That logo is generic and forgettable as hell. The mo-zilla lizard was way better. People on the whole don’t have taste. I have nothing important to note just feels so commercial.
In my opinion, we only get to complain about something becoming commercial if we’ve donated time or effort to the project. Commercial things survive, and absent contributions, important things should do what it takes to survive.
I think people should feel free to constructively criticize regardless of whether they’ve contributed. Imposing a barrier to critique doesn’t really help.
Unfortunately, commercial things do not necessarily survive. I am not a web developer, so I have little need for MDN. I do use a web browser every day, however, and Firefox is the last serious bulwark against a Chrome monoculture. Mozilla should stop shuffling deckchairs around and let us fund the browser.
A few things I think went well in this announcement:
Signaling an intent to provide a premium service opens up possibilities for making MDN less financially dependent on search engine royalties. Considering the layoffs Mozilla went through a few years ago and that MDN is the de facto documentation for the web, I applaud their efforts to put MDN on its own footting.
Sticky sectional navigation makes it easier to navigate large pages with many sections. They also kept the anchors for sections, which is great as I find deep linking indispensable when sharing docs with others.
Greater line spacing and leading for headings is more consistent with traditional aesthetics established in print design. I find this better reinforces the typographic hierarchy.
Things I’m not so sure about:
The color contrast between purple links seems a bit poor in both in light and dark modes. Google’s Lighthouse accessibility report agrees. There also appear to be some other low-hanging accessibility issues in the Lighthouse report that can and should be addressed.
There are more characters per line (CPL) than before. The Wikipedia article on the subject indicates anywhere between 55 and 100 CPL is ideal. It depends on context and is somewhat subjective. I probably read too much New Yorker print. But there’s someone out there who agrees with me and wrote a bookmarklet that highlights 45–75 CPL. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work on the new MDN design, but I suspect it’s pushing 100. Could be worse, though. Wikipedia’s CPL is theoretically infinite, bound only by the width of one’s screen.
Honestly I quite like it. I find that the simple chrome doesn’t distract from the content and is well visually separated. The nav on the right is also great.
The things I don’t like:
There is so much space around the headings. It just looks weird. Like there is some content there that failed to render.
It is very narrow. A lot of the code samples wrap unnecessarily. Personally I think making it a decent chunk wider would have made more sense.
For some reason the logo is also very strange to me. But maybe I just need to get used to it.
I don’t think it is a huge improvement for the investment, but I do think it is better. Only more use will tell exactly how I feed.
While I’m not a fan of the new logo (I struggle to imagine how I’d make it even more generic), being able to ditch my janky dark mode userstyle is great. It would be nice if it could extend to the preview iframes somehow, but that’s a minor complaint.
I’ve read way too many redesign articles like this that don’t actually link to the website that’s been redesigned.
I baffles me why in the first line they couldn’t add a hyperlink to the new MDN like so;
If you’ve accessed the MDN website today, you probably noticed that it looks quite different. We hope it’s a good different. Let us explain!
That being said, the new design is pretty good. But the main change I’d personally make would be to give headings a font-weight slightly more than body text (say like 500). Also I agree with most people saying the new logo is generic but what can you do shrug.
I am a strong supporter of ain’t broke don’t fix it, but I have to say that I am not displeased with the new MDN design. The sticky columns and dark mode are great improvements imho.
Personally really like the facelift. The site is nice and easy on the eyes with the dark mode. I do agree with adamshaylor’s negative points however, there is multiple contrast issues, and the CPL raise means there’s more to read from left-to-right (and vice versa). Overall though, nice update, I’m glad MDN finally got a much needed facelift.
Everything a little bit worse than the previous design. Just what I’d hoped for. Oh, and a paid subscription service. Is Mozilla into satirical performance art now?
this shock is always the case for big redesigns, in my experience. to spin off your comment in a more positive manner, i’m willing to point out some things i actually like about this change. in my case, i really enjoy the new console. it’s much more intuitive and placed directly in the article, as opposed to the aside element they had before. also, the table of contents on the right is great! have you gotten a chance to mess around with the new docs? what’re your biggest gripes?
I acknowledge the grumpy tone of my comment. 😁 The thing that threw me instantly was the main body merging visually with the two side bars. I do like the new compatability table, it is easier to grock quickly. I have no idea what the console is?
Like you say, any particular gripes I have I will get used to. The real thing that rubs me the wrong way is that there was absolutely no need for another redesign, and the article linked is full of marketing buzz-word garbage to justify it. I wish Mozilla would spend its time and resources on things other than the pointless (repeated) overhalling of something that was absolutely fine to begin with. (Since when is five years a shocking length of time to leave a design in place!?)
MDN is not marketing a product, it hosts documentation. Its purpose isn’t to wow customers with its shiney <div>s - it’s where I go to look things up. It’s a place of work, not a bilbord. To that end, I value consistency and a lack of visual pretension.
MDN is not marketing a product, it hosts documentation.
Well, at one point I believe the MDN team was actually in the reporting hierarchy of marketing. And because it’s historically been not just generic web docs but also documentation for Mozilla tech and products, it’s been a part of the marketing/branding efforts.
In mid-2021 we started to think about modernizing MDN’s design, to create a clean and inviting website that makes navigating our 44,000 articles as easy as possible.
So glad they did the long think and somehow made it harder for a daily user to navigate. Anyway, looks like lots of money went to some “brand” person out in LA, CA USA.
That logo is generic and forgettable as hell. The mo-zilla lizard was way better. People on the whole don’t have taste. I have nothing important to note just feels so commercial.
In my opinion, we only get to complain about something becoming commercial if we’ve donated time or effort to the project. Commercial things survive, and absent contributions, important things should do what it takes to survive.
I think people should feel free to constructively criticize regardless of whether they’ve contributed. Imposing a barrier to critique doesn’t really help.
Nah, that part was voted on by the users. We screwed it up, not them. So I’m going to complain.
Unfortunately, commercial things do not necessarily survive. I am not a web developer, so I have little need for MDN. I do use a web browser every day, however, and Firefox is the last serious bulwark against a Chrome monoculture. Mozilla should stop shuffling deckchairs around and let us fund the browser.
If the logo being mediocre is all there is to complain about in it, they’ve done pretty well overall. :)
I can get with that. it was the only thing that struck me as bad out of the entire redesign.
A few things I think went well in this announcement:
Things I’m not so sure about:
Overall, this is life. Things change. We adjust.
I opened the page about
<dialog>and looked at the first full line:91So you’re right, it’s pushing 100.
Honestly I quite like it. I find that the simple chrome doesn’t distract from the content and is well visually separated. The nav on the right is also great.
The things I don’t like:
I don’t think it is a huge improvement for the investment, but I do think it is better. Only more use will tell exactly how I feed.
While I’m not a fan of the new logo (I struggle to imagine how I’d make it even more generic), being able to ditch my janky dark mode userstyle is great. It would be nice if it could extend to the preview iframes somehow, but that’s a minor complaint.
I’ve read way too many redesign articles like this that don’t actually link to the website that’s been redesigned.
I baffles me why in the first line they couldn’t add a hyperlink to the new MDN like so;
That being said, the new design is pretty good. But the main change I’d personally make would be to give headings a font-weight slightly more than body text (say like
500). Also I agree with most people saying the new logo is generic but what can you do shrug.It lacks contrast now, and I find it a bigger strain to read than previously.
I am a strong supporter of ain’t broke don’t fix it, but I have to say that I am not displeased with the new MDN design. The sticky columns and dark mode are great improvements imho.
Personally really like the facelift. The site is nice and easy on the eyes with the dark mode. I do agree with adamshaylor’s negative points however, there is multiple contrast issues, and the CPL raise means there’s more to read from left-to-right (and vice versa). Overall though, nice update, I’m glad MDN finally got a much needed facelift.
Everything a little bit worse than the previous design. Just what I’d hoped for. Oh, and a paid subscription service. Is Mozilla into satirical performance art now?
this shock is always the case for big redesigns, in my experience. to spin off your comment in a more positive manner, i’m willing to point out some things i actually like about this change. in my case, i really enjoy the new console. it’s much more intuitive and placed directly in the article, as opposed to the aside element they had before. also, the table of contents on the right is great! have you gotten a chance to mess around with the new docs? what’re your biggest gripes?
I acknowledge the grumpy tone of my comment. 😁 The thing that threw me instantly was the main body merging visually with the two side bars. I do like the new compatability table, it is easier to grock quickly. I have no idea what the console is?
Like you say, any particular gripes I have I will get used to. The real thing that rubs me the wrong way is that there was absolutely no need for another redesign, and the article linked is full of marketing buzz-word garbage to justify it. I wish Mozilla would spend its time and resources on things other than the pointless (repeated) overhalling of something that was absolutely fine to begin with. (Since when is five years a shocking length of time to leave a design in place!?)
MDN is not marketing a product, it hosts documentation. Its purpose isn’t to wow customers with its shiney
<div>s - it’s where I go to look things up. It’s a place of work, not a bilbord. To that end, I value consistency and a lack of visual pretension.Well, at one point I believe the MDN team was actually in the reporting hierarchy of marketing. And because it’s historically been not just generic web docs but also documentation for Mozilla tech and products, it’s been a part of the marketing/branding efforts.
and what’s the revenue upside of merely hosting documentation? can’t have that in this economy.
This, but earnestly. Be thankful it’s only a little bit!
So glad they did the long think and somehow made it harder for a daily user to navigate. Anyway, looks like lots of money went to some “brand” person out in LA, CA USA.
The first thing I went to look at didn’t even work. I just wanted to find the a tag. I’m pretty sure the search used to work better.