A majority of the changes are not be visible; these tweaks go along with recent updates that were made to Stack Overflow:

• We have updated the site's CSS to a newly refactored LESS system, so that it's easier for us to fix SE network CSS bugs globally and launch new features in the future.
• We've updated most of the graphics to SVG for retina support.
• We have fixed a LOT of obscure bugs that arose when new features were not thoroughly tested across the entire network.
• We've launched the new user profile.

Visually it should "feel" the same as the old site with slight layout adjustments.

This update should retro-actively fix most of the old design bugs. If you see any new bugs, or old ones not yet fixed, please post an answer here to let us know!

• There was some discussion about the new user profile change coming at an earlier thread, here: meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/2224/two-new-user-pages Is there any possibility of having the "shiny new user profile" be optional, for the sake of those who expressed their dislike of the new design? – Todd Trimble Sep 23 '15 at 17:25
• I thought that LESS systems were designed for the space program!. In other news, thank you very much for giving a heads up. – Asaf Karagila Sep 23 '15 at 18:27
• @ToddTrimble it's not practical for us to support multiple versions of a feature across the network. The new profile has been met with much praise from other communities — especially when it comes to helping newer users get acclimated to contributing and earning badges. At the very least please give it a try for a few weeks. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 23 '15 at 18:44
• @KurtisBeavers MathOverflow is not just another 08-15 site in the SE network, remember that there exists a special agreement between this community and SE. Should it be the case that the majority of the researchers on MO does not like the "Shiny new profiles", SE should take this serious and give them the possibility to opt out of this new feature. Also, as I personally got the impression, most people (including those that newly arrive) are on MO for doing more serious things than "badge-hunting"... – Dilaton Sep 24 '15 at 14:07
• – jeq Sep 24 '15 at 15:02
• – jeq Sep 24 '15 at 15:18
• @Dilaton re "Should it be the case" If you read closely you will see that the main proposal was to try and see if there is an actual major concern. The original discussion was mainly based on a blog post about the new sites not any actual expanded experience with them. Now, personally, I did not like the style of that blog post that much either, but the new sites are quite alright. Some things are better, maybe some are worse. But in any case I really cannot imagine that it will be an actual problem for MO, except if one decides to make it one for the "fun" in it. – user9072 Sep 24 '15 at 17:33
• Like Andy, I'm sad about adding an extra click to get to "all activity" which is by far the main thing I use userpages for. – Noah Snyder Sep 24 '15 at 18:00
• @quid: "the new sites are quite alright". Well, that's an opinion. And, perhaps it is the majority opinion at the sites where it has been implemented that you are familiar with, but it doesn't mean it will be a majority opinion here. We'll have to see I guess. "I really cannot imagine that it will be an actual problem for MO, except if one decides to make it one for the "fun" in it." Is that to say that if a lot of people here decide they don't like it, then they don't really mean it but are just being resistant or difficult just for the "fun of it"? What makes you so sure? – Todd Trimble Sep 24 '15 at 19:22
• @ToddTrimble well, yes, it is my opinion there, the sentence even starts with "Now, personally". The reason why I am quite confident that it is not an actual problem is that the change is minor and tangential. It is not so much that there is a majority opinion of whatever form somewhere I noticed, it is just that it seems like pretty much a non-issue. And a main concern here seems to be an "extra click." Fine, I even partly agree. But can this be an actual problem? My point is, whether we "like" this more or less is not really important for the actual functioning of the site. – user9072 Sep 24 '15 at 19:51
• @ToddTrimble when interpreting the votings on this (and other) meta discussions as representing the opinion of the MO community, the potentially "diluting" impact of the association bonus might be worth keeping in mind... – Dilaton Sep 24 '15 at 21:50
• @Dilaton Right; thanks. I'm not too fussed about the comment voting etc., since we have no way of judging where it's coming from or how casual/serious it is. I am however interested in hearing from those committed MO users who have thoughts they'd like to share. – Todd Trimble Sep 24 '15 at 22:03
• @KurtisBeavers: Wouldn't it be possible to make the layout of the user profile page a bit more flexible, such that one can hide unwanted items (e.g. Sections "Reputation", "Badges", etc.) and arrange / resize the others as one wishes to? – Stefan Kohl Sep 24 '15 at 22:38
• @StefanKohl that's an interesting idea worth considering. It would take some time to implement such a feature. A big part of the upcoming site update is to rework the underlying framework so that we can respond more easily to such feature requests and deploy them across the growing network seamlessly. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 24 '15 at 23:02
• I just want to say it's a good time to be alive – Alec Teal Oct 9 '15 at 9:32

