Vodafone Buy Would See Softbank Give Up Its Mobile License
Techdirt Greenhouse Aftermath

Techdirt: Looking A Bit Different

Techdirt

from the redesign-time dept

Fri, Mar 10th 2006 06:15pm -

Okay, it’s only been seven years since we last did a major redesign of Techdirt, so we figured maybe it was about time — and decided to have the redesign coincide with tomorrow’s Techdirt Greenhouse event. As a few of you have noticed, we’ve now launched the brand new look and feel of the site, as designed by the extremely talented Jamie Wieferman. We’ve redesigned all our sites, including our corporate site to match this new look and feel. Among other things, we’ve also made changes to the system that we’re using, which will allow us to add some new features as well in the coming months. We’ve been going through the site and fixing a few minor things that seemed to have broken in the switchover, but if you notice anything new, or have any feedback about the design, please feel free to comment or send us feedback and let us know. Thanks!


167 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Techdirt: Looking A Bit Different”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
167 Comments
Edward B. says:

Re: HATE IT

Add another vote against the fixed width. I’ve got no problem with the rest of the eye-candy, but those of us running higher res than 800×600 just got magically useless plain white sidebars. On both sides. I’m not a web designer, so my knowledge of all the interesting things that can be done with HTML/CSS/etc. is not up to spec, but isn’t there a way to use the full width of the window down to a certain fixed minimum width?

Synktar (user link) says:

Re: Re: HATE IT

Edward,

Out of simple curiousity, how are the white side bars any more annoying than all of the white that the last page produced. In fact, I personally find them very nice. It keeps the content from being cluttered and the page loads fast even when I have a low signal strength on my wireless connection. Anyway, just to clarify, the previous design had tremendous more amounts of white than this one, in my opinion.

Enjoy,

Synktar

Edward B. says:

Re: Re: Re: HATE IT

Synktar,

It’s mostly the single column of text down the center of my screen that forces what would be a 2- or 3-line post to be a small paragraph — for some reason it offends my delicate sensibilities. 😉 I’ve found that most of the non-minimalist blog templates have a similar format, so it must be the new design thing. I agree with a lot of the later posters as well, that a constrained text block like that results in a lot more scrolling. This was my first time posting here — I’m surprised that it got so much notice!

Paul (user link) says:

Very Professional

I hated the old layout…loved the news. Now I can finally like both! Looks way more professional, and much better.

Unlike some of the whiners here, I’m fine with the fixed width. I run 1024, and am not bothered by the look of the site. As a webmaster, I know designing for 800×600 is the best policy if you’re not going with expanding width tables or DIVs.

Layout looks so great X3 A lot like WordPress blogs.

Synktar (user link) says:

Love It (Much Better)

I absolutely love the new look. The old look was pretty dirty and ugly in my opinion (sorry). Also, the logo that was used on the old one always reminded me of something sexual (again, sorry, but it did…). Anyway, very nice job, I’ll definately be reading the articles more often now?

Oh, one last question, will there be a version for mobile devices such as my pocket pc so I don’t have to try and scroll back and forth (that’s always annoying).

Good job again and keep up the wonderful work,

Synktar

Synktar (user link) says:

Re: sux

A survey was conducted not too long ago that showed that most people that browse the web (that took this survey) use 800×600. This simple fact alone means that developers need to build for that specific resolution rather than others to make sure that most people are properly accomadated. Trust me, designers don’t want to design in 800×600, at least not most of the time, it really limits the possibilities, but it is needed to make the website viewable by the largest group of people.

Just a thought,

Synktar

Dave says:

Re: Re: sux

Another mystical survey with no link, no details as to the sample set, the demographic, margin of error, nothing. *sigh*

I work for a site that handles around 250k average daily logins. A quick parsing of our server logs for any given day in the last week yields 64% average per day using 1024×768. This simple fact alone means that your “data” is craptastically useless.

Bring back the old resolution-independent, clean, readable, simple Techdirt that was here before.

discojohnson says:

eehhhh

the fixed width is really a killer. it’s truly a big turn off to have to scroll 3 pages to see 10 comments (exagg.)…at least give me the option (you save stuff in my cookie anyway, what’s one flag?). don’t forget that simple sells (ever seen a simple website?)–i like that the comment block is at the bottom, saving a click. now you should put some js and make the preview instantaneous in a div field…

Gerk (user link) says:

Re: Holy huge graphics!

