New Theme for WUWT

Don’t worry readers, I’m trying an experiment. WUWT has looked the same for about 3 years, so I’m giving it a makeover. I’ve activated a newly designed theme for WUWT. This one has advantages over the old one in that it does a better job of supporting newer hi-res monitors such as the 20-24″ LCD/HDTV models that are becoming popular.

It also provides for larger text and images, better visibility of links, plus a few other features including a custom background which I’ll get to later.

In the meantime, let me know what you think in the poll below.

Sadly, no I still can’t offer an edit feature. wordpress.com hosting doesn’t support it.

UPDATE: Some readers say they can’t see links on the right side. They are there, try the horizontal scrollbar or set your monitor to a higher resolution. Also, wordpress during the upgrade nuked all my widgets on the right hand side, working to restore them -A

UPDATE: all the sidebar widgets are now restored. -A

UPDATE from CTM: Firefox users should  install the CA assistant and greasemonkey.

http://climateaudit.org/ca-assistant/

This gives you full previews and some preview and formatting buttons.

Make sure to set your installation settings to not hide old comments or much will disappear.

Comment Tab:

  • “Old” and “New” comments are defined by age in hours.
  • You can hide all old comments (default: 48 hours). Hiding older comments is a great way to simplify your view of more intense discussions. (On Lucia and RomanM’s sites, the content of old contents disappears, but Author/Date remain. Nice!)
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

440 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
anna v
April 28, 2010 6:54 am

Posts do not appear with “waiting for moderation”
is this the new norm?

April 28, 2010 7:02 am

Anthony,
Still looks good on the Blackberry.
John

Gordon Ford
April 28, 2010 7:09 am

Anthony
The light grey text is too light for these overly experienced eyes. Otherwise no complaints.

beng
April 28, 2010 7:21 am

I’ll be more helpful — I’m getting black text on a dark gray background (except in this reply box which is white). Very difficult to read.
And yes, I’ve downloaded and installed the CA assistant for Firefox, but it doesn’t change anything.

Myron Mesecke
April 28, 2010 7:34 am

Myron Mesecke says:
April 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I can’t afford to buy new everything right now. With the computer I have and the browsers I can run on it the new design isn’t coming out readable. It was great while it lasted. I guess this is one site I will have to write off.
REPLY: well you seem to be able to post comments. Try Google Chrome
Yes, I was able to post comments. But the page wasn’t displaying properly. Chrome won’t run on anything under OSX10.5. My old Mac can’t run anything above 10.2.8. Why do I still have an old computer? Wife in education and one kid going to college and they need the newer faster computers for education. I’m getting by with older because at home I only use a computer for personal use. One of the biggest complaints against the AWG crowd is their using the latest greatest computers instead of real science to try to prove their point. Newer isn’t always better when it leaves so many in the dark. (kind of like wind power)

April 28, 2010 7:42 am

I am not to picky about blok theme types.
But it is slightly annoying to have to scroll way, way down to get to your very useful links on the sidebar. If this one limitation can be overcome, then your new theme will be fine.
Tom

Retired Engineer
April 28, 2010 8:10 am

Bigger text. Better for us old geezers who don’t see as well.
But a huge delay while typing. I can get a word or two ahead of what appears on the screen. WUWT?

a dood
April 28, 2010 8:18 am

Looks good but yeah the default font size is a little big. I think it will be one of those sites that I click the ‘decrease font size’ button by force of habit when dropping in for a visit…

April 28, 2010 8:52 am

Mr Watts,
I give up, it’s futile, as I see now.
Let me only point you your words:
I doubt seriously that given their manpower, millions of users, and mostly positive feedback that it could be called a “badly conceived project”.
Do not be offended but do not use such arguments in discussion with me, please.
That way you could say that million AGW worshipers are RIGHT – simply due to their sheer number and “manpower”. 🙂
“WordPress project” doesn’t mean excellency, ever, especially in the case of WordPress.
You’ve made a step forward. OK. But let me show you good, equally “wide” websites:
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs.asp
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/anderson/
The three websites have the same 2 column layout in the same proportions as your WordPress.
Think over the AccuWeather example with its excellently balanced layout, toned down colors, emphasized different areas, smaller(!) graphics on the first (home) page, and equally balanced title and text fonts and their sizes – balm to my eyes (I’m 53 year old) to put it succinctly.
I hope WordPress 3.0 will be delivered with appropriate tools to conjure up such layouts.
Best regards

Nick
April 28, 2010 8:55 am

Anthony – you might be interested in viewing your site in a browser emulator to see how things look in different browsers. I’ve had success with:
http://spoon.net/browsers/ (note – must be opened through IE)
and
https://browserlab.adobe.com/

pettyfog
April 28, 2010 8:55 am

Worked fine for me. I never changed anything in font or display in the five years I’ve been using Firefox
Older FF works fine, Older user likes the larger font
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9

Gail Combs
April 28, 2010 9:00 am

I like it. The larger type is easier on these old eyes and it is nice to have the HTML tags listed.

Steven K
April 28, 2010 9:01 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/new-theme-for-wuwt/#comment-378097
Thank you; you have no idea how much time and hassle you just saved for me!

Bernd Felsche
April 28, 2010 9:32 am

No new gripes on this style.
Font size is better! Typeface is a bit “artful” with stuff like “3” being in the descender. Otherwise the combination of serif for blocks of text is good, with titles, etc sans-serif. Links, etc. on the side-bar could be sans-serif. That may be out of your control in catastrophic-style-sheets.
Long-standing gripes about waste of screen space on grey margins around the virtual b(l)og-roll of comments — the side-bar could be double the width; and lack of “where was I” marker.
I like the idea of being able to collapse older comments to reduce scroll-wheel milage; perhaps selectively expanding some; to cherry pick quotes. 🙂

john ratcliffe
April 28, 2010 9:40 am

I like the new format.
My laptop + XP + Firefox likes it too. Everything fits the screen and seems to work.
Like others, I found that the new screen too ‘bright’. For myself, I changed the background colour to a light blue and text to black, much kinder to my eyes.
In Firefox use “Tools>Options>Content>Colours”, and uncheck “use system colours”.
(Tom in Texas http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/27/new-theme-for-wuwt/#comment-378174) Thanks for the tip!!
I come to this site for the excellent content and discussions. I would still come here for that reason even if I didn’t like the changes, but now for me with the larger font, it’s a nobrainer. Voted ‘Love it’.
BTW. The Google Ads seem to have fallen off, is that just on my set-up or general?
I used to hit the ads to give Anthony a tiny reward for providing this site.

Kay
April 28, 2010 9:48 am

I LOVE the new format! Much easier to read.

W. Urth
April 28, 2010 9:49 am

Looks great in Firefox 3 on Win XP. My ancient Mac at home (Beige G3 X.2.8 running Firefox 2, 1024×768 is a mess (no support for Firefox 3). There is nothing on the left hand side of the screen and I have to scroll all the way to the right to see any content.

OK S.
April 28, 2010 9:58 am

Everything looks good (both on Firefox 3.6.2 and I.E. 8.0) running on VISTA. On laptops mostly–1280 x 800 px. Haven’t projected it to a screen yet, so can’t say.
Font size and spacing are also good. I wouldn’t squeeze the lines together too much further.
Most of my readers found a serif font more readable than a non-serif font, too, so I would stick with Times New Roman or something akin for the body text–decorative text, whatever looks good to you.
OK S.

Colin from Mission B.C.
April 28, 2010 10:07 am

I like the new format. It’s not radically different, but just enough for a nice “refresh” of the site. I honestly can’t explain why, but I find the new format easier on my eyes as well. I do not appear to be experiencing any issues with browser compatibility. I’m running Firefox 3.6.3 on a Windows 7 machine.

Dave Worley
April 28, 2010 10:24 am

The bright white background does dry out my eyes after a while (contact lenses).
Otherwise, the new look is appealing.

ldd
April 28, 2010 10:42 am

Like it.
On a toshiba laptop here -few years old, windows XP, that’s ancient in the tech world no doubt, but all shows well on my screen.
Like the new look, much easier to read for those of us with some visual impairments, not necessary to increasing fonts every time I visit, thank you.
Love this site Anthony, thank you for doing what you’re doing – what our political leaders and the slavish to AGW-LSM won’t do – getting the truth out about this world wide ruse of AGW.

MartinGAtkins
April 28, 2010 10:50 am

I’ve just descovered another handy feature. Using firefox, if you right click the mouse on the date under the name of the poster you can use “Copy Link Location” and it creates a clipboard link to that message that can be posted anywere.
Willis Eschenbach

Pops
April 28, 2010 11:32 am

Just an idea. Try putting a dark, horizontal line (darker than the one between these comments) just below the posted in line of links at the bottom of each article on the main page. As it is, it’s a little too easy to scroll right passed the next headline. Apart from that, it’s looking good in Firefox 3.6.4 and with a 1024 * 768 screen resolution on my ageing 17″ monitor.

Mike M
April 28, 2010 11:34 am

I still have one computer running Windows 98 and my browser on it is Netscape 7.1. The prior format worked fine on it but this new WUWT format displays as a blank page, (all the source code loads with no errors; it’s just a blank display).
I’ve only run into this problem with one other site – breitbart.com (oddly, breitbart.tv works fine), so I suppose there might be a simple tweak to get it to display in Netscape?
From another angle, Michelle Malkin’s site is running WordPress. It looks better than WUWT’s prior format but works fine in Netscape for some reason.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
April 28, 2010 11:36 am

From anna v on April 28, 2010 at 6:54 am:
Posts do not appear with “waiting for moderation”
is this the new norm?

It’s still the old norm when the filters grab a comment, as I have found when referring to a certain former German government by name. I’m not having a problem otherwise with “waiting” posts not showing.
From anna v on April 28, 2010 at 6:51 am:
just lost a post while trying out the Preview buttons.Probably in junk.
I’ve had a quirky “lost comment” when posting while using Preview, but it did show up later.
for some reason the name and e-mail are not being retained in this format 🙁
Could be a browser issue on your side, mine is retaining it just fine, even through the style change.
Come to think of it, you should delete your cookies, purge your cache, then reload WUWT. Name/email retention works when you browser realizes you are on the same site, and the site’s server shows you the “awaiting moderation” posts when it knows you are the poster of them, which it tracks with the browser. Between the browser and the site you could be getting mis-identified. This likely is a cookie issue, getting fresh new ones should fix it, purging the cache may also help and won’t hurt.