Romance, Historical, Contemporary, Paranormal, Young Adult, Book reviews, industry news, and commentary from a reader's point of view

Dear Author Has a New Look

As if you couldn’t tell. We’ve some complaints about how slow the website loads so we’ve (I’ve) re-designed the blog. There will be some growing pains and not all the pages have been recoded but I hope that this provides a good compromise between the old site’s familiarity and the new site’s convenience. Please feel free to comment on what you like and what don’t like so that we can make Dear Author a better community for everyone.

Edited to add: If you don’t like it, let me know why. You can even comment anonymously. My feelings won’t be hurt.

[poll=4]

Jane Litte is the founder of Dear Author, a lawyer, and a lover of pencil skirts. She spends her downtime reading romances and writing about them. Her TBR pile is much larger than the one shown in the picture and not as pretty. You can reach Jane by email at jane @ dearauthor dot com

90 Comments

  1. Mrs Giggles
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 00:26:59

    I like it. It loads much faster for me now.

    ReplyReply

  2. whey
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:15:25

    It’s so… bland. Some design/personalization/branding is nice. I imagine a book cover in solid white with a blue band across the middle that said “Romance Novel” would be less inviting than one that’s been designed and personalized. That said, I’m not here for the book cover, but the content in the book, so it won’t affect my daily visits.

    ReplyReply

  3. Keishon
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:19:13

    Wow. Not my favorite, honestly, Jane. I don’t know but the new design takes away what was unique about your blog. I loved that stamp. Was there nothing else? I’ll just have to adjust.

    ReplyReply

  4. Sarah Frantz
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:20:28

    It’s really boring. I loved the old look (and had no problem loading for me on my cable download!). And it was such a clean interface–I could see where everything was and it was plainly demarcated. This is….completely nondescript. I don’t know if I would have stayed the first time I came if it had looked like this. And the small writing on the title doesn’t fit into the box it’s in, both in IE and Firefox.

    ReplyReply

  5. Karen
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:22:11

    I’m thrilled. My home computer is old and slow (an ancient Mac that runs OS 9) and I couldn’t always access the old site. (I would either read the site through RSS, or wait until I could use my work computer.) But the new site works great for me! A big thumbs up.

    ReplyReply

  6. Gwen
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:37:15

    Not liking the aesthetics of the new site much. The old site was very appealing visually and was easy to navigate.

    I can’t speak to the loading. I had no trouble with the old site. It came up quick for me, but I’m on a relatively up to date laptop on a cable connection.

    ReplyReply

  7. willaful
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:43:35

    Since I never got to SEE the old page, because I almost invariably gave up on trying to get it to load, I’m thrilled with the new one!

    ReplyReply

  8. Jane
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:49:36

    ah I think some of you aren’t seeing the new design. I wonder why that is. If you do a hard refresh, does that change anything? Because it is red and white with the stamp in the header.

    ReplyReply

  9. Robin
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:49:51

    when I first load the site, I get a white background with blue — no stamp, no red, no character at all. It’s only when I click on the posts themselves that the red site loads. Am I the only one having this issue?

    ReplyReply

  10. Robin
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:51:09

    Jane, I’m loading initially from my bookmarks and getting the blue and white deal. Only when I actually click within the site do I get the real look. So I am doing a hard refresh at first — and I’m on Firefox.

    ReplyReply

  11. Robin
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:04:22

    Okay, now I’m getting the red layout with the stamp and the tabs. Hopefully everyone else is, too, and that’s what they’re commenting on, yay or nay.

    ReplyReply

  12. LinM
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:17:59

    OK – the blue and white was scarey. I’m too lazy to load another browser but I see a lot of whitespace. And the comments appear with huge author lines but tiny little type for the actual content. This is backwards – I’m more interested in the text of the comments (and it spoils my “aha – insight” game of recognizing the author halfway through the comment).

    ReplyReply

  13. Bev Stephans
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:28:54

    I never had a problem loading your old site and the new site is loading just fine. The stamp is at the top where it should be and it is red! I have an old computer(6 years old) with a cable connection, but I usually don’t have speed problems. I’m sure it will all work out.

