3 ms·
Does anyone else think their new design is terrible? The fonts are hard to read. I hate to be that guy, but I liked the old site better.
by sixQuarks 12y ago
Does anyone else think their new design is terrible? The fonts are hard to read. I hate to be that guy, but I liked the old site better.
- jebus989 12y agoPost title is particularly horrible IMO, Ambroise STD Francois with uppercase transform ugh.
- username223 12y agoI actually like the fonts and clean-ish appearance, but just like so many others, they broke page-down with their big, fat, floating top div. There's apparently a way to fix it with JavaScript -- nytimes.com eventually got it right -- but I wish people would stop adding these things.
- cnp 12y agoI'm in literal shock over the fonts. I've never seen something so high-profile so badly designed, typographically. Isn't there some kind of rule somewhere that says 4 fonts max? On the homepage there are seven different fonts! And then you click into a link and blammo, you're hit with this crazy antique looking thing that looks like porcelain shaped words, but with far less class. Is this a technology site or a site on fine cigars and expensive yachts? Its unreadable and seriously needs to be addressed. Just some dire constructive crit for such a great publication. This will turn away users, if only subconsciously.
- sosborn 12y agoYeah, the typography on this is pretty bad (way too many fonts), but the thing that really strikes me is how generic the site looks. The old design was very identifiable as "Wired", this new design looks like any other news aggregator.