Yes things are WAY TOO BIG. I can fit one story on my screen at a time now if I’m lucky. Used to fit 6.

Did anyone think of the usability when they did this? It looks “neat” but I don’t come here for bublegum graphics that take up my whole screen. I come here for information which I have to scroll endlessly to read now .. maybe it’s time to move along.

Don Gray says:

I'm in the hate it camp...

Not because it isn’t pretty, it is. Mostly because of the comment layout.

It’s using 1/3 of my screen width to display comments. As previously mentioned the scrolling required is excessive. Perhaps I misunderstand the goal of this TechDirt website.

I thought the goal was to generate discussion and responses from the people reading the stories. If that isn’t the goal then I think this design works well.

If it is the goal then I think it fails badly. No threaded view of comments in conjunction with the three words per line makes it difficult to track the conversation.

I’m not saying the old site was perfect. It wasn’t (especially the magic “html now it’s there, now it’s not” comment submission form) but it definitely gave a more condensed view of the users comments.

I come here to read the stories but I also like the fact that the comments by others are often engaging and a cut above slashdot.

I’ll probably still read the stories I just won’t bother to comment anymore.

nonuser says:

looks great

in fact it looks almost too good, maybe it raises the bar for the quality of comments (incl. jokes). Fortunately I tightly edit my own comments and have nary a spare word in them. In other words I don’t milk ’em, waste people’s time.

Fixed width looks dressy but is slightly fatiguing to read – eyes have to sweep faster to capture the same wordspan.

not-so Happy User says:

newspaper-layout no-more.

times and dates are quite difficult to read now.

also the fixed-width is a pail to deal with since each single comment uses up such a large part of the screen and I’m constantly scrolling to read the next comment or even to compare it to the previous comment.

this new layout is much more of a pain since I normally read TD in the morning while eating breakfast or at a coffee shop – now I need to constantly scroll and have a greater chance of loosing my reading position.

i enjoyed reading TD as if it was a physical newspaper – i would set it up and read everything on the page. then a minute (or so) later, I would flip the page to the next – now I constantly have to scroll every 10 seconds.

Nathan says:

Some good, some bad

Well, I’ll toss my two cents in also. I like the “look” of the redesign. But I have to chime in with the people on the fixed width issue. I just don’t see much of a legitimate reason to make it a fixed width to suit one screen width over any other. It seems lazy from a design standpoint. Additionally, the lack of threaded comments (I know, you’re adding them) or being forced to click “Threaded” is extremely bothersome. I remember many comments that were posted outside of their thread due to the confusing threading. Why not have threading on all the time? I don’t see how it detracts from the conversation.

David Creemer (user link) says:

Looks OK, does not validate...

I like the look of the redesign in general, though I too am generally down on fixed width pages. It just doesn’t seem to match the flexibility of the medium. I recognize that fixed with designs are usually easier to produce and implement, but a site like Techdirt, which has gained a (deserved) reputation for quality, rational comments on the modern online experience, could do well to lead by example.

I predict that fixed width designs will eventually become outdated and quaint. Remember the image of a dog-eared book page in the upper corner of the computer screen to go forward or back a page? That’s rigid book-thinking applied to a much less restrictive medium.

Oh, and also the new site fails validation pretty miserably. At least get that right.

pheloxi (user link) says:

good idea of good look, but ...

check if your website work with bigger font size work, because some parts look awful (with arial 16). I use mozilla firefox to resize the letters for an easier see on my eyes.

too many web designers forget to check larger fonts!

a loyal reader of techdirt.

pheloxi

p.s. pity you lost part of identity by removing the dot after techdirt.

Nadia (user link) says:

beautiful but i don't like it

it’s beautiful, sexy and modern looking, but i really liked the old design better, there is just something about plain text that is very powerful, something that works especially for a fast pased content site like yours. I am sure this layout will eventually grow on me, but for now i miss the older one. Miss that clean default feel where content was the king.

Jake says:

Link color and bolding and and...

Overall I’m liking the change initially. It doesn’t look like 1997 anymore, which is good, but it is still a relatively clean layout. Overall the phrase that comes to mind is “more professional looking.” I’m indifferent on the fixed width issue on the main page, as it looks fine to me either way, but the width of comments is overly narrow even at 800×600. The article titles do seem a point or two overdone, but partly that is probably years of looking at non-enlarged titles.