    ReplyReply

  14. bettie
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 02:54:31

    I’m using Firefox, and seeing a white background for the content on a bright red page background. It loaded in a snap, but the contrast of the white and bright red is so hard on my eyes (why do I suddenly feel 80 years old? “You kids today and your blindingly bright web pages…”). Widescreen LCD means there’s a lot of red on either side of the content. If you decide to keep this layout, I’ll do my reading through google Reader. The glare is unpleasant.

    I liked the old site; it was crisp, clean and pretty. This is too spare for my tastes. Surely there’s some compromise?

    ReplyReply

  15. Rosario
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 03:14:35

    I like that it loads much faster, but it does feel a little bit flat compared to the old one. Speaking completely selfishly, since I have a fast connection, I liked the older one better.

    ReplyReply

  16. Gwen
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 03:15:20

    Seeing the new site now. Red with white, stamp in the header. I like it better than the plain blue and white.

    The red is a little orange-y and so THERE (not going to miss it), but that may be my screen.

    As always, it all loads nice.

    I’m on IE 6.0.29, if that helps.

    ReplyReply

  17. December Quinn/Stacia Kane
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 05:58:22

    I think it looks great, and it loaded for me instantly, which is a nice change (I was a very slow loader on the other site.)

    ReplyReply

  18. Barbara
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 06:05:44

    I like it. I liked the old one too.

    It”s what I like to see in a site, nice, simple and easy to navigate around in.

    ReplyReply

  19. Sarah McCarty
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 06:48:21

    I much preferred the other one. Even on dialup it loaded pretty fast for me.

    Reasons: This one is difficult to read and doesn’t have the flow the other one did. The old site had a good balance and the design drew the eye to the natural progression of the page. Hmm. might be fixed by narrowing the page or widening the comment boxes. or providing more contrast. Will there be font enlarging feature when the page is done? The design won’t impact my visiting, but the no option but tiny font will. It’s reallllly small font.

    *Thinking a bit* Beyond the small font and pull of the blank space to the right, I think my preference for the old is routed in the fact I was always impressed by the classy visual appeal of your old blog style. There was always a moment of thinking “nice” when I visited.

    ReplyReply

  20. Karen Scott
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 07:28:17

    Don’t like the look, but it loads much faster, so that’s good.

    ReplyReply

  21. Keishon
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 07:50:10

    OK Jane, I see the new red with white. I like it :-) FTR – I never had a problem with it loading but it’s nice of you to redesign it so that everybody can acess your site. It’s the content that matters most anyway. Take care. MY OS is IE 7.0.

    ReplyReply

  22. Jane
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:16:55

    I really appreciate the comments you guys. If you prefer the old site, you can go to this link here: .

    Otherwise, I am hearing that it needs to be a bit more elegant in the look and more conscious of those with larger screens so that the white space isn’t so mortifyingly orangey-red.

    I will be adding the font changes, etc. that existed previously.

    ReplyReply

  23. Jayne
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:46:54

    I never had to finagle with the font size with the old site but this one…wow…it’s so small. I know my eyes didn’t get worse overnight.

    ReplyReply

  24. Gennita Low
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:49:28

    Wow, that’s really fire-engine red! I never had any issues with loading with the older site. My only niggle was that I had to use the scroll right arrow to get to the links on the right to look at all the news and asides you posted for the day. Now you don’t have that extra stuff on the right and I’m missing it. Are you going to put that feature back on?

    ReplyReply

  25. Shiloh Walker
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:49:56

    The look is fine~can’t really say I have a preference between this one and the old layout as far as looks go.

    Does load quicker.

    But I still miss the preview deal with the comments.

    ReplyReply

  26. Angela James
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 09:00:23

    Is this different than what I saw last night because the layout of the front page looks different? I think now you’re missing any type of area to highlight little snippets from your various posts (opinions/industry news, etc). It’s not quite as user friendly as your old layout or the layout I thought I saw last night, which both had those types of areas (like Gennita commented above, it was on the right in the old layout). Though the links are there at the top, there’s nothing really to draw a casual visitor to click on them.

