I liked the old version better. But that's just me.
I like it! Well done...
Hi Stephan,Might I suggest a stout/thick helvetica for the title, "Whole Health Source". Serif type is a bit out-of-fashion and you have sans-serif in the body of the blog.Yours is one of the most comprehensive and informative health blogs out. Thanks for all of your work.
Cleaner and crisper.
Definitely has more personality, thumbs up.
easier on the eyes ... nice update.
Much better - easier to read, and I love the color combinations.
I usually read in Google Reader, so I don't often see all the fancy bits, but this is nice.
Prefer the old one. It was unique. This one less so.
The green is definitely a nice color but I don't like the layout.
I value function (clarity, user friendliness) over form, which you apparently also value.1) I like the links to references, though it would be nice if they came up on new windows.2) I like lots of clear sub-headings.3) I like a format that minimizes scrolling.4) I like lots of tables and graphs, but simple and clear.5) I dislike clever writing, which you have thankfully steered away from.Old style, new style. Who cares as long as it’s simple and functional. Good job. You are a valuable asset.I’d like you to take a look at Campbell’s The China Study sometime. He makes a compelling case that chronic disease is a direct result of too much animal protein in your diet (>5 or 10% of calories). It’s hard to argue with his data, but you might have some insight into his research and conclusions. I’m trying to decide just how much vegetarianism is right. He also has some first-hand insight into how the NIH/academia/industry establishment works.
I like this layout, Stephan.Keep up the good work.
Stephen! Have you never heard the expression "if its not broke, dont fix it!"Liked old one better, it was very clean and clear.
I dig, its fresh
I liked also more the old version I think
I like it a lot. Very easy on the eyes, and the longer posts are well spaced and organized.The only thing I would change is that I would make the hyper-link text a darker or brighter color so that it stands out better. The pale blue you've chosen seems to fade into the background for some reason. Maybe it's too similar in shade t the green you've chosen for the background? (The green is a good choice; I wouldn't change that).But on the whole, very nice!--Word Verification: wholicDefinition: Someone addicted to Whole Health Source.
I like it!
Just yesterday I pointed another blogger with a sluggish format to the slick responsiveness of wholehealthsource. Now you've went and made wholehealthsource sluggish too. I mean scrolling doesn't anywhere near keep up to scrolling requests (whereas yesterday it completely did). I liked it much better before, and indeed had read the strict functionality of the old way as one more indication of your exceptional insight into small matters as well as large.The all-white background of the old format was a bit hard on the eyes, but easily tamed with the little bookmarklet that turns white backgrounds tan: https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html#zap_white_backgroundsWith that bit of help, the previous format was virtually perfect. I hope you revert. But be assured I'll delightedly accept your marvelous posts in *whatever* form you choose to provide them.In Firefox, at least, holding down Control while clicking one of your links opens the link in a new TAB...and without immediately zooming off to it. That is perfect. Please do not change it.
I like the way the posts appear (crisp and readable), but there is a lot of spacing in the right-hand menu and the footer, which I am not too crazy about. The previous design was good too. However, I will continue to read all of your posts no matter what the site looks like. The content is awesome!
Great! Still simple,clear, and functional, but a little more aesthetically pleasing. I agree with Chris about sans serif for the title, though.
Hey it looks awesome. I think you could use a better font for your top banner though.
My gut reaction was I liked the old one better, but then I started to think it's just because I was used to it. I think keep the new one and see how it grows on us.
Hmmm....I don't dislike this new layout, but I prefer the old layout.
Overall, I don't really care, as long as it isn't annoying. Only complaint is that the vertical spacing in the right menu is too big. The spacing in the previous style was better.
imo, the body text is too small. the rest is great!
The more narrow column width is nice. It makes the articles easier to read.
Looks okay, but I like the old one better. It looked more professional, and a little less bloggish, if that makes sense.
This one is not objectionable, but I liked the old one better - looked cleaner and clearer. This layout is slightly claustrophobic, and less distinctive - the old one was you. But, as others have said, content is king.
Just out of curiosity, what font did you spec "Whole Health Source" in?I don't feel strongly one way or another about the serif vs. sans-serif issue, but whatever font you've got it in now does not look like it's displaying properly. It's readable but it just looks a bit . . . off, somehow. It may be just an issue with my browser or something. But if other people are having the same issue, that might contribute to the bad reactions to that font.
Hi StephanGreat work as ever (-:I like the bold headings, and different colour for the subject heading.The text seems a little less readable - almost pixilated but that could be me.Again many thanks
Two thumbs up.
I think I prefer the older layout. My biggest objection to the new layout is the font is a bit small for post-45 eyes.
I like this new layout. I find it more visually appealing to have the main text body in the middle of my screen.
I don't mind green, but overall I prefer the cleaner look of the old design. I also second the motion for a sans-serif font for the title text--that would be a big improvement.
It's beautiful, great design for a wonderful blog!
Hi Everyone,Thanks for your comments. I've read them all, and I'm going to make some changes. Unfortunately, Google didn't leave me the option of having the text stretch to the size of the browser window, and I can't go back to the old format. JBG, I don't know if I'm going to be able to fix that within the context of the new Google formats, sorry.
I don't like dark green that much, it could be lighter, maybe... Dunno, maybe I could get used to this new look too. :P
Unfortunately, Google didn't leave me the option of having the text stretch to the size of the browser window, and I can't go back to the old format.Several people have commented that the print size is a little small for easy reading. And several have mentioned what seems like wasted space.In Firefox at least, there is a nice solution to both problems. Hitting Control + (hold down the Ctrl key and press the + key) enlarges the display. This lets each user make the text as large, practically, as they like. I can read wholehealthsource text okay at its given size, but for ease I have enlarged it four times...and that makes the "useful" (actually occupied) part of the display nicely fill my screen. This zoom setting can be changed at any time (Ctrl - reduces, and Ctrl 0 resets to default), but Firefox remembers whatever the current setting is and uses it whenever one visits a site again.I also still use the bookmarklet previously mentioned to tone down the still (to me) excessively bright background. But that is not a request for the blog to change the background; I prefer to have control myself.
re Paul and the China Study.. I think this subject has been done to death by many people. It's been pretty well documented in quite a few places that Campbell was quite selective in how he interpreted the data. If you want to read more about it for yourself, You can find reviews here:http://beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8e.shtml#china%20proj , here: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html and here: http://www.anthonycolpo.com/the_china_study.html Personally, i don't give Mr Campbell much credibility.AS for the new site, i am just happy to get access to well thought out comments on nutrition. Any colour, font, layout will do me. Thanks Stephan.
It's very . . . green!Personal niggle, not your fault but one reason I prefer Wordpress, there are a lot of html and css errors in the template. There always are, but Google Blogger has more of them.
It's much warmer. Well done.
Last layout looked cheap and bland. Good call on changing it. This design is soothing for the eyes and much better looking.
Thanks to Glenn for the links related to the China Study!
I like it- it seems easier on my eyes, not that it really hurt them before...
I love it. I agree with Mike--cleaner and crisper. It's easier to read now.
I earlier said, "I also still use the bookmarklet previously mentioned to tone down the still (to me) excessively bright background. But that is not a request for the blog to change the background; I prefer to have control myself."I have since noticed that one of the four basic appearances Blogger provides is one called Watermark, whose single distinction, as far as I can tell, from the *most* basic one with the white background, is that it automatically provides a tan background almost exactly like the one provided by the bookmarklet I mentioned. It would be fine with me to have that tan background be a feature of WHS appearance (although possibly others will prefer to keep the present white).
Post a Comment