Greasy Fork is available in English.

Discussions » Greasy Fork Feedback

How can we get the old GreasyFork layout back?

§
Posted: 16-06-2014
Edited: 16-06-2014

How can we get the old GreasyFork layout back?

Why in the world did the Greasy Fork's layout change?! It's terrible now!

Aghh, the previous table-layout was a model of great design -- lots of information (200 scripts per page) laid out in an organized, easy to read, efficiently designed layout.

Now, however, it breaks nearly all rules of good, clean design, and is *significantly* more tedious to read through. It looks like handfuls of spaghetti thrown up against a wall, with broken and disjointed horizontal reading lines, wildly unbalanced texting, rapidly alternating font sizes, bolds and links, and an atrocious amount of unused whitespace to the right. When I first saw it, I thought for sure NoScript must've been preventing external CSS from loading. I was stunned when I saw that it's not.

For example -- the titles. Why would we need these *massive* script titles, 10+ font-size bigger than the other information? It now leaves the most relevant information the size of a legal footnote! If a user doesn't already know the exact script they're looking for, script titles are typically useless information anyway, with maybe one or two words that relate to actual functionality of the script. The description is much more useful for deciding, but the titles are now so massive, bolded, colored, and domineering, that they rip the eye away from the useful information, making it arduous to read through.

Can we please go back to the old layout? It's what made GreasyFork shine above the rest of Userscript competitors for the crown. If refused, can someone at least post the previous layout/CSS so we can use it ourselves? This new layout is unbearable -- bright white background, massive titles, painfully contrasting title colors (like spotlights in the eyes), severely disjointed layout flow, etc.

§
Posted: 16-06-2014
Edited: 16-06-2014

I apologize for the frustration, but I just spent a couple days proposing a design-makeover for another Userscript alternative site, OpenJS, whose design + layout were horrendous. They've since incorporated a number of changes, but it still pales in comparison to GreasyFork's previous layout.

I understand everyone wants to make everything look fancily pretty and spaced out these days, but simplicity *always* reigns. And when you have hundreds to thousands of entries for users to sift through, a table/grid layout like forums is *far* more useful than a restaurant menu layout.

§
Posted: 16-06-2014

Not sure what you're talking about. Greasy Fork never had a layout matching the one you describe. There were never 200 scripts per page by default, they were never in a table layout... The browse scripts layout has not significantly changed since the site launched. Maybe you had a script/style that changed it?

§
Posted: 16-06-2014

I do think that the current layout of Greasy Fork has a lot of wasted space. The entire right side of my screen is white most of the time... but I don't recall Greasy Fork looking as you describe. Are you thinking of http://userscripts.org:8080 , MonkeyGuts, or OpenUserJS (all similar sites which Greasy Fork is superior to?)

Or perhaps as JasonBarnabe mentions you might've had a style installed.

§
Posted: 16-06-2014
Edited: 16-06-2014
Not sure what you're talking about. Greasy Fork never had a layout matching the one you describe. There were never 200 scripts per page by default, they were never in a table layout... The browse scripts layout has not significantly changed since the site launched. Maybe you had a script/style that changed it?

Strange. Something must've changed on Greasy Fork's side, because I definitely didn't have any custom styles I was using. In addition to the above, there was also an "Options" button that opened a box with a number of helpful configuration settings. I was able to create custom filter links up top (like replacing baidu.com with Google.com).

Could it have been an inadvertent peek of some experimental layout that perhaps one of the developers tried out for a little bit?

EDIT:

Aha! I must be drunk. I see what's up -- I'm using a different browser than I normally use, and just realized that, while I didn't have any custom CSS styles, I had installed a custom Greasy Fork script at some point, which completely escaped memory:

https://greasyfork.org/scripts/43-greasy-fork-firefox

I must've added it one night before using Greasy Fork for the first time (externally linked from somewhere), as I haven't previously seen what looks to be the standard layout.

Anyway, the script is back and everything is again right in the world :) My utmost apologies!

(For the record, this custom script's layout changes are *fantastic*, and make Greasy Fork a breeze to use, able to very quickly assimilate information of a large number of scripts, in addition to some very useful customization options. If you're ever open to some design/layout changes, I highly propose implementing these!)

Post reply

Sign in to post a reply.