The element I’m not liking is the hyperlinks. I don’t doubt that the color of hyperlinks is graphically harmonious. Unfortunately it isn’t functional. The blue is so dark as to be nearly indistinguishable from black when used for standard text. I’m not colorblind, but I have to really look at the text to tell what is a link. Someone with even minimal sight problems could easily not be able to tell at all. Perhaps the rollover bolding of hyperlinks was meant to offset this, but readers shouldn’t need to hover the mouse over all the text to spot the hyperlink. This isn’t a videogame, and text that automagically grows is something I’d expect to see on a site with red-on-green text with background wallpaper and music. Please find a hyperlink style that better fits the overall quality of the new look. Thanks.

p.s. Also regarding hyperlinks, I am saddened to see you’ve joined the maddening trend of setting the “visited” color the same as the non-visited color. Again, this is style over function. The visited feature exists so readers can tell what hyperlinks they’ve already recently visited. This is more important than enforcing a pretty color scheme, especially when a designer can use a complementary but still different ‘visited’ color.

ScrollTooMuch says:

On Fixed Widths

New design is fine. Old one did seem a little dated, although I was (and am still) drawn to the site by the content, not the appearance.

That said, please give serious consideration to the fixed width issue. Although only a minor annoyance, an annoyance it is. Why would you wish to annoy your visitors?

Keep up the great work, and thanks so much for Techdirt. I read it daily.

Jim Snyder says:

Love It

Great, very clean design. I don’t mind fixed width, but this is a bit too narrow. I am even beginning to question the need for sites to target 800 x 600 at all, but if you are going to do so, make them use the whole screen. It is a nitpick, but I am more bothered by the proximity of the right-hand advertising column to the content. Let the layout breathe a bit.

Jeremiah (user link) says:

hmmm...

I like the colors, but I think I liked the old site a little better, namely because the site resized to my browser (the 800×600….whaaa???) The new design looks like a template from Blogger.com. Sorry, it just does.

For me, one of the attractions to Techdirt was the ala-Craigslist style of “bare bolts.” It was easy to read, skim, and post.

Because your site’s name is “TECHDIRT”, not “TECHPRETTY”. I come here for content – not because i’m impressed with your webdesign. I don’t need abstract icons or graphic ads to help me read.

If I were your designer (and I’m not), I’d take cues from actual intelligence reports (see national archives or TheSmokingGun for examples) and keep the site spartan….just like the old teletype intel printouts. For “Techdirt: Corporate Intelligence” I couldn’t think of a more appropos “theme”.

But I still got luv fo da TD.

Ben McNelly (user link) says:

Well duh///

Of course they are going to update the look, I was good to be simple but it was also borderline crappy.

– So stop complaining. Yes we lost a couple good features and diddnt gain any new ones. Ok, thats not prooving my point… But seriously, it does do somthing astheticaly for it at least and I think it will also be a little more interesting to newcomers.

The look reminds me of an revamped http://www.lawrence.com or somthing. Overall its nice.

Joe Smith says:

Eye candy

I’m here for the content. Anything that makes the screen more busy without adding content I’m opposed to.

I dislike the low contrast menu at the top of the page. Dark grey on black is not very user friendly for us baby boomers with failing eyes.

If you wanted eye candy you should have added some (tastefully) naked bimbos.

Steve (user link) says:

It's not about the design,

It’s about the information.

There is no need to have a gigantic header just because everyone else does. This site is important because of its content.

I liked your old-school look because it added credibility to the site. Kind of like “we’ve been around for a long time and have succeeded and there is no need to keep up with the Jones'” (It’s kind of annoying now how far down the page the story starts… You don’t need to be like Digg.)

Jacob (user link) says:

Fixed Width

I like the new site design…

The fixed width makes complete sense for me (even though my compy res is 1600X1200)

when I originally built my site, it was built for 1024 but then when I started getting hits I looked at the resolutions for my various readers and surprisingly a LOT of them were running 800X600, so a redesign was needed, and granted…

my $.02

Ponder says:

It's alright ...

I have to go to the camp against fixed width. Yes, I know designers like to use fixed width and best viewed at resolution blah by blah, but as a reader I want the website to fill the screen, on all my monitors, from my tiny 640×480 to my massive 1200×1600. Set the areas as percentages of the width please! Try to design to WC3 HTML standards in future. (But all this critism won’t stop me reading). Nice Comment box.

Krell (user link) says:

Great except for the Fixed width

Love the new look, for the most part. Like many, the fixed width hurts the overall look of the site.

Running at 1024, the comment section (once you get past the ads) sits in less than 50% of the available screen… at 1280 it looks kinda ridiculous.

If the site was set to 95% of browser width it would help make better use of high resolutions and look very similar to the way it does now on low 800×600 resolutions…

Shohat (user link) says:

Comments go to Zero after 100 .

Awesome job .

Seriosly , you look like blogger template , got fixed width , and there is nothing clever in the icons any more .

You look like a blog of a 14 yearold + 200$ for the logo and icons .

You are high-traffic , you actually have Alot of visitors that like your writing dont play these retarded

Permalink , tag , trackback , pinback , feed

Blogging games .

Dr. A. Kristi says:

If my voice is heard...

Putting the icons inline with text will give it more space even vith the fixed width, so if you dont use the icon, like most people don’t, you get to use the space for your text. Also making the sponsor “bar” more dynamic and inline with the posts, so it cuts only the top few will give the text(what we come here for) more space. About the design: – I could do exactly this, also with changing facecolors, etc. in under 2 hours, including integration. Something simple and original will do alot better. BTW threaded view could use some light graphics, the old site was more confusing than anything. Not to be all doom and gloom, this is a good beginning, and I think we all appreciate the effort.

Dr. A. Kristi says:

If my voice is heard...

Putting the icons inline with text will give it more space even vith the fixed width, so if you dont use the icon, like most people don’t, you get to use the space for your text. Also making the sponsor “bar” more dynamic and inline with the posts, so it cuts only the top few will give the text(what we come here for) more space. About the design: – I could do exactly this, also with changing facecolors, etc. in under 2 hours, including integration. Something simple and original will do alot better. BTW threaded view could use some light graphics, the old site was more confusing than anything. Not to be all doom and gloom, this is a good beginning, and I think we all appreciate the effort.

Agonizing Fury says:

Good and Bad

Other than the fixed width, I definately like the new look of the site. The fixed width needs to go, or it needs to be set to a higher width (or you could have the text take up the full width of page after it clears the stuff on the sides). The only other thing I don’t like is it takes longer to load. If I were on my DSL at home I probably wouldn’t even notice, but since I’m in Iraq sharing a sloooow satellite connection with 30 other people, it becomes painfully obvious that more bandwidth is required. Thanks for all the hard work on the site though.

Anonymous Coward says:

I wonder if we as techdirt readers could file a class action lawsuit when our scroll wheels start wearing out because we have to scroll more on the techdirt site? I mean people got money from the tobacco industry and no one forced them to smoke. Techdirt is extremely addictive, due to the fact that the news and comments are usually outstanding, and has no disclaimer on their page to that fact. Maybe this new design is the result of a deal between techdirt and the major mouse manufacturers.

Anarchy_Creator (user link) says:

geigh

Fixed width sux.

I liked the older version better, but that’s just because I became accustomed to it.

I’m sure I’ll get accustomed to this one, but that time frame would be greatly shortened if there was no fixed width, or if it was increased.

My screen res is, and has been 1280×1024 since about 2002, and I’ve can’t says I’ve come across a website yet that makes my eyes bleed.

acousticiris (user link) says:

Looks fine ... except

As was mentioned by others, the only problem I have with it is that it doesn’t dynamically size with the browser.

Old techdirt made use of my entire 1280 pixels of width on my home PC, the 1920 width on my pc at work or the limited 480 width on my Axim. Now, I haven’t had the opportunity to test this on my mobile device. But so far on my other PCs, as my resolution increases, your page layout just centers itself leaving a large area of unused space and a big scrollbar.

Besides that, the the design is great. It’s a clean look and feel and a hell of an improvement. But form has to follow function. Please, please make the width of the entry’s text scale dynamically.

DV Henkel-Wallace says:

Doesn't do it for me

I liked the old, spare site which didn’t look outdated to me. The enormous icons and fixed space are a problem for me (especially when I try to read in a small window). Basically it looks cluttered which makes it harder for the eye to trivially find the content.

Maybe, once you have it, I can just read the mobile version on my computer. That usually looks far better for the sites that do that. Of course the best sites are the ones that don’t _need_ a special mobile site….

