Editor's Note: Pens, Paper and Pretzels

[jmgrogg [deprecated]]

Could I suggest making the "main_column" div, which houses all of the actual content be the widest portion of the main page? Or, in the least, have the issue preview span the entire width?

I've been an on-again-off-again reader of the Escapist for a number of years now, and the thing that kept bringing me back was that it was a magazine, and not just another website. Highlighting the actual content instead of the busy right column of the main page would do a lot to bring that magazine feeling back without going back to the old ways.

Right now it feels like "RAWR LOOK AT ALL THIS STUFF...oh, and here's the actual content".

 

[Arbre]

Could I suggest making the "main_column" div, which houses all of the actual content be the widest portion of the main page? Or, in the least, have the issue preview span the entire width?

I've been an on-again-off-again reader of the Escapist for a number of years now, and the thing that kept bringing me back was that it was a magazine, and not just another website. Highlighting the actual content instead of the busy right column of the main page would do a lot to bring that magazine feeling back without going back to the old ways.

Right now it feels like "RAWR LOOK AT ALL THIS STUFF...oh, and here's the actual content".

Same here. It seems that nowadays, the white dominates and everybody must look like "iamdeadseriousaboutgames.biz"...

The trouble is that the front page from the previous model was just so clear, so effective, and was extremely exclusive to escapist.
Was the change made because it looked less pro?

I just so miss the artistically inspired PDF issues.
They did look like magazines, not cramped pages stuck between ads and the fruits of a weird webpage architecture.
No more cool art to illustrate every page of each article. No more great compo for the main page. Where's my mario mushroom on stained glass??

Has it turned into html so it would force people to jump to the site to read articles, instead of saving them on their HDD?
If it's for the ads, big deal, they are all deactivated on my browser. Yes, I know, not fairplay, ain't it?

All in all, the layout is damn messy.
I don't know what participates to its very headless nature, but I'm sure it lies between the hundred lines crammed into 100² pixels zones, the many hundred mini-windows here and there, and the not much bolded and shy headline typos, the colours that don't strike out as much as before (without looking like an amateur website), the news' titles being cut, etc.

I guess php automatisation has a lot to do in that as well.

The deal is that I don't fancy reading the articles as much as I did previously. Globally - not talking about the content - they just look like your random vanilla blog rant.

Meh.
I know this may sound harsh, repeatitive, futile or else, but just... meh.

I think you had a very distinct identity, and you lost it.

 

[Arbre]

I'd like to flesh out my comments a little.
I understand how my opinion may seem weird, or just extremely isolated or minor.
Especially the part about the former graphical layout that was pulling me.

- What's that? a big lad who reads our articles because of the nice pictures?

Hehe.

No. :|

I've actually noticed two important factors that define the professionalism of articles: the content quality, and the amount of seriousness and dedication brought to make it appealing (and of course easy to read).

The large amount of art made the articles much more spirited and exclusive. I've been used to think that taking the illustration of each article so seriously, to emphasize the content, was as important as were the thoughts and ideas put through lines of engaged text: the artistic nature of the package was just as valuable and decisive as the content.
Just as much as I enjoyed reading Edge for so long because of their slick and pro presentation, the paper and cover quality, their great layout and care for beauty, for a lack of better word.

This, in the end, actually made the whole look much more pro. Not the contrary.

The message, not to say the fact, that some people in the staff actually thought that this was not important, made me understand that we weren't so like-minded than I thought.

Yes, it costs money to have that art. But that's also what made the site special. Sometimes, I think money has to be spent in the right direction.

Here come the ads I suppose. I admited simply busting them out of my browser's windows.

You know what's amusing about the ads, in the old version? I couldn't skip them.
And they didn't bother me that much.
They were taking a whole page, like in any solid magazine, and I couldn't avoid them.
Avoiding autoscripts and flash ads is, however, extremely easy.

I strongly believe that it was actually much possible to keep the old's style, while making the old and new features more accessible.
Even if it meant coming with an original and still streamlined layout.

But now, the whole design has been phagocyted by the norm.

All sites must be the same. Everybody must read the same standard. One guy in his ivory tower decided the web 2.0's layout was what everybody wanted.

"The magazine metaphor was very distinct and very strong previously, whereas now it's sort of coming off as an imitator of 1up.com. And, really, if you're going to imitate a website design, there are far better ones to choose from.
- Bongo"

1up's interface is just one of the most horrible layouts I've seen in ages.
Looking trendy is one thing. Being effective is another whole deal.

"Several months ago we introduced a "text only" version of all of our articles, which had been steadily growing in popularity since. I can't quote exact numbers, but as the boss said, they spoke volumes about the preferences of the vast majority of our readership.
- Russ"

Huh, I may have missed something, or maybe you're talking about the mirrored html version of the PDF articles, because I don't remember noticing any "text version only" on the ol' website.
If there was any, it had to be particularily well concealed.

"Like Tom, the site was "home" for me. I hope that my feelings are just aversion to change, and that soon I'll grow to like the new layout.
- Blaxton"

I think I'm speaking for most of us here in saying that it is precisely a thirst for originality and change that brought us here.

 

[Echolocating]

I completely agree with you, Arbre.

I'm glad The Escapist offered what it did, for as long as it did. I still miss the old layout... always will. I like the new portal design though. It's spiffy as heck! ;-)

Strangely enough, I've only read about 2 or 3 articles since the 2.0 revamp. Of course, not every topic is of interest to me. However, the previous visual content encouraged me to read through the articles, that I normally would not have, and fully digest what the author had to say. Translation: I need pretty pictures to broaden my intellectual horizons.

-----

I'm not entirely sure what the most time consuming (expensive) aspects of the old layout were, but I'd assume it had to do with numerous items vying for attention on a single page with fixed dimensions. Now, that the physical constraints are pretty much gone (save for width), is it still too costly to present the written content on the previous brilliantly conceived visual backgrounds with the stylish fades and such? Who cares if one page gets a little longer than the others now, right? ...or am I beating a dead horse here? ;-)