    On the other hand, it does load much more quickly than the old layout. I have a fast connection but it would still get bogged down while the site was loading.

    ReplyReply

  27. Sarah Frantz
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 09:14:27

    I was getting the plain blue last night. This is better, and I love red, so that’s not a problem for me. ;) As long as the blue wasn’t what you were talking about! I miss the bits down the side, with the blog roll and the Notes/Business section titles. Are you going to put that back in, because I wouldn’t remember to check the other pages on your site if I didn’t have the reminder on the side.

    ReplyReply

  28. Aoife
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 09:26:47

    I never had any problem with the old site loading, and loved its layout and graphics. That said, the new layout is fine, and I am sure I’ll adjust to the changes. It does seem a teeny bit bland to me, but the layout of the comments I actually like, since I like seeing the poster’s name in a large font, and the small font of the comments doesn’t bother me. Of course, I’m at the age where I’m used to standing back 10 feet to read the titles on the spines of books in Borders, so YMMV.

    ReplyReply

  29. Patrice Michelle
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 09:47:16

    I loved the look of the older site. It had a much more visually appealing and softer on the eyes. I liked being able to find everything on the front page too. I never had problems loading the old site, so I can’t speak to the speed

    ReplyReply

  30. sherry thomas
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 09:51:34

    The layout doesn’t matter to me much, but I had to really power down on my screen’s brightness. The high contrast was killing my eyes.

    ReplyReply

  31. Jane
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:10:41

    did you guys click on the different headings? I moved the asides and so forth in the tabs.

    ReplyReply

  32. Alison Kent
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:40:25

    Since I never visit the site (except to comment) because I read my blogs in a feeder (so have no loading problem, though wouldn’t since I have cable internet), I had to come over and see – and I like it. I like the larger font A LOT. Seriously, blogging is all about the content, and I’d say a lot of your readers who don’t comment never visit directly anyway. Look at most of the popular news blogs. Black on white with little in the way of design. You’re good. *g*

    ReplyReply

  33. Jenyfer Matthews
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:58:11

    I liked the look of the old site but it was very very SLOW for me to load so I like this one much better in that regard!

    ReplyReply

  34. Meredith
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:59:26

    The bright contrast is making it really hard for me to read. I liked the more muted tones, but I never had issues with the site loading either.

    ReplyReply

  35. Ciar Cullen
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:02:49

    I liked the penultimate version a bit better, but still love it. But why did it tell me I already voted? Did I? Wow, I’m really losing it. Think the voting thingey is wrong. LOL

    ReplyReply

  36. Danielle D
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:27:41

    I like the new look — to me it seems brighter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyReply

  37. Elizabeth
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:36:51

    Whoa! That’s pretty red. Hurts my eyes a little–but that could be a side-effect of all the holiday “cheer” I’ve been quaffing.

    ReplyReply

  38. vanessa jaye
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:37:10

    I’m pretty much going to ‘ditto’ all the negative and positve comments made so far.

    Pros:
    It does load faster, but I had cable, so that was really not an issue.

    I do like the larger font (a little easier on the eyes)

    Cons:
    It does lack the elegance/personality of the previous design.

    For some reason it *seems* like it’s not as user friendly, but that’s just a gut feeling from looking at the site,–probably the extra stuff you used to have on the right-sidebar is missing.

    In this comment box, the first letter of each sentence is almost invisible or right against the edge. I think the left margin needs to be increased a smidgen (for me at least).

    Lastly, in the time it took to type up this comment I realized just how BRIGHT RED the border is! I keep looking away and expecting to have a negative ghost imprint of that intense red frame to be burnt into my vision. :-P It. Is. Seriously. TOO Bright. I’ll definitely be going to the RSS feed if you keep it this shade, and for sure utilizing the ‘notify by email for subsequent comments’ feature.

    ReplyReply

  39. vanessa jaye
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:38:33

    I should clarify the comment box comment. The first letter missing is only a problem as I type. It seems fine once the comment posts.

