Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MDN Redesign

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 159 posts

Re: MDN Redesign

#91

Post by mmis1000 »

mrpotato wrote: post #90

I was looking around to get a feel for the changes when I noticed that the colour scheme is different on some pages, I'm not sure why? Red and black (darkmode) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/bo... Blue and black (darkmode) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/HTML/Cont... Both pages are under the "References" section.

That is base on category. HTML is red, CSS is Blue, js is orange and so on.

The same as category on nav bar. And why the design behind that... I don't know, this is just an observation.

Re: MDN Redesign

#92

Post by LKNSI »

I hate it, but that is just utterly subjective. I haven't had the time to formulate and ask myself why yet (just saw it 10 minutes ago), but I just feel hatred towards the new design. Could possibly change.

The reduction of colors used that gave me visual hints feels like it's giving me less cognitive offloading - and I have to feel the new structure of the page. Maybe my hatred is just because of new(tm) - but yeah, others have given better reasons for their distaste, and more directed feedback.

Re: MDN Redesign

#93

Post by LKNSI »

LKNSI wrote: post #92

I hate it, but that is just utterly subjective. I haven't had the time to formulate and ask myself why yet (just saw it 10 minutes ago), but I just feel hatred towards the new design. Could possibly change. The reduction of colors used that gave me visual hints feels like it's giving me less cognitive offloading - and I have to feel the new structure of the page. Maybe my hatred is just because of new(tm) - but yeah,…

even subtle things like header font weights for section titles - is gone too.

sub headings have a larger font weight than the section titles themselves.

Re: MDN Redesign

#94

Post by mmis1000 »

LKNSI wrote: post #92

I hate it, but that is just utterly subjective. I haven't had the time to formulate and ask myself why yet (just saw it 10 minutes ago), but I just feel hatred towards the new design. Could possibly change. The reduction of colors used that gave me visual hints feels like it's giving me less cognitive offloading - and I have to feel the new structure of the page. Maybe my hatred is just because of new(tm) - but yeah,…

I think the worst offender is the html section.

They decide to use the error color as primary color. So you can't even know it is a error icon/section now without read the text.

Re: MDN Redesign

#95

Post by JSdev1 »

ravenstine wrote: post #87

Of all the sort of needless website redesigns I've seen, this one is actually pretty decent. Having gone through this sort of thing a few times myself, I want to give kudos to those who worked on this. In case they are reading this, here's what I liked and what I think can be approved upon: LIKED: - Besides the interactive examples, it looks like you stuck to using standard web fonts instead of loading some bullspit…

Agree 3 column layout is no good, that 3rd column should go back to being above the 2nd column as before, I added custom CSS to fix that

Re: MDN Redesign

#96

Post by LKNSI »

mmis1000 wrote: post #94
LKNSI wrote: post #92

I hate it, but that is just utterly subjective. I haven't had the time to formulate and ask myself why yet (just saw it 10 minutes ago), but I just feel hatred towards the new design. Could possibly change. The reduction of colors used that gave me visual hints feels like it's giving me less cognitive offloading - and I have to feel the new structure of the page. Maybe my hatred is just because of new(tm) - but yeah,…

I think the worst offender is the html section. They decide to use the error color as primary color. So you can't even know it is a error icon/section now without read the text.

You're right! I just saw that. So now you have to remember the contextual meaning of the color when switching between areas of the site.

Re: MDN Redesign

#97

Post by enw »

I really dislike this (and I tend to love great design and obsess over UX and small details): reduced legibility (small and thin fonts, lower contrast in e.g. inline code, alert boxes all blend in), and reduced information (compatibility table is near useless, missing details in specifications).

Overall this seems like straight out of 2003. The inconsistent border contrasts and weird burgundy red accent only strengthens the feeling of student side project and lack of taste (red does not convey trust).

Also that logo is ugly. It looks frail and awkwardly narrow without being harmonious (see e.g. the tiny gap between /|).

Edit: I just realized every category has a different accent color (compare e.g. HTML and CSS sections). What an absurd joke from Mozilla.

Re: MDN Redesign

#98

Post by brimble »

enw wrote: post #97

I really dislike this (and I tend to love great design and obsess over UX and small details): reduced legibility (small and thin fonts, lower contrast in e.g. inline code, alert boxes all blend in), and reduced information (compatibility table is near useless, missing details in specifications). Overall this seems like straight out of 2003. The inconsistent border contrasts and weird burgundy red accent only strength…

The old version looked more like it was from 2003 than this—but in a good way. It wasn't afraid of making things visually distinct. This one's the modern "consistency over usability" style that's currently in fashion.

Re: MDN Redesign

#99

Post by kipple »

mmis1000 wrote: post #94
LKNSI wrote: post #92

I hate it, but that is just utterly subjective. I haven't had the time to formulate and ask myself why yet (just saw it 10 minutes ago), but I just feel hatred towards the new design. Could possibly change. The reduction of colors used that gave me visual hints feels like it's giving me less cognitive offloading - and I have to feel the new structure of the page. Maybe my hatred is just because of new(tm) - but yeah,…

I think the worst offender is the html section. They decide to use the error color as primary color. So you can't even know it is a error icon/section now without read the text.

Agreed, this "primary color based on language" is a cute idea, but awful to actually consume. JavaScript (my most visited) is a low-contrast orange (especially when wrapped with inline-code styling).

Overall the new design does feel more slick, I think it has potential. But I wish they had focused more on readability/usefulness over "cuteness".

This site doesn't need to be "fun" — they've successfully created a useful tool. They should be proud of that, and keep building in that direction.

Re: MDN Redesign

#100

Post by mjw1007 »

apocalyptic0n3 wrote: post #24

I actually dislike the change to the Compatibility Chart. The checkmark serves the same purpose as green vs red boxes did (and is frankly less readable at a glance, not more) and being able to quickly see relative times features were added at a glance made it easy to evaluate whether to use a feature or not. Guess I'll have to revert to using Can I Use? for this again. I had mostly replaced that with MDN.

The explanation in the article is: « So you don’t have to keep version numbers in your head, we’ve put more emphasis on yes and no iconography for browser capabilities »

But as far as I can tell all they've done is put a tick there if any version of the browser supports the feature.

That means I could have learned the same information from the old table just by looking at whether the cell had anything in it, with no version numbers "in my head" at all. So I'm feeling patronised rather than helped.

If they'd done a bit more work and made the ticks indicate something like "available in the oldest supported version of the browser" (which is a recent version for Firefox and Chrome but not for Safari), that might have justified what they wrote.

Post reply on HN