Opinions.

Do a "view source." You'll see that LQ uses css and stylesheets.

Thanks Frank. I guess I don't know enough about style sheets &c, my point was supposed to be... can't users make it look however they want?

:EDITS:

^For "looks" at least?

:EDITS:

indeed, the looks haven't changed much since 2001.

custom color schemes would be a boon.

The quality of the answers, the (almost always) respectful atmosphere and lack of elitism and/or snobbism is the reason I am here, rather than on any of the other sites. Having said that, I wouldn't mind a minor facelift. Maybe it's just me, but I find the other sites in The Questions Network a little easier on the eyes.

Best regards,
HMW

To me, what is important about LQ is its content, and its excellent search-engine. That's the only thing that I come for: to receive content, and to contribute it.

(That, and, oh yes, the Faith and Religion Mega-Thread!)

Although the site's appearance has not changed in years, I would argue that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Fancy-pants visual effects don't make anything better.

LQ does make sensible use of style-sheets, e.g. to keep the screen looking the same when I ... uhhhh ... bump-up the font sizes a little bit now and then.

+1 for the search-engine ...

Thanks for the feedback (and do keep it coming). While the next code upgrade will bring an updated look it's still a very minimal/functional design by the standards of the day. It will have a much improved search engine, will work better on mobile, will be cleaner/load faster on non-mobile and will allow us to add a couple features that just aren't possible with our dated current code base. http://www.chromeosquestions.org/forum.php is a good baseline for where we will be heading, with some LQ-specifc elements held over from the current site.

--jeremy

I too, really appreciate the fact that LQ remains clean and useful with excellent presentation, navigation and information density on my archaic non-mobile displays.

There may be a way to do it right, but most implementations calling themselves Web 2.0 are babbling newspeak for "We don't care whether you can use it, it looks cool on our device today!".

And what passes for "responsive design" may often best be described as "patient unresponsive, clinically dead" on an information/computing device.

A big thumbs up to Jeremy and LQ, , for avoiding all the nonsense while remaining accessible, and useful, for all!

We probably met at the XHTML adoption party, it was a small crowd in retrospect! But the joy was shortlived, indeed (although my own web interfaces remain XHTML Strict with no plans to change).

I can't say this is very scientific but over the years I have come to believe that there are two types of people. One of them is technical and prefers information to be in simple forms. In fact they hate bling. The second person has no interest in technology for the most part. They simply love pretty pages and silly color schemes. I noticed this when Windows 1.x showed up. Mac OS has reinforced this opinion.

I'm not saying I love that sites "look" retro or old, and I have no specific love for the look of the old internet, but I have noticed one thing about "web 2.0": they tend to all add bloat to the point that their primary reason for existence (the information) becomes harder to get to.

The point of the internet, to my mind, is to distribute information freely. I believe anything that subtracts from that being done effectively is a liability. It hurts users, especially users who are blind and rely on screen readers, users with special accessibility requirements, users on old hardware (LQ runs FAR better than most sites on my Debian 2004 PPC laptop), users with no GUI, and so on.

If WWW exists only so it can serve ads, then that's not an internet I want to be on. I consume and post a lot of content outside the WWW, and I'd love it if there was more of it out there. Let's bring back the Information Super Highway, not for nostalgic purposes, but to make the *information* accessible and useful again.

Screen Shot.

I cannot say that this is what I "want" but it is the closest to the pure information-exchange ideal that I can get.

Now that you mention it, I kinda like the whole no profile pictures.. think what I meant to say, was that they aren't going for the newest best looking website, and whilst they are at it.. it kind of makes it look more like a site for people who are enthusiastic about Linux and computers.. There is just something about "dated" websites that reminds me of computers and what is really behind these websites, all that buitiful HTML, CSS, PHP, other software such as SQL programs, all the software besides all of that.. I just like being outdated..

Links, 2 and other CLI browsers are cool!

I was thinking stylesheets as being customizable by us and our browsers... like here: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/5-ways-...wser-websites/ ...