40
  • Eh, to be fair now people will stop complaining that main and meta look too similar. – Najib Idrissi Mar 26 '15 at 18:44
  • 4
    @Najib: They never looked similar! – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 21:22

Let us talk about the review page:

enter image description here

In order:

  1. Misalignment between adjacent text segments
  2. Excessively large spacing
  3. Off-center text
  4. Huge button, small text
  • @Asaf Thanks. Somehow the software thought for itself, and added an extra http protocol. – Lord_Farin Mar 26 '15 at 18:02
  • Well, maybe it just wanted to be sure it's there. Like stapling twice. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:04
  • I think the problem with 4 is that the text is disproportionately small compared to the button. It used to be bold IIRC, so that may be why I feel that way. – Najib Idrissi Mar 26 '15 at 18:05
  • 1
    I do not see the issue with 4 (except possibly for what @NajibIdrissi says). The point is not if one can see them, but if it is easy to click them. Given that some have an irreversible effect that is triggered without confirmation they'd better be too large than too small (especially as there is ample space there anyway). – quid Mar 26 '15 at 18:08
  • @quid: The large buttons bother me because the whole website seems to be full of negative spaces. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:13
  • 1
    @quid (and Najib) You are probably right. I think I would feel differently if the text was bigger. This is also in line with the reason for having big buttons. – Lord_Farin Mar 26 '15 at 18:52
  • It's like the designers took all of the contrast they had and put it into the review queue buttons. – user147263 Mar 27 '15 at 2:36

Here's another visual ugggh effect: enter image description here

Just remove that borderless look, it looks annoying: enter image description here

  • 2
    I'm pretty okay with no border. It brings attention to the unaccepted questions which presumably are the ones in need of greater attention anyway. – Peter Woolfitt Mar 26 '15 at 20:40
  • @PeterWoolfitt To mee it creates the impression that the accepted marker has "spilled" out of its "box" - makes me somewhat uncomfortable looking at it :'D – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 20:41
  • Don't cry over spilled colorboxes. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 21:49
  • @AsafKaragila :'( – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 21:50
  • 5
    I'm okay in general with having a borderless background color for an emphasis or box effect, but it looks half-done and visually inconsistent to me that some of the items in the list have a border while others don't. When there is not one of the parallel styles that's unambiguously the "more decorated" one, the design sends mixed and confusing signals. – Henning Makholm Mar 27 '15 at 2:49
  • @HenningMakholm Precisely my problem. Feel free to edit that remark in to make it a better "answer". – AlexR Mar 27 '15 at 9:54

I pushed a fix, it will be live after our next production build. The preview should look the same as the actual post now. If you still issues, please post a comment here.

The preview window no longer faithfully reflects what will be displayed in the answer. It seems that the preview may be using a narrower window, perhaps because of the large whitespace borders. For a simple example see this answer and note that in the preview one line breaks after "depends" in the preview, but after "depends only" in the answer.

In the past the preview was precisely faithful to the rendering in the answer. It is unfortunate that this is no longer true. For me, this will complicate composing answers since I often strive for interline alignment of semantically associate items in order to aid in comprehension. That is much more difficult to achieve when there is poor correspondence between the preview and the answer.

Also noticeable in the example: the link highlighting seems to have less contrast than in the prior version (and even less in the preview: I can hardly discern the links in the preview, even on a high-quality (IPS) monitor).

  • 2
    I'm currently working on this issue, I will post a fix as soon as possible – Stéphane May 13 '15 at 7:57
  • 1
    @StéphaneMartin Thanks very much! – Number May 13 '15 at 15:07

Thanks for your feedback, it's now fixed, I moved all assets by 1px. It will be live after our next production build.

Yet another misalignment issue: The vote score between the arrows is not centered. It appears to be one or two pixels off to the right.

enter image description here

This seems to be an issue in Chrome and Internet Explorer, but not in Firefox and Opera.

  • My Firefox doesn't have this issue. Note that the CSS says text-align: center on it. Maybe that's a client-side problem, maybe a browser specific. – AlexR Mar 27 '15 at 9:57
  • @AlexR You're right, Firefox doesn't have this issue for me either, and neither does Opera. However, with Internet Explorer the vote score is misplaced in the same fashion. – Daniel R Mar 27 '15 at 10:08
  • 1
    Interesting. Since IE can't really be considered a browser, the chrome problem remains... – AlexR Mar 27 '15 at 12:16

Maybe I'm the only one, but I really dislike the new upvote arrows for comments. They seem much shorter than they used to be---I think it's because now they are just triangles and have no "stem." This makes it much harder for me to click on them.

  • 3
    Especially when using a handheld device with the full interface (because the mobile interface is atrocious). – Asaf Karagila Mar 28 '15 at 7:55

There is a line break between the word "undelete" and the number of votes that have already been cast, when the question has been edited. It wasn't present before the update and there should be enough horizontal space for everything to fit on one line.