On the search results page, many questions appear to have white-on-grey rep counts, which is very difficult to read. I'm not sure what information this is meant to convey, but it is basically illegible and should probably be changed.

• The intended information seems this: the ones with purely gray back-ground appear to be answers (not questions) and those with the white number are those that are accepted answers. But certainly I agree the color should be changed; indeed this seems very similar/related to a problem I reported. – user9072 Sep 26 '15 at 0:00
• Thanks. And yes, I had seen your post, but that one was marked "status-completed", whereas this problem is still there. – Joel David Hamkins Sep 26 '15 at 0:09
• I agree; I did not mean to imply this post is redundant. – user9072 Sep 26 '15 at 0:13
• A fix for this is on it's way. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 28 '15 at 12:44
• @Kurtis: Now there is no visible distinction (to me, maybe?) for accepted answers. What's wrong with the different background color that worked so well before? – Asaf Karagila Sep 28 '15 at 23:41
• @AsafKaragila I'm not sure I understand what you mean. There's a distinction for accepted answers on the home page that uses the old background colors. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 29 '15 at 1:31
• @Kurtis: But not on the search dialog. – Asaf Karagila Sep 29 '15 at 7:32

On the main site the following are too large.

2. "share/cite/..." buttons

3. "Edited by ..."

4. "Add a comment" and "Start a bounty" are the same size, and should also be a bit smaller.

The horizontal line at the bottom is also a bit weird.

• If this is changed maybe "Add comment" and "Add bounty" should be adapted too? (I agree these things are large, but maybe not too large, whence the "if.") – user9072 Sep 26 '15 at 0:09
• Yes, you're right. I didn't notice those two. – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 0:09
• It should be added that on meta, the font size is fine. – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 0:32
• Tangentially,what also changed fontwise (I think) as on math.se, is that the comment input (on main) is now no longer a mono-spaced font. Do "we" care? (I don't.) – user9072 Sep 26 '15 at 0:35

As suggested by quid I am reposting here my question

I've got new interface and I like it, but there is something strange:

Some numbers are supposed to be there, right? They are present on other StackExchange sites with this interface

• Good catch! We will fix this in the next production build. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 25 '15 at 17:17

As far as I can tell in the list of questions, questions with accepted answers do not look any different from question with just answers anymore. Before the change the former where dark green and the latter light green. Now both seem light green (and unanswered ones were and are red).

(This applies to the meta-site too.)

• Found the bug. This will be fixed soon. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 25 '15 at 17:36
• Many thanks for the quick reaction to this issue, and the nice update more generally. – user9072 Sep 25 '15 at 18:00

The new site logo is slightly blurry at default zoom:

(Screenshot scaled up by 200% in GIMP and freehand circles added to highlight the blurry parts.)

I guess I can't complain much, since the old PNG logo also had anti-aliasing artifacts around the box:

But it would be nice to fix this anyway, especially since it's not hard — just round the polygon corners to pixel boundaries:

