Re: PerlMonks site design

[thomas895]

in reply to PerlMonks site design

I am against a completely new layout. Many of us have gotten so used to the current layout, that forcing a new one would confuse many of us.
Also, the current layout has some big advantages. The most important is probably the code to content ratio -- or the amount of markup used to generate something(in this case). You will notice that there is very little "trash" code -- code which serves no other purpose than unnecessary tweaks -- is present. Therefore, download times are faster, and render times aren't that bad, actually.

Another thing I hate on many sites is the many kilobytes of huge stylesheets and javascript libraries that must be downloaded every time. On a related note, did you know that PerlMonks displays almost perfectly in IE4, on Windoze 98? Altering it would ruin that viewing experience.

Lastly, the majority of us are programmers, and not so much end-users. We care more about seeing the content than the endless amounts of "Like" boxes, Twitter buttons, animates, jquery popups, and the likes. It greatly reduces the time required for reading something, you see?
Besides, I like the current design. :-)

[BrowserUk]

We care more about seeing the content than the endless amounts of "Like" boxes, Twitter buttons, animates, jquery popups, and the likes.

Abso -- friken -- lutely!

[stevieb]

I'm not against a change per-se, but I do agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

[tinita]

Many of us have gotten so used to the current layout, that forcing a new one would confuse many of us.

yeah, good reason.
if everybody thought like that we would be all still writing on stone.

Therefore, download times are faster

uhm... can you tell me the address of perlmonks you are using? seems promising =)

Another thing I hate on many sites is the many kilobytes of huge stylesheets and javascript libraries that must be downloaded every time.

well, I partly agree that some pages are just overkill. but usually the referenced stylsheets/js are only loaded once and then read from the cache for a certain amount of time, or the server just returns a 304 not modified.

We care more about seeing the content than the endless amounts of "Like" boxes, Twitter buttons, animates, jquery popups, and the likes.

nowhere did the OP talk about like buttons and the other stuff! let me quote him: "Less visual clutter". you're carrying away the OP's concern to something he never intended.

[thomas895]

if everybody thought like that we would be all still writing on stone.

There is a difference between evolution of technology and the want to integrate things. This is more a situation of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" and perhaps KISS as well.

uhm... can you tell me the address of perlmonks you are using? seems promising =)

If there is no need to download an extra kilobyte or five of jQuery statements or huge CSS3 files, then why should we? The layout as it is now works fine.

well, I partly agree that some pages are just overkill. but usually the referenced stylsheets/js are only loaded once and then read from the cache for a certain amount of time, or the server just returns a 304 not modified.

And yet, much of it won't work on older browsers or hardware. Yes you can make it efficient and yes you can return 304, but that won't change the awkward-looking layout on my PSP.

nowhere did the OP talk about like buttons and the other stuff! let me quote him: "Less visual clutter". you're carrying away the OP's concern to something he never intended.

They're bound to be worked in someway, somehow, someday. I want you to look at some sites from the past in comparison to now.