    ReplyReply

  40. vanessa jaye
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:43:16

    Last, last, thing. The right column with the extras isn’t missing, it just doesn’t show up on the right until* after* the main column is loaded. So it’s waaaay down the page. At least that’s the way it shows on my screen (IE browser). When I’m on the comments page though, the right column of related post links shows up near at the top where it should. Now I really have to go. My poor eyes are going to start bleeding any second now from the red glare. :-P

    ReplyReply

  41. Estelle
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 12:33:00

    Don’t like it.

    For one thing you can only view 2 entries per page, then you have to click on the ‘previous’ button to see the rest. With the old version you could see more than 2 entries and that was very convenient.

    And it’s not as comfortable for me to read the entries. Somethign to do with the type, the way the page is set up etc…

    I liked the old version much much better.

    ReplyReply

  42. lisabea
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 13:07:59

    *blinking* It’s very red.

    ReplyReply

  43. Robin
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 13:20:50

    For one thing you can only view 2 entries per page, then you have to click on the ‘previous' button to see the rest. With the old version you could see more than 2 entries and that was very convenient.

    If you click on any of the category tabs at the top of the page, you will get a listing of more content. Jane wanted it so that readers could access as much content off the top as possible. So there will always be the two most recent posts (reviews and letters of opinion) on the home page, and if you click the “reviews” tab, for example, you get the latest 10 or 20 or however many reviews. If you want the most recent industry pieces, click on that tab. You will get a preview and a link for each. And the “recent comments” are still listed on the right hand side so you can see who’s commented on what post (why did the Smart Bitches get rid of this feature? It makes things so much more difficult, IMO). I actually think this format is much, much easier to negotiate, but it will probably take some getting used to.

    As for the color contrast, I’d suggest narrowing your viewer window to cut down on the red until Jane figures out what she wants to do with the background (I liked the fire engine red because it matches the stamp, so that was my suggestion — sorry — Jane started with a dark, dark red that I thought was too corporate but might be better received by y’all).

    ReplyReply

  44. Kalen Hughes
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 13:44:31

    I have to say, I vastly preferred the old look. The new one is just sooooo bright and sterile. And I dislike only having the two most recent posts show on the home page.

    ReplyReply

  45. Estelle
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 13:51:09

    If you click on any of the category tabs at the top of the page, you will get a listing of more content. Jane wanted it so that readers could access as much content off the top as possible

    I still find it very inconvenient. But it’s just a personal preference. I’ll still come to visit DA no matter what anyway.

    As for the color contrast, I'd suggest narrowing your viewer window to cut down on the red until Jane figures out what she wants to do with the background

    It wasn’t really the red that bothered me (red’s my favorite color actually) but rather the way the whole page was set up (the format for the entries in particular)

    ReplyReply

  46. MaryKate
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 13:53:11

    It looks very “The Romance Reader” to me. I also liked the old layout much better. But then. I’m always a whiner until I get used to something.

    ReplyReply

  47. Darlene Marshall
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 14:11:56

    I like it. Wasn’t the old site pink? Pink makes me roll my eyes and think, “Oooh, what’s next, feather boas?” Red is energizing. I have a red wall in my office. It reminds me I should be working on my book instead of wasting time telling other people what I think of their blog colors.

    Some days it works better than others.

    ReplyReply

  48. Sarah
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 14:23:34

    I didn’t even realize the old site loaded slowly for some.

    New design, not my favorite I have to say. I thought the old one was just really cute and kitschy but fit with your review style. But if this makes it easier for others to view, that’s a positive thing.

    ReplyReply

  49. Jia
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 14:26:31

    I like the new tabs up top. They make site more functional and orderly. When they were in the sidebar, I never paid attention to them.

    My only nitpick is that the comment font is so small, but that also might be a function of my computer settings (Macbook, OS X).

    ReplyReply

  50. Robin
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 14:28:59

    I still find it very inconvenient. But it's just a personal preference. I'll still come to visit DA no matter what anyway.

    Estelle and anyone else who hates the new look, if you go back to comment 22, Jane provided a link to the old format through which you can view the site. I don’t know how to redo that link in this comment, so I won’t even try in case it doesn’t work.

