28

Personally, I don't like them. But maybe this is beyond the point.

Were we consulted about this?

  • By all means, I can remove this question if I was stupid enough to not notice some announcement here. :) – Paulo Cereda Jan 18 '16 at 12:59
  • 13
    I didn't see any announcement. And I dislike the change, too. – egreg Jan 18 '16 at 13:00
  • 3
    Also, on meta, the mandatory and standard tags look the same now. – yo' Jan 18 '16 at 13:47
  • @yo' Actually they aren't, but it took me a while to notice... they are a slightly (really very slightly) lighter shade of grey, which is only noticeable when hovering above them and they darken ever so very very slightly... – BMWurm Jan 18 '16 at 13:57
  • 1
    Actually I like the bold tags -- they shout at you: Answer me, Answer me first ;-) – user31729 Jan 18 '16 at 14:13
  • @ChristianHupfer: that's naughty! :) – Paulo Cereda Jan 18 '16 at 14:15
  • @PauloCereda: I am as naughty as bold ducks ;-) – user31729 Jan 18 '16 at 14:17
  • @BMWurm I see now, thanks. However, that's what I still call "the same" :) – yo' Jan 18 '16 at 14:50
  • @yo' ... and you were right anyway, they certainly *look the same :P – BMWurm Jan 18 '16 at 18:03
  • @yo' That's the worst part: Mandatory tags and regular tags look the same. – Alenanno Jan 19 '16 at 19:27
  • Changing font-weight:bold to empty string in all.css removes all those annoying bold stuff...more refined approach is to find the tags in the css, which is called post-tag and required-tag. – egwene sedai Jan 21 '16 at 17:42
  • 3
    Dear SE, it's been 10 days since. Are you ever going to at least comment on this? I'm sorry to say that, but the ignorance of per-site issues is bigger and bigger. – yo' Jan 29 '16 at 7:29
  • Apologies for the delayed response. I don't believe that these changes were intentional. I'm digging into it — there haven't been any recent changes to the individual stylesheet for this site, so my guess is that something got changed elsewhere in the shared files that effected this site. We'll fix it soon. – Kurtis Beavers Jan 29 '16 at 16:47
13

We tracked down the bug. The Tex community has a few special classes for text formatting and those happened to conflict with a recent mixin that was added to a global file. The change was unintentional and an update is rolling out soon. Thanks for the catch and your patience.

  • 11
    Thank you for fixing the issue! – egreg Jan 29 '16 at 19:10
  • The main site now has a different style for the names in the flair... I see, they conform to the new link-red... – Werner Jan 29 '16 at 20:06
  • @Werner this is in response to this feature request: meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/6451/… – Kurtis Beavers Jan 29 '16 at 20:08
  • 2
    @KurtisBeavers: Yes, I noticed that. It also changed the markdown syntax highlighting. – Werner Jan 29 '16 at 20:09
  • @Werner I'm not sure I understand, would you mind posting a screenshot in a new answer? – Kurtis Beavers Jan 29 '16 at 20:11
  • @KurtisBeavers: I'll try and find older pictures of the markdown highlighting together with the new... – Werner Jan 29 '16 at 20:12
  • @Werner Oh, I see, I'm guessing the markdown highlighting probably used to be bold, and is no longer. I will try to fix as soon as I can. – Kurtis Beavers Jan 29 '16 at 20:14
  • 2
    @KurtisBeavers: The {} and [] inside a code block used to be gray (I think); now they're red. – Werner Jan 29 '16 at 20:19
  • 1
    thanks for this. at the risk of being a pain, but while somebody from "the management" is paying attention, could you please consider taking a look at this: Site design updates are live! it really does mean a lot to us. – barbara beeton Jan 29 '16 at 21:19
  • @Werner and Barbara, I'll look into both issues soon – Kurtis Beavers Jan 30 '16 at 0:34
  • Thank you very much! – Paulo Cereda Jan 30 '16 at 8:46
  • Here is an old answer of Will Robertson's. You can see that the braces and brackets are a blue/gray color. Now they are red, which you can see here. cc: @Werner – Adam Liter Jan 30 '16 at 17:01
18

The unannounced change should be reverted as soon as possible. I would even remove boldface from the current tab name, normally active, because the rule under the tab name is sufficient.

Boldface is a device to be used very sparingly, because it catches attention: with the current setup, tags are more prominent than question titles.

  • 1
    I like the boldface for the current tab. (Doesn't have to be bold. A different colour would do. Just I don't like relying on underlining.) But it is bonkers that the tags currently jump out at you whereas the question titles and teasers are much harder to pay attention to. Are the tags really more important than the content of the question title? – cfr Jan 24 '16 at 2:09
15

Honestly the SE sites have generally very good designs and very nice choices in regards to how things appear, but the tag change is really a punch in the eye. The tags now are as black as the text, making them virtually indistinguishable from the text at a first sight.

I'll just say this:

Using bold for everything is like using the highlighter pen for the whole book you're studying: it is pointless and kills your eyes.

  • Do they really look only as black as the text to you? For me, they are much, much heavier than the text, the titles... most everything else. – cfr Jan 24 '16 at 2:10
  • @cfr Yeah, I meant that at first glance, you can't distinguish between one or the other. But the tags do look bolder. – Alenanno Jan 24 '16 at 2:31
14

I think the main site looks a little bit silly now. In the following screenshot, the things encircled in red need to be bold as well.
The content of the blue circle needs to be super-mega-bold to fit again.

boldTags

Just reverting the bold tags to normal would be easier and better, though.

  • 5
    ooh super-mega-bold! :) – Paulo Cereda Jan 18 '16 at 13:32
  • 9
    I would prefer 𝖘𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝖒𝖊𝖌𝖆 𝖇𝖔𝖑𝖉. – yo' Jan 18 '16 at 13:37
5

There's a difference in the colour of the tags. Here's a screen grab from the "legend" on the tags page:

enter image description here

  • {required-tag} has RGB = (68,68,68)
  • {tag} has RGB = (85,85,85)

However, this is too close to discern when both are bold. For example, on Meta.TeX.SE one is required to have one of the four tags , , or which are one-boxed in bold. With the current setup all tags are bold:

enter image description here

I enjoy the feature of having certain tags represent something other than the usual content. For example, the red colour of the moderator-only tags: , , , , , , , and . This is lost though with the addition of making all tags bold.

3

This looks particularly ugly on Firefox 43.0.4 on Ubuntu 14.04, in my opinion.

There is a lot of extra space around the name of a tag and the { and }.

enter image description here

  • I'm not sure, but I suspect that's a font setup issue – I've had similar weirdness in the past. I would find out what font Firefox is using there and see if you can reproduce it (e.g.) gEdit. – Sean Allred Jan 23 '16 at 13:56
  • @SeanAllred Hmm, it's a fresh install, but thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into it! :) – Adam Liter Jan 23 '16 at 14:54
  • Arch is similar: i.stack.imgur.com/UbAVH.png. @SeanAllred If it is a font issue, it doesn't seem to be Ubuntu-specific. Unless I've misunderstood what is especially bad about the screenshot. I noticed because it looks 'normal' to me. I agree it is especially ugly but I only ever use the site via Firefox on Linux. It looks similar on Arch and Fedora. (And the font configurations are not the same - one is bohoomil's specialist configuration and the other is Fedora's defaults, I think. – cfr Jan 24 '16 at 2:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .