@Catija If I can ask for one more minor clarification on how it actually works, does this meant that you will wait for some period of time, follow the discussions here and the present some summary of what was said here to the DAG team?

Or do you consult with them on a regular basis and tell them some update about the discussions going on this particular site from time to time?

For example, there is already at it some relatively clear feedback. (Some posts suggesting that the site should be different from Mathematics got quite a few upvotes. And fedja's recent post seems quite reasonable to me.) Have people who actually create designs seen some of this feedback?

@MartinSleziak I'm generally keeping an eye on things... Right now I'm trying to get a sense of what y'all are thinking about.

I suppose you have same role not only here but on a few other sites too. I have to say that I do not envy you such a job. I know that people in meta discussions - especially if they do not like some new features or changes - can be quite confrontational.

@MartinSleziak So, I'm not quite sure what to do with fedja's post, if you mean this one: meta.mathoverflow.net/a/4031/122216 ... it has some guidance but that second list item is... the hardest part to figure out... what is MO-Specific? What does that mean? Just something that no other site has or something that defines the subject here (like one of the mathematical image proofs you were talking about the other day)...

I mean, we could make the background salmon pink and that would meet all three of those guidelines... but I don't know that y'all'd like it... :D

Yes, if I had to characterize fedja's post, it mentions a few useful things, but it would be difficult to fulfill all of them.

@Catija I think there are several possible interpretations of "MO-specific". I thought along the similar lines as you did. Something which represents mathematics. (E.g., a patter background consisting of some Mathematical objects.) Or some color scheme usually associated with MO. (For example, some of the colors used on the site before the redesign or some of the colors used in the MO logo.)

Sure. Some of those colors still exist in here... the orange buttons, for example. :) Green and orange seemed to be the colors y'all used the most. I don't know that anyone else is using orange much.

Perhaps you (or me) could leave a comment on fedja's post asking which of these two meanings corresponds to what he has in mind.

To get back to my original question, at the moment we are at the stage of collecting feedback - and only later you will forward some of the stuff to the DAG team. Is this a reasonable assessment of the current situation?

BTW I'd wish that more users joined the discussion about design - or at least voted. But the meta participation on MO has always been rather low.

After all, I am one of the users who participated in those discussions quite a lot - and I do not really consider myself a member of MO community.

@MartinSleziak Yes. I'm not giving them daily updates or anything like that. :) It's possible that since, as you say, meta participation isn't very high, it may take a bit to get some ideas out there. I'm trying to be around and give feedback where I can, and I'll ask for clarification on fedja's answer...

If I can ask one more question, would something like "temporary quick fix" be a reasonable way to go. (Accompanied with mention of the plans that the design will be improved later.)

Let me explain in a bit more detail what I mean.

People are mostly complaining that the site is not distinguishable from other sites. (Mostly Mathematics - since many MO users frequent that site either.)

If y'all just want a splash of orange in the background, for example, I can probably get that changed quickly, along with changing tag colors if y'all want that...

Yes, that's what I meant. For example, I think that having some kind of colored background would make the site distinguishable.

Color isn't the best option, since users who don't have full color vision may not be any better off, but it's more than just grey vs a pale grid.

But I think it would be necessary to communicate clearly that it is just a temporary solution - to solve the problem that the site is difficult to distinguish from Mathematics, which is the stuff many of users that come to meta are complaining about. And the further modification to the design will be made later after enough feedback is collected.

Sure. While I don't want to change things frequently, I think one temporary change with a more permanent one a bit later will be doable.

Personally, I am not sure whether or not this would make situation better or worse (as far as the dissatisfaction of the users with the new design goes).

And I cannot backup this with some consensus in community. (My post about tag color has only score +4 and the post about color in the sidebar only +3.)

But I thought that I might ask about this at least in chat.

But they're positive... so that's something. :D Many of my posts on the sites are downvoted. :P

I am not sure whether it would be good to make a post on meta about this. (I.e., about the solution with "temporary fix" and "more complete update later".)