--- sprites.old.svg 2015-09-30 13:34:28.517753555 +0300
+++ sprites.svg 2015-09-30 13:33:19.329754340 +0300
@@ -191,8 +191,8 @@
<stop  offset="0" style="stop-color:#666564"/>
<stop  offset="1" style="stop-color:#F28720"/>
-   <polygon id="bracket" class="st24" points="-1154,470.9 -1154,472.2 -1154,475 -1154,516.1 -1154,518.7 -1154,520.2 -1015.9,520.2
-       -1011.7,520.2 -1011.7,516.1 -1011.7,512.7 -1015.9,512.7 -1015.9,516.1 -1149.9,516.1 -1149.9,475 -1015.9,475 -1015.9,484.1
-       -1011.7,484.1 -1011.7,475 -1011.7,472.2 -1011.7,470.9   "/>
+   <polygon id="bracket" class="st24" points="-1154,471 -1154,472 -1154,475 -1154,516 -1154,516 -1154,520 -1016,520
+       -1012,520 -1012,516 -1012,513 -1016,513 -1016,516 -1150,516 -1150,475 -1016,475 -1016,484
+       -1012,484 -1012,475 -1012,472 -1012,471     "/>
</g>
</svg>


(As a bonus, you'll save 60 bytes of bandwidth on each request for the sprite sheet. :D)

Ps. Comparing the old and the new logo, I also notice that the kerning between the "f" and the "l" is slightly looser in the new version. It's not too bad, but the extra blank space does somewhat break the flow (pun not intended, really!) of the text out of the box. Could the gap in the "fl" perhaps be tightened a little bit — maybe not quite as tight as in the old logo, but a pixel or two closer?

• @KurtisBeavers: The main site logo still looks blurry to me -- in fact, blurrier than before. (The meta logo is sharp, though.) Also, looks like the sprite sheet now contains a bunch of Adobe Illustrator PGF data that's useless on the web. You might want to run it through an SVG optimizer. – Ilmari Karonen Oct 5 '15 at 21:10
• Are your sure that you're not just caching the old logo on the main site? It looks crisp to me. – Kurtis Beavers Oct 5 '15 at 21:24
• @KurtisBeavers: Possible, but that seems unlikely to me. The sprite sheet I'm surrently seeing on the main site has the URL img/sprites.svg?v=856fae355837, is 54856 bytes long, and running md5sum -b on it gives the hash ca73de6b02f568e1b555d8521b76c43d. And it looks like this when rendered in Firefox (and like this in Chromium). – Ilmari Karonen Oct 5 '15 at 21:34

It is not clear from the text of the "question" above what differences from the old layout qualify as bugs which should be reported, since "feel" is a very subjective thing.

In any case, I noticed that the font sizes of certain elements seem to be smaller than they were previously. In particular the size of the tags under questions as well as perhaps the related questions linked in the sidebar are now nearing illegibility for me.

I would prefer if they could be made larger again.

• This is intentional. We did some work to normalize font sizes on tags across the network so that features like adding and saving favorite tags wouldn't break on each site when we release updates. In other non-common areas we tried to maintain the current font size whenever possible. – Kurtis Beavers Sep 25 '15 at 17:40
• If your comment means that the font sizes won't be changed back, then I guess I will have to look into custom userstyles or something like that. – j.c. Sep 25 '15 at 17:46
• Depending on what you want to do exactly the browser-zoom could be a simple option. – user9072 Sep 25 '15 at 18:05

Free form flag has the same problem as Math.SE, and maybe other sites as well (I don't have accounts so I can't check). The textbox overflows to the right of the form.

I posted the same problem on the parallel meta.Math.SE thread, including a screenshot and suggestions for how to fix it.

• And still "No-repro here. Details might be needed." :-) Okay, let us skip the details this time. But in fact this was the first thing I checked when trying out the new design. – user9072 Sep 26 '15 at 0:06
• You think it's my browser? Firefox 40 on Arch Linux 64bit. – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 0:08
• Yes, I think it depends. I do not have this problem now. But I did see the issue at some point. – user9072 Sep 26 '15 at 0:17
• This only happens with FireFox on some linux distributions (not all) - fixing those means breaking elsewhere. – Oded Sep 26 '15 at 8:51
• @Oded: Great Scott! You're right. Are there any suggestions as to what causes this breakage? (Because it certainly means that there is a bug report to be made on the Arch repository, and that perhaps this sort of problems can appear on other sites as well.) – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 8:55
• I've never been able to find the root cause - some shared libraries are most likely to problem (specific versions probably causing the issue on FireFox). – Oded Sep 26 '15 at 10:20
• @Oded: That's a real bummer. I had a similar issue with a qt5 library before (where the bug was app specific and distribution specific, and maybe even computer specific). But apparently I'm not the only one who suffers from this one with the text box. Right? – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 11:13
• @AsafKaragila - yes, this comes up every now and then. Which is how I know it is isolated to FireFox and some distributions. Strangely, it can vary between versions of the same distribution :( – Oded Sep 26 '15 at 11:55
• @Oded: Weird. Super weird. Someone should look into that. In any case, how is the explicit width parameter breaking things elsewhere? (As I suggest in the meta.MSE counterpart of this post) – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 12:06
• It happens in several popup that have text areas - the explicit width is ignored in the affected browsers. And unfortunately, the "columns" ends up being rendered differently on different browsers, so just changing that doesn't work either - I have tried in a couple of different affected distributions (removing the width and applying a different "columns"). A value that worked perfectly on one didn't on another (this seems to be based on the font being used to render - that's what determines the "columns" width). – Oded Sep 26 '15 at 12:11
• @Oded: So... you're saying that short of writing a GM script to fix this problem, there's no likely way that this will be fixed for me, unless I switch browser, distribution or roll the dice again to install/update/remove libraries and fonts? – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 12:13
• That's seems to be the current situation, yes :( – Oded Sep 26 '15 at 12:15
• @Oded: Well, then. I guess it's time I learn how to do these things with GM, then. – Asaf Karagila Sep 26 '15 at 12:15
• I will take another look at this - there is some modern CSS that is finally supported across browsers that might help. – Oded Sep 26 '15 at 12:17
• Can you give this a test or two? Should be fixed across all sites now. – Oded Oct 2 '15 at 15:04

Horizontal lines in tabs on the profile page are misaligned:

The screenshots are from Firefox 14.0.1 on Linux, but as I checked on another machine, it’s also broken in FF 26.

In the "related" questions list on the side, the number of votes for questions with accepted answers is "white on gray" and for me almost impossible to see. (For those without it is "black on gray" and nice).

[This is minor; possibly not worth a new answer, but since the other is already "completed" I still added a new one.]

Tag Wiki is shown inside a bordered box. The border is way too thick.

The label of the next privilege (the same is true for "next badge" (not shown here) by extension) is not vertically centered. Changing the padding from 4px to 2px solves this problem.

Similarly the silver bullet (word play!) next to the "top tag" is misaligned as well. There canceling the padding, or the position attribute solves the problem entirely. I'm not sure which one is preferable, though.

• I'm having a difficult time reproducing this. Which browser/system are you using? – Kurtis Beavers Oct 1 '15 at 19:59
• This screenshot was taken on FF 40, on Arch Linux 64bit. I also can't reproduce this on FF 40 on Windows 8.1 32bit, though. – Asaf Karagila Oct 1 '15 at 20:25

It has been said by Asaf Karagila that "The horizontal line at the bottom is also a bit weird". I think the line is fine as it allows at one glance to see where the comments start. BUT if there are more than 1 answers, those should also be separated by other horizontal lines, maybe thicker and/or longer to the left (like the line unter the title).

• Just to get clear: you propose that the existing separating line between answers (that is not so visible) is made more visible? (Or do you propose some other lines.) – user9072 Sep 28 '15 at 14:54
• @quid wow, there you go... Reading your 'not so visible', I decided to get my eyes really close to the screen (and I do have a big screen) - and for the first time ever I have noticed that there does exist a FINE, moreover probably light grey, line there. So I'd say that "not so visible" is a very diplomatic way of saying "virtually invisible"!! – Wolfgang Sep 28 '15 at 16:18
• I am glad I could help with that discovery. :-) – user9072 Sep 28 '15 at 16:19
• well, but the line as is is virtually useless, I suppose you agree. :-) – Wolfgang Sep 28 '15 at 16:20
• Maybe it has some subconscious effect. ;-) – user9072 Sep 28 '15 at 16:23