Just my $.02….

dan says:

Needs work

The overall look is fine, nice visual elements, but the fixed width is terrible. My laptop is a convertible wide screen tablet, and it looks bad in either orientation. Landscape has huge white-space areas on either side and in portrait it is to wide. On my desktop, with a 20 inch wide screen, it takes up less than half the screen.

Tweak it a bit, huh?

shableep says:

I like it. So your monitors have great tracks of l

I like fixed width. It reads more pleasantly. It’s familiar to the width of a good book. I like everything. Huge improvement.

I know you guys probably paid $900 for your 24″ wide screen, and are pretty pissed that your valuable acreage isn’t being used effectively… But no one ever complained that a book wasn’t wide enough. 24″ screens are oversized for news in this format. Try reading a magazine where one page is 18″ wide, no columns. It’s not pleasant unless it’s loaded with huge pictures to fill the space. A webpage can completely lose its visual integrity if it has ultimate scalability. Just shrink down your windows a bit. You know you want to fill in that left over acreage with some pleasant scenery and/or attractive women.

Scott (user link) says:

New Not As Functional

Your site read better a before you implemented the fixed width site. Your graphics are a little large as as id the font for the article title – I am here for information-not images and facny fonts. Additionally you could see maore descriptions per page without have to do major scrolling pre fixed width page. Other than that the site looks great

Bob says:

Goodbye

“A free service of techdirt corporate intelligence”?

That’s it, I’m outta here. I simply can’t believe the audacity of this guy.

I like the redesign Mike, however you’ve taken the idea and plowed it with your self indulgent attempt to inflate yourself as something more than you are. You’ve obviously forgotten your roots, and who it was who got you here.. your community.

If you want to become yet another un-original corporate shill that’s your business, but how dare you do it on my time.

I wish Techdirt and its mere 5 comments per article well in its endeavors.

Marc J King says:

Fixed-Width

Please add one more vote towards getting rid of the fixed-width. Other than that, I think the new design is great. Some other people have implied that it looks very “generic”, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Techdirt looked pretty generic before, only an old generic. Keep up the good work, but please correct the width, it is much harder to read now.

Xanthir says:

Mixed Feelings

I like the overall feel of the site, but have a few big complaints.

Things I don’t like:

1) The fixed width has to go. Failing that, we need more than the middle half of the screen as text. Seriously, the comments take up a *ton* more vertical real-estate now.

2) I don’t like the jarring effect of the dark header with the white rest-of-site. Either a lighter header is needed, or you need a nice gradient transition so it isn’t such a sharp line.

3) The ‘Related Stories’ box is waaaaay down at the bottom below all the ads.

Things I like:

1) The comment box put right there at the bottom! It’s a small thing, to be sure, but it really makes it feel like it’s easier to comment. I like it.

2) The fact that ‘Related Stories’ is now actually related stories, not just the article’s links stripped out into another box.

3) It’s still the same ol’ Techdirt.

Things I’m not sure about:

1) The ginormous story icons.

2) The new way of indicating icons.

paperrhino says:

Changing font sizes makes it harder to read

I like the new look but I find the text harder to read becasue of the changing font sizes for the cross links. I usually quickly scan the article but that is harder because all I pick out now are the cross link words. Making them the same font and just changing the color would help a lot.

I Like the layout says:

The new layout looks great in my opinion. I slightly agree with all of you who hate the whitespace on the sides, but it does keep the content organized. Why should page be developed using 800X600? Anything viewed at that resolution looks like shit, we should start coding for 1024X768 and leave the people who run 800X600 a hard choice:

A. Deal with it

B. Get a new monitor the one you are using from 92′ needs replaced

C. If you can’t handle either of the other suggestions kill yourself.

Matt says:

Fixed Width

I like the actual look of the new design, but I’m in the category seeking to eliminate fixed-width. I despise fixed-width, and while I saw a couple comments saying they appreciate it, I just can’t comprehend. I bought a nice big monitor to support high resolutions, so I could use it – not stare at 8 inches of nothing.

I suppose maybe I’ll just write a GreaseMonkey script to take care of this, or perhaps, maybe someone else already has!

Anonymous Coward says:

Fixed Width

I like the look quite a bit, it’s pretty clean. I agree that the fixed width should go.