Unfortunately, I will be rather busy this week - or at least until Thursday - so I am not sure I would find time to do that.

I think a lot of people are busy this week and next. :)

Or maybe we can simply wait a bit whether some people notice this conversation in chat (I have starred a few messages to make them more noticeable).

In any case, thanks for your responses. I'll have to leave - it's time to go to work. (To get to the stuff I am supposed to be doing.)

I need to sleep! Have a good day :D

Is it possible to find somehow what the old color for favorited (watched) and ignored tags used to be in the old design?

In this case Wayback Machine does not help, since it only shows the view for anonymous users.

Maybe some screenshots could give an idea of approximate color?

I have looked at the questions on meta. This question is about ignored tag and has a screenshot: Vanishing questions

@MartinSleziak It is possible (look at the CSS in the wayback machine), but the old one was still #fffbec

I agree it is a bit light, but being colorblind and all I'm not going to propose a replacement myself

This is a question about favorite tags but with no screenshots: What's the purpose of the favorite button?

@DenisNardin This question seems to say that it was close to pink: Pink questions in the list.

Again, colorblind here. I can only tell you what was written in the CSS

I am pretty sure there is some online tool where I can check what #fffbec actually looks like.

Well, you can click on the convenient link I put on my comment

:P

Actually, now that I look at it more carefully it was slightly different

w3schools.com/colors/color_tryit.asp?hex=FFFBEC This links also says that the name is Aqua..

Sorry, I was wrong. The old one is #fff5de

I cannot tell the difference between them

w3schools.com/colors/color_tryit.asp?hex=FFF5DE color-hex.com/color/fff5de

w3schools.com/colors/color_tryit.asp?hex=FFF5de

I have also some problems with eyesight (although only minor). But that does not look pink to me.

Of course, the only think we know about pink is the title of that question on meta.

And, to be precise, it was #fff5deb3 (the last number is the transparency at 70%)

In any case, the information from the Wayback Machine more reliable than looking at the screenshots (and I wasn't even able to find one). I simply did not now that this is something that can also be checked in the WM.

You can get the CSS. It's... not the easiest one to read but it can be done

Since you happen to be here, what do you think about the suggestion above - with a temporary quick solution and nicer design to come later. It's in the transcript starting around here:

I'm good with that, but I'm going to wait and see what happens

I doubt that any of the "customization" options they will offer us will satisfy me but I don't want to be annoying. It seems they have decided to make sites that already looked very similar to me even more similar

No matter how much background color we put they have decided the central column has to look the same on all sites, and it seems that's it

If you look at some examples, there is at least something distinctive about the look of the sites such as judaism.stackexchange.com english.stackexchange.com worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com rpg.stackexchange.com travel.stackexchange.com

But you're right that the differences are mainly in the header and background, not in the central column.

Yeah, I'm not going to keep the sidebar around just for the layout's sake

A lot of the changes make sense only if you have at least a desktop

Even my relatively luxurious 15.6'' laptop makes the layout with the sidebar seem cramped

Since I have mentioned the possibility of "temporary design" already twice in the chat, probably I should quickly make a question on meta - at least to find out what other users think about this. And then I should get back to grading.

@Catija When you have time you can look at my post on meta: What about temporary design just to make better distinction from other sites? In particular, let me know if I misrepresented some of the information you've mentioned. (Or feel free to edit the question if needed.)

I see that it is already 3 AM in your timezone - but if you can find time to look at it tomorrow, I'd be grateful.

> Responsive design: We are beginning our planning for profiles and review queues. These are big projects, so don't expect them tomorrow.

The above is quoted from 2018 monthly product team updates. So it seems that profiles and review queues are going to change the design too, at some point. I suppose that this is what the currently featured question on Meta Stack Exchange is related to: Help us improve the user profile and settings.

Yep. They're currently not responsive and the review queues in particular can use some love. :)

@MartinSleziak Looks good. I'll keep an eye on it.

Thanks for taking a look at it.