enter image description here

  • I don't see it. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:24
  • I'm using Chrome 41.0.2272.101 on Windows 8.1, if it makes any difference. – Najib Idrissi Mar 26 '15 at 18:25
  • What's your screen resolution? – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:26
  • You might be onto something @Asaf, I actually don't see the linebreak on this computer (1920x1080) but I did on my SP3 (2160x1440 in theory but there's some DPI scaling mystery going on). Either that or it's been fixed in the meantime. – Najib Idrissi Mar 26 '15 at 18:28
  • My bets are on the former. – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:28
  • Ahah! I actually see it on this computer but not on every post. I see it on this one for example (it's already been linked on meta somewhere so I'm not too scared of the meta-effect). Though this one has a reopen vote. – Najib Idrissi Mar 26 '15 at 18:33
  • I still don't see it; but I suspect that I know why. There is a reopen vote, and things get "pushed down". I actually noticed a similar CSS bug this morning, but they already changed the CSS so it's not relevant anymore (at least for now). – Asaf Karagila Mar 26 '15 at 18:34
  • Looks fine to me but it really bothers me that the vertical alignment between "share/.../flag" and "edited" isn't the same. – Cameron Williams Mar 26 '15 at 18:35
  • I see it broken as the screenshot on my Nexus 4 (using Firefox). – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 0:50
  • Regardless of how it looks on any person's display, this should pretty clearly be a non-breaking space. I see the same problem in the formatting of this on my 97×97 PPI Lenovo Thinkpad W540 (2970x2001 pixels) under Firefox 36.0.1. – MJD Mar 29 '15 at 21:48

On the main page the score and answer counts have font size 17px; inside the question, the score is shown with size 20px which is quite annoying.

Both sizes should be 20px. Or larger.

In comment threads, deleted accounts appear exactly the same as others. The username is even underlined on hover, suggesting it's a link. This is misleading and inconsistent with the appearance of usernames of deleted users under their posts.

Example here (compare with the username under the post.)

I see problems with horizontal spacing after formulas, see image. The third marked formula reads $adj(AB)=adj(B)adj(A)$, where the comma is apparently almost invisible.

enter image description here

  • I also noticed that yesterday, but maybe you meant horizontal spacing? – Asaf Karagila Mar 27 '15 at 8:47
  • 4
    I've had this problem before the new lay-out. – barto Mar 27 '15 at 22:11
  • 2
    This may be an older one. Daw, check whether reloading the page improves the situation. That fixed the old problem, at least. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 28 '15 at 14:08
  • 2
    This is a MathJax issue, not a CSS design issue. – user147263 Mar 28 '15 at 21:10

I have tried to ignore it, but the 10px padding on the question, answer and comment boxes is unbearable. Could it please be reduced to 5px or so?

At the same time, please cut the padding of edit summary, title and other one-line input boxes by half (so 4px top/bottom, 5px left/right).

  • 2
    I guess it is possible to get used to this, but I have, on more than one occasion, been trying to move the cursor "too far left" since the change :-). IOW, +1. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 28 '15 at 8:39

It's now fixed, it'll be live after our next production build.

Several issues about the color of the bounty markers were raised. But I have an issue with the size of the awarded bounty labels.

The text is just too small! See the screenshot on the left.

mini bounty text                  enter image description here

The problem lies in the .bounty-award class, which adds font-size: 0.8em, disabling that results in a proper sized font. If you want to make it slightly smaller (perhaps the box overflows), then 0.9em or even explicit 12px will make it much much better (see the screenshot on the right, with the font-size modifier disabled).

The size of the text in the review history has become very small: Small size font

I don't really see a good reason for that, so it may just be a bug, but if it's an actual change I dislike it. It's small enough that it becomes hard to read.

Has there always been two lines below each question when there are comments (one to separate the question from the rest, one to bound the first comment)?

enter image description here

I'm almost sure that the answer is no (and there is only one line on other sites). Is this a bug? It's a bit jarring in any case.

On the main site the "cite" and "close" links in the box one gets when clicking "share" are quite hard to notice now (due to the color, darkblue on darkgray).

  • In fact, I cannot even see the "cite" and "close" links. If quid had not posted here, I would have thought they had been removed in the update. – GEdgar May 1 '15 at 15:33
  • @GEdgar it seems unchanged to me. – quid May 13 '15 at 15:05

On the question pages (but not on the front page or the main question list), the profile links next to people's gravatars under their posts seem to have lost their blue color.

This means that everything posted by a user12345 now looks like they've already deleted their account and therefore won't be back.

For example, here I see:

(Possibly most relevant for experienced users who're used to a black "user12345" meaning "deleted account").

  • 1
    Could you link to a sample? For me they appear in a somewhat darker blue (#003b52), but not black. This is the same color as the "add a comment" link – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 15:01
  • 1
    If they'd be deleted there'd be no gravatar. If there is no other reason, this seems like a non-issue. (Also what AlexR said. )// Also deleted users (now?) seem light-grey. – quid Mar 26 '15 at 15:03
  • @quid: Well, it also looks untidy that the profile links are in nice linky blue in the question list, but uncolored on the question pages. – Henning Makholm Mar 26 '15 at 15:07
  • 1
    @HenningMakholm They aren't uncolored, but their coloring scheme is inconsistent. This might be a (valid) point of criticism. – AlexR Mar 26 '15 at 15:10
  • As said they are not uncolored (here) but seem to have the same color as other itmes (the "add comment" and the "heading"). If anything I find it surprising why not this color is also used on the frontpage. // Also on your screen-shot the colors are different; I think you should at least update the post to remove the clearly wrong claims. (It is not black and deleted users are not even black, in addition to not having a gravatar and points attached.) – quid Mar 26 '15 at 15:12
  • 2
    @quid: On my monitor it is so close in color to the asked line above it that I have to look very hard to see any difference, and even then I’m not absolutely certain that I see one. It definitely does not look like a link. – Brian M. Scott Mar 27 '15 at 2:38
  • @BrianM.Scott I agree that the colors are not easy to discern (and it should depend on the monitor and even on the angle under which one looks at it). One might say they are barely different. [I hope this time you do not have any issue with my usage.] I also agree that the color does not highlight the fact that text is click-able. (Personally I do not see a need to high-light this fact though, and more generally I do not see a need to draw attention to the user-name. But this is orthogonal.) I continue to hope OP will revise the post, for example along the lines of your comment. – quid Mar 27 '15 at 11:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .