The New TJI

[Zeke]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]Here's your chance to let me know how you think [iost_uid0]This Just In[/iost_uid0] should look. The five options above refer to these sample pages, each of which is a copy of Issue #1:

Version 1 (current look)
Version 2 (original)
Version 3 (plain gray background)
Version 4 (alternate background 1)
Version 5 (alternate background 2)

I would have preferred to link in the poll itself, but apparently polls don't allow linking. Grrrrrrr. (Incidentally, I've only activated the poll feature for this one thread -- I'll be deactivating it again once we're done here.)

Please do vote, and if you have any comments, I'd love to hear them. Just post a reply to the thread.[/colorost_uid0]

[Saxamaphone]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I like the current look - it's a great change of pace from the rest of the site, plus the crinkled paper backround gives it a rescued from the newspapers editor's trash feel to them.[/colorost_uid0]

[Derek]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]Well, I find the current background just a little too distracting when I'm trying to read the black text against it. I think all the other versions look better (and would be happy with any of them), but my personal preference is #4.[/colorost_uid0]

[NAHTMMM]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]

[*]Version 1: I like it. It's legible, and the background looks like crinkled paper (except when it's busy looking like paper that's been out in the rain).
[*]Version 2: I still like the old one as well. Neat and simple (though it didn't have the varied amusing disclaimers), and it goes with the rest of the site.
[*]Version 3: This one is interesting. It's got a...classy? metallic?...look to it. I like it too. The background shade of gray works well with the layout.
[*]Version 4: I had to lean forward and focus before I could really make out the difference between the background and a pure-white background. If I hadn't been expecting a different background, I'm not entirely sure how long it would have taken me to notice it wasn't pure white. (I do think that the new TJI icon would [bost_uid0]not[/bost_uid0] look good against a background of pure white.) It's an idea worthy of an attempt, but it doesn't do much for me. If you do use this one, a little more blueness would likely be in order. Nice shade of blue.
[*]Version 5: Looks like the average of 1 and 3. Perfectly legible. I think I would prefer 1 or 3 to this, however.[/list]

Right now I'm leaning toward either 1, 3, or possibly 2, though neither of the other backgrounds are awful. The unwrinkled TJI logo at the top kinda spoils the crinkly effect in #1, but only if you think about it. On the other hand, the words "[iost_uid0]THIS JUST IN[/iost_uid0]" in the logo don't work as well in #3. And going back to the old look would tend to defeat the purpose of revamping the layout .

I'm voting for [bost_uid0]#1[/bost_uid0]. You could keep #3 (or even #4) as the background for whichever issue happens to be the latest.[/colorost_uid0]

[MinutiaeMan]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I also like the current look -- I haven't had any problems reading the text myself. If I could cast a backup vote, it'd be for either #4 or #5.

One important change I would like to recommend regardless -- though having the article separated into two columns looks cool, it is REALLY inconvenient for normal browser reading! I would suggest either (1) reverting to the normal single-column layout, or (2) adding an anchor link at the bottom of the first column to take the browser up to the top of the second column.[/colorost_uid0]

[Celeste]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I say the same thing about #4 that Nah did. I couldn't see the background without moving my laptop screen around. I actualy went to the next one thinking the background screen was just white. I have to say I like #5 the best. It still looks newspaperish, without being blatently obvious, and tacky. [/colorost_uid0]

[Standback]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I like the current one, definitely. The two alternate backgrounds are all right, but the current one fits better and looks good.

MinutiaeMan, I didn't have that problem with the two columns. Two columns looks great.[/colorost_uid0]

[mudshark]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I'll go on record as favoring #4 (this [iost_uid0]is[/iost_uid0] my vote, btw -- can't use the poll.)


Comments:

Derek has a point regarding #1. Although this is a pretty benign example, the concern for background upstaging content is valid.

No objection to the original format, but I kinda like the new "newspaper" look.

No objection to either #3 or #5 -- #4 just seems to "feel" better, somehow.


Slightly OT: The entire site has been noticably slower for me since the [iost_uid0]TJI[/iost_uid0] archive conversion began (last 2 days) -- has anyone else noticed this?[/colorost_uid0]

[Marc]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]My vote would be for version 4. It gives a subtle impression of being paper-like in appearance (which is more interesting than the original version and the new-style plain version), but without the paper "wrinkles" being so pronounced that they call attention away from the text (as in the current version). The other alternate version comes close to striking the same compromise, but has some slightly coloured overtones in the grain of its "paper", which makes it look less convincing as paper than version 4.[/colorost_uid0]

[Marc]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]By the way, Zeke, I have a question about the introduction of volume numbers to TJI. Am I correct in assuming that TJI will jokingly always remain as "Volume 1," no matter how high the issue numbers go? This would be amusing, and would allow the individual TJIs to continue being identifiable by a single consecutive issue number. The latest issue, for instance, is still listed as being part of Volume 1, even though TJI is now in its third year.

Introducing a true system of volume numbers would be problematic. For one thing, the issue number would no longer be enough to identify articles: you'd have to quote both elements to be able to distinguish, for instance, between Vol. 1 no.1 and Vol. 2 no. 1. It's also not clear what the volume rollover point would be: one traditional method is to have one volume per year, which means that the issues from the most recent two years would have to be re-numbered. This is probably more trouble than it's worth, so sticking with the "Volume 1 forever" method is probably the best -- with the elimination of the volume number altogether being a close second.[/colorost_uid0]

[Zeke]

[quoteost_uid0="Guest"][color=#000000ost_uid0]Slightly OT: The entire site has been noticably slower for me since the [iost_uid0]TJI[/iost_uid0] archive conversion began (last 2 days) -- has anyone else noticed this?[/colorost_uid0][/quoteost_uid0]
[color=#000000ost_uid0]Yes, you'll find that explained in today's newspost. I apologize to all for the inconvenience.

(I'll comment on the various design points in a later post, probably after I close the poll.)[/colorost_uid0]

[Zeke]

[quoteost_uid0="Marc"][color=#000000ost_uid0]The latest issue, for instance, is still listed as being part of Volume 1, even though TJI is now in its third year.[/colorost_uid0][/quoteost_uid0]
[color=#000000ost_uid0]Oh, for Criziminy's sake! I could have sworn I fixed that. The volume thing was something I briefly considered, but I decided it would be more trouble than one more bit of "realism" was worth. It would have meant renumbering the issues after 13, and then I'd have to change their filenames... you get the idea. I've fixed the error.[/colorost_uid0]

[Kira]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]Personally, I'm going to vote for the classic look since it actually matches the rest of the site. I don't really like any of the other versions, they don't look quite as slick as the usual 5MV layout.[/colorost_uid0]

[taya17]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I kinda like version 4 as well. It's closer to the original but looks snazzier.


Oh vote in the POLL! Idiot, me...[/colorost_uid0]

[AKAArzosah]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]Version 4 is too bright. I looked at it for ten seconds, reading, and my eyes still hurt.
I like Version 5. Will vote properly now.[/colorost_uid0]

[catalina_marina]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I voted for version 1, but version 5 would be my second. version 3 is ok too. I think Arzosah is right about version 4, it gives me a head-ache. And version 2... Well, I don't know, I think it's getting old.[/colorost_uid0]

[Zeke]

[quoteost_uid0="taya17"][color=#000000ost_uid0]Oh vote in the POLL! Idiot, me...[/colorost_uid0][/quoteost_uid0]
[color=#000000ost_uid0]Heheheh. I got a real kick out of that; thanks, Taya.

I think at this point I may as well leave the poll open for an even week. I'll close it on Friday morning.[/colorost_uid0]

[taya17]

[quoteost_uid0="Zeke"][color=#000000ost_uid0]Heheheh. Â I got a real kick out of that; thanks, Taya.[/colorost_uid0][/quoteost_uid0]
[color=#000000ost_uid0] [/colorost_uid0]

[PointyHairedJedi]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I've voted for the original version - I prefer it because it looks more like the fivers, and I find it slightly marginally easier to read.[/colorost_uid0]

[taya17]

[color=#000000ost_uid0]I've noticed that the poll happens to be tied. What now? Wait for another person to tilt the balance, start another poll with two options, or hang in limbo forever?

[/colorost_uid0]