    As for the content on the front page, it’s still the same, I think, more or less; the old layout only provided for two, perhaps three items at a time. Although perhaps the starker look of this one makes it seem like there’s less here now. The news pieces are gone from the main page, though, if that’s what you’re referring to.

    ReplyReply

  51. Robin
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 14:31:58

    re. the font size, Jane is going to put that back in so you will be able to adjust the font size on your screen. Right now the whole thing is pretty much in test-drive mode.

    ReplyReply

  52. Janine B
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 15:14:23

    Eh, it’s ok. It does load faster, but there is nothing snazzy about the new look. Nothing pops. Still has an “older” look to it.

    ReplyReply

  53. Ann Bruce
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 15:57:19

    Personally, I liked the old site and never had problems loading it.

    But if you’re going to keep this one, here are a couple of suggestions to save my already failing eyesight:

    1 – Tone down the red background.
    2 – Use a sans serif font for the articles.

    ReplyReply

  54. Meriam
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 15:58:07

    Gosh, I stay away for a day and everything’s gone bright red.

    I quite like it. I’m all for change. The site always loads quickly for me, so that was never an issue. Still, I think I’ll need a day or two before I can make any definitive comments.

    ReplyReply

  55. vanessa jaye
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 16:25:14

    Even though you’ve toned down the red on the new design (praise be!), I’ve switched back to the old pink design, thanks for the link,

    ReplyReply

  56. Jackie L.
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 19:36:49

    Ack, loaded fine on my old beat up work computer, but not on my (relatively) newer home laptop. Had to click on a comment to see anything. Guess a few bugs? Don’t know why it would be fine on the older computer, and not on the new one.

    ReplyReply

  57. Helen
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 20:05:31

    I find this much more difficult to read, in fact it is like one of those mind puzzles, that ghosts images after you look away. I also liked the older version better, sorry; this looks stark, like a business website, and the font is way too small in the comment section. I have read that you can adjust this, that and the other, but frankly, I come to browse for leisure, not do a major computer exercise (which it would be for me!). Just my opinion.

    ReplyReply

  58. Kerry
    Dec 31, 2007 @ 20:33:52

    The red is kinda “Cherries In The Snow” to my eyes and I like it. And the font for the reviews is much larger, and I appreciate that.

    ReplyReply

  59. stephanie feagan
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 00:28:53

    Ixnay on the itesay.
    It blows.

    That said, I’ll still be here to read each day. Now I’ll just say, “A pox on Jane!” And, “Holy shit, this red is way obnoxious. I picked a bad day to quit smoking.”

    ReplyReply

  60. deedee
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 00:42:33

    Hate it. I’m getting the plain blue and white with only the most recent review and no links to letters of opinion or archives or anything else. I really liked the look of the old one, plus I was just learning how to find things.

    ReplyReply

  61. K. Z. Snow
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 00:46:27

    I don’t see any cherries in the snow, thank goodness, just a LOOOONNNNGGGG white strip full of paragraphs. It’s rather like unrolling a scroll. Ugh.

    ReplyReply

  62. K. Z. Snow
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 00:48:54

    I submit my post and–BLAMMY–there are the cherries. A scroll full of cherries.

    ReplyReply

  63. The Importance of Easy Access Websites for Authors | Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews, and Commentary
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 04:01:50

    [...] site loads about 3 times as fast as it did before. For some people, that is a meaningful change. As whey noted yesterday, a website’s content is the most important feature. If people are clicking away [...]

  64. Nalini
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 04:55:22

    I liked how you had the most recent stuff linked on the sidebar – I found it easier to see at a glance if I’d missed anything. Also, do you think you could make it so clicking the header takes you back home? Took me a couple of secs to find the Home link. My instinct is to just click the header.

    Btw, I see no red. I see black text on a white background. Very readable. But the other site worked for me, too.

    ReplyReply

  65. Kay Webb Harrison
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 07:09:14

    I tried to vote; it told me I had already voted. Oh well, I didn’t like the choices anyhow. I don’t “LOVE” the new design, but I like it just fine. The old one was fine too. I do like the larger font size. The Archives feature is much better as well.

    ReplyReply

  66. Karen Scott
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 09:19:14

    Oh I prefer the green, much more personable and airy.