Fixed width on a web page is one of those things that is popping up more and more, for only one reason: It lets the web designer make a prettier site. By nailing down margins and column widths to the pixel, the designer can specify layout as precisely as they can on a printed page.

The problem is that it’s unfriendly to the visitor. It flies in the face of how HTML is supposed to be coded, which should be a suggestion to the visitor’s browser about how to render the site. Sites shouldn’t be ‘built for x resolution’… they should be built to be rendered however the visitor wants, whether they’re a leet hacker @1600 or a nearsighted senior citizen @ 640.

But, rant aside, I like the redesign. I’ve always been partial to white, silver, and blue… Good old Amiga 2.0 colors.

Anonymous Coward says:

If you do not understand computer systems and technology well enough to produce a working website, why would anyone bother to visit your site?

Your new design is broken in many respects and you obviously did not bother to test it thoroughly across multiple architectures, operating systems and web browsers.

The use of fixed width and fixed height shows you do not understand the simple fact that there are many possible screen sizes and resolutions. For me, someone who likes large text fonts (and has configured his browser to always use them), your site is now unreadable since lines of text are now partially obscuring each other.

If you highered a supposed “web developer” to create this new site, please fire them for incompetence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Go back to the old design

The new one adds lots of flash but no substance. TechDirt’s strength

is its analysis and insights, and those can be expressed more than

adequately in plain ASCII text. Leave the all-singing-all-dancing

web site design to the clueless newbies who think the ‘net is a video

game or a TV commercial. You’re not peddling trendiness here,

you’re peddling clear thinking — why muddle it with worthless crap?

Anonymous Coward says:

Hmmm? I’ll say 20% Progress, 80% Motion.

Yes, lose the fixed width, it wastes a lot of desktop and makes the page harder to skim and read.

The large headline and icon add a lot of visual clutter. Less is more.

And get some intervention help for the designer. He may have joined a neo-Jakobology cult while no one was watching… sheesh…

David Hewett says:

New Site Layout

Ok Im a web designer so perhaps im biased – I actually like clean layouts great navigation and uncluttered sites.

I hated the old site and when I clicked on my feeds I always groaned at the old site and thought it was a mess.

The NEW Layout is GREAT – Well done – its easy to skim through the articles of interest – easy to read looks CLASSY!

Dont roll back guys, I LOVE IT!!! Well Done!

JoeR (profile) says:

Bah!

There was little wrong with the old design … and while change *may* be inevitable, change for change’s sake is rarely a good idea. I’m not opposed to redesign when it works – the revamped Register looks and works great.

This redesign absolutely represents a triumph of style over substance, and I didn’t think that was what Techdirt was about.

The old Techdirt had the look of a news site for techies and geeks – the new look screams “corporate” and really, it now looks no different than the other thousands of corporate sites on the Net. The only thing that’s missing is the overuse of the Verdana font, the only one “webdesigners” seem to know about.

I’ll still read Techdirt for the excellent articles … unless *that* changes for the “better” as well.

William C Bonner (profile) says:

Too much header in Thunderbird RSS Mode.

I read this primarily in Thunderbird’s RSS Reader.

The old format was one of the cleanest content that I read. It was something that I could recognize immidiatly, and read the contents of. Now, the header fills half of my readable space, and the text isn’t as readable.

I understand the need to Ad placement, it’s just if the content takes me longer to interpret, I’m less likely to digest it in the first place.

TJ says:

Hello Mike?

So is Mike or whoever even listening anymore? It seems no one is, since the site hasn’t had even the *slightest* improvement since the 1st reply on this thread. We visitors shouldn’t have wasted our time providing feedback, because it appears we have been soundly ignored.

I still don’t care about fixed width, but a HUGE majority of posters do and want a non-fixed width site. The one thing that makes me think they are right is that arstechnica.com looks like ASS because of a fixed width that bears ZERO relation to my screen resolution. “Stupid web designer, fixed is for pricks…”

So Mike, are you going to comment AT ALL on the 160+ feedback comments, or is Techdirt going to bury its head in the sand and do whatever you damn well please despite what your visitors want???

Considering how much you criticize companies for ignoring their customers needs and wishes, it really isn’t cool for you to ignore what your site’s visitors want. You get what we’re all saying? Hello?!?!?!?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Vodafone Buy Would See Softbank Give Up Its Mobile License
Techdirt Greenhouse Aftermath
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...