|
I've used Awful for a longass time and really like it, but the upgrade screwed with the classic theme pretty badly: I don't have an image, but the old version didn't have all that white (blue) space and the text spacing was better. Also the font itself was different as I recall. Maybe someone else has a screenshot, but the old version was a lot less ugly. This one just looks a hell of a lot more beta than it used to. I dunno. It doesn't look fixable in settings, and I didn't think to export my settings because as far as I knew there was no reason to screw with the classic default.
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
Salvador Dalvik posted:Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the new default theme and what made you revert to the classic version? I prefer the blue post separators of Classic. I don't know what to call it, but the "floating page" effect used to separate posts in the default looks ugly to me, especially due to the waste of space along the sides of the screen in portrait orientation. The old version made efficient use of the display without unnecessary stylistic flourishes, and making it both less efficient and more ugly seems like a misstep to me. I also hate the Web 2.0 look of the New Forums, so my opinion is quite probably in the minority. Edit: Agree that it might look fine on an N10 or other high-res tablet. Not on a 1920x1080 phone though. Loucks fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Sep 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Sereri posted:Since everything concerning composing the thread view has been thrown out, the classic theme shares very little code with it's previous incarnation. It's more of an interpretation. That said, I'm sure we can make it more like before. Or better. Well that makes sense. Really the superfluous bluespace is the only significant issue. I'm enjoying the new version's ability to load almost as fast as chrome. I do appreciate the update.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 08:10
|
|