    ReplyReply

  67. Jackie L.
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 10:02:39

    Okay, now it’s loading on my laptop, but it’s black type on blinding white, with gray and faintly bluish gray on the sides. Hard on old eyes, even with my glare treated (special for computer users) no-line freaking trifocals. I have to side with Stephanie Feagan. Ixnay on the itesay. At least so far.

    But since the SB took out the recent comment bar, you are still my first click-on site every day. I won’t change that habit, will just add sub-vocal grumbling.

    ReplyReply

  68. Marianne McA
    Jan 01, 2008 @ 17:25:32

    Font size was fine yesterday – now it’s unreadably huge. (Jackie’s comment above fills the whole screen.)

    ReplyReply

  69. De
    Jan 02, 2008 @ 02:40:43

    I said hate but that’s not entirely right. I’m mostly fine with it. My problem is that I use a large font in my browser. I suggest you up your font to about 22 and take a look at it. For me, I get “Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews,” on the blue at the top of the page, and all the rest of the header info is white text over the white below. I’ve just got this jumble of partial letters showing through at the top of the posts. It’ makes the top post really hard to read and really annoying.

    Also, OMG PLEASE can we have a search? I wanted to share the post about the future of e publishing with some friends today, and have to just keep going backward until I found it. A search would be really, really useful. And the posts from December about ebook hardware, I’d love to be able to send people to those, but I can’t. I can’t just tell someone just go to dearauthor.com and keep going backward for a few months. Please, please, please let us have a search.

    ReplyReply

  70. rose
    Jan 02, 2008 @ 13:42:51

    I just found you guys a little while ago,and i was so happy. I can’t say I like this new format. I am wondering why you changed it and why is the font so small. I am having to squint at my screen just to read it. I don’t care so much about the look, but I am really hoping that you will adjust the size of the font back to normal. It’s just not confortable….major eyestain.

    ReplyReply

  71. Jane
    Jan 02, 2008 @ 14:23:50

    Rose – on the upper right hand corner are two red boxes with an A inside of them. You can press the larger A until you get a size of font that works for you.

    ReplyReply

  72. Janine B
    Jan 02, 2008 @ 14:26:27

    *whew* <– Huge sigh of relief. I can read it again without squinting!

    ReplyReply

  73. Gwen
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 01:05:05

    Jane – this looks marvelous! Love the light taupe with the burnt orange. Very pretty, very easy on the eyes.

    Great job!

    ReplyReply

  74. vanessa jaye
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 06:59:00

    erm, all I’ve been able to see is a very, very pale blush pink down each side, and the middle strip of a soft white shade. The mix is a little too subtle, to be honest. There’s a quirk with the adjust font size, also. Either I get honkin HUGE (and I mean H.U.G.E!) text size. If I click the adjustment to medium text, the font in this comment box is largish, but the names of the previous commentor are large and their comments are teeny tiny.

    Thinks might change once I hit ‘post’, though…

    ReplyReply

  75. vanessa jaye
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 06:59:31

    nope. Nothing changed.

    ReplyReply

  76. vanessa jaye
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 08:40:54

    I’m at work now. The blush pink is now shows as a soft, lovely shade of sage green, and the white is still a nice easy on the eyes/non-glaring white. The text is more uniform also.
    But…. (you knew there had to be one, didn’t you?)

    Those thin horizonal lines (I guess they’re breaking up the segments?) at certain spot they’re running right through the text as if striking it out. Aside from this, this is the best its been since the change over.

    ReplyReply

  77. vanessa jaye
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 08:49:09

    Okay, clarification. Those thin lines that underline the titles in the side-bar– “Guest Review Submission”, “About Dear Author”, “Meta” etc,– those lines run right across the entire width of the page and while they don't quite strike-out the text as I thought, they run between the lines of text and it's a very tight fit indeed. The lines definitely cross most of letters with tails (y, p, f, etc) depending on if the line runs closer to the top line of text or the line of text below it.

    ReplyReply

  78. Marianne McA
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 08:54:58

    Jane, this is nitpicking now, but is there any way that once you’ve set the font size, it could stay the same even if you go to a new page?
    Takes four clicks to get the font on my screen to a comfortable reading size, which is fine, but boring if you’re leafing back and forwards from the posts to the comments and having to reset the font size every time. If not, not – but I thought I’d ask.

    ReplyReply

  79. Jane
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 09:13:20

    Marianne – I need to look into that. It requires the browser script to leave a cookie so that it remembers the font size. I am sure that there is a solution though.

    Vanessa Jaye – that is a coding error. I appreciate you bringing it up. I’m fixing it right now (hopefully).

    ReplyReply

  80. vanessa jaye
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 10:00:13

    I feel like I’m nitpicking you to death over this change, Jane. lol. But I know you want it right and tight. I can just imagine how frustrating all this tweaking must be. But you’re >thisclose< to having it perfect. ;-)

    ReplyReply

  81. Darlene Marshall
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 11:47:59

    I like this design. Loads fast, looks sharp.

    ReplyReply

  82. Jane
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 16:36:47

    Okay, I’ve got the clickable header thing figured out. Now just the cookie. Anything else? I do appreciate the nitpicking because I do want it right and tight.

    ReplyReply

  83. MaryK
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 16:41:29

    Not a nit – I’m liking the “recent comments” feature. I can quickly see if anything’s happening in an old post.

    ReplyReply

  84. LinM
    Jan 03, 2008 @ 19:13:06

    I really like the new look now (although I don’t see the sage green mentioned in some comments); the fonts, background colour and tab-line all work flawlessly for me.

    There are some things that I really like: the compressed links to older and ancillary posts at the bottom of the home page are wonderful; the length of the “recent comments” section is longer again (this had shrunk to about 5 before the redesign and I’m glad to see more entries in the list); the site is now more accessible from my palm.

    Since you asked for nitpicks, I’ll approach the absurd – the visible description says that you are 6 devoted readers – the metatags still say 4 (I must confess that I am totally impressed that you updated this from the original 2 – who updates metatags?)

    ReplyReply

  85. vanessa jaye
    Jan 04, 2008 @ 11:17:55

    I’m going to have to figure out why the site still looks pink at home on the laptop.

    Anywho, I noticed that the preview button and post buttons below the comment window aren’t aligned– the ‘post’ button is lower than the ‘preview’ button. It shows the same way on the laptop at home, and on my pc at work, so it’s definitely is something quirky with the site. Otherwise the new look is fabulous. Love it!

    ReplyReply

  86. vanessa jaye
    Jan 04, 2008 @ 11:22:05

    erm… one last quirk. I was in the archives page, then hit the ‘stamp icon’ in the header, thinking it would take me back to the homepage, it did for a split second then reverted back to archives page. I tried again (this time starting in the review page) and it did the same thing. I actually had to hit ‘new posts’ to get back to the homepage.

    ReplyReply

  87. Jane
    Jan 04, 2008 @ 11:24:03

    actually, it is taking you back to the home page and the script remembers the last tab you left off on. I could make it so that it doesn’t remember and defaults you back to the first tab – New Post.

    The Preview/Post thing is screwed up for me too.

    ReplyReply

  88. vanessa jaye
    Jan 04, 2008 @ 13:11:46

    Ahh, gotcha. I assumed ‘home page’ was the first page you get when you type the URL into the address bar. In this case, the page with the New Post. But it’s only taking me back to the last main directory/tab I was on.

    Not sure if its a big deal. I can hit ‘new post’, no worries. I just thought you’d mentioned fiddling with the link a couple of days ago and that’s what you’d meant for it to do, (plus, for a split second thats exactly what it does–take you back to the New Post page– before flicking back to whatever main directory/last tab you’d been on.

    ReplyReply

  89. vanessa jaye
    Jan 04, 2008 @ 13:13:40

    oh, btw, this is why my kid hated asking me to help with his homework. I was like a dog with a bone–just couldn’t walk away…. lol

    ReplyReply

  90. stephanie feagan
    Jan 05, 2008 @ 14:25:58

    Ah, Jane, you are a wonder. This is just lovely!

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

%d bloggers like this: