New UI - Aesthetic feedback

[LummoxJR]

Repeating my survey answers:

Standard view (current) is the winner, at least with my style cleanups. There's basically nothing wrong with it that removing a ton of padding can't fix, and making the descriptions up to 5 lines. I'd be okay with moving the category line just above the bottom.

Classic view was okay but the bigger images and slightly bigger description font of Standard are actually really helpful. And even though I preferred full dates for last update and upload date, having them on two lines is just a waste. It's time to let this view go.

Simple view would be a nice option for some people. I didn't like it because it had too little information, but if it's an added option I think some people would really like it. Don't make this the only choice.

List view shows way too few mods on a page. It looks clean but it's also even more wasteful of space than all of the other changes. A reimagining of this where the image is to the left of the description and other info, but it was presented in 2-3 columns (or more on ultrawide displays) wouldn't be bad. But again this should not be the only option.

Standard view needs to stay. If Simple and (modified) List are added as choices for users who want them, that's good. But if only one view is to exist, for maintainability reasons, it should be Standard.

However, (I didn't mention this in the survey), I don't think you're limited to a one-size-fits-all solution or having to maintain multiple views. Improving the CSS for the mod tiles to give a functional class (.mod-thumbnail, .mod-title, .mod-author, etc.) to every element of the tile would make it possible to switch between views easily by just changing a class. The individual items in a tile could be moved to anywhere via CSS's grid layout, hidden, or even made visible by expanding on hover.

[jaeenox]

9 hours ago, LummoxJR said:

List view shows way too few mods on a page. It looks clean

That's the whole point!  It's a website.  There is infinite space available.  If the effort of hitting  a next page button is too much, there is no fixing this website.

[LummoxJR]

2 hours ago, jaeenox said:

That's the whole point!  It's a website.  There is infinite space available.  If the effort of hitting  a next page button is too much, there is no fixing this website.

The "way too few" part is the problem. It isn't about the next page button because you can already customize how many mods you see per delivered page, but the problem is per viewport. The effort of having to scroll down to see the next batch of just a few mods can and does get tiresome, so fitting more mods in the viewport is objectively to the good; it just comes with a balancing act of also showing all the other relevant information.

The display of each mod looks clean, yes, but it also leaves enough negative space for entire civilizations to take up residence; it fights the design imperative to maximize visual choice to the user. I think some people might like the general concept, especially if that horizontal layout were moved into more of a limited grid. But it's still too low on density of mods per viewport; we're talking like three or four per scroll in its current form, which is insane.

With my current tweaks to the Standard tile view, I can get about 12 mods showing per scroll: 6 columns, roughly 1.9 rows. I'd prefer if I could get that to 2.2 rows for ease of view, but it seems to strike a good balance as far as still having larger thumbnails and very readable titles. 12 mods per scroll is a pretty decent number. Lower than 10 would be annoying to work with.

Anyway like I said there doesn't have to be a one-size-fits-all. With some small tweaks to the markup of the Standard view to provide functional classes for CSS, and importantly to remove all the Tailwind BS like .pb-2, .space-y-2, etc., it'd be very straightforward to restyle the entire grid/list into multiple formats. CSS grids allow huge flexibility in rearranging elements of the page, if they're not hindered by the markup. Currently the markup is poor because it's saddled with unnecessary nested elements and classes that are little better than inline styles, so that's a limiting factor to restyling and rearranging.

[jaeenox]

1 hour ago, LummoxJR said:

The effort of having to scroll down to see the next batch of just a few mods can and does get tiresome

I guess I have an unusually strong index finger!  It has never been an "effort" to scroll down a webpage:)

[LummoxJR]

2 hours ago, jaeenox said:

I guess I have an unusually strong index finger!  It has never been an "effort" to scroll down a webpage:)

That's fine for you but you're being too dismissive of the effect this has on all users. Anyone with repetitive strain injury will want to avoid scrolling more than they need to. Yes, this does add up, and it gets annoying very fast. A design that puts only three or four items on the visible part of the page is simply unworkable.

Moreover, being able to see more items on-screen at once, balanced of course with making sure the info presented is adequate to the user's needs, is of paramount importance to any design.

[jaeenox]

2 hours ago, LummoxJR said:

repetitive strain injury

Please tell me you are joking!  How about we program the website for the 99.9999999999999% of users who do not have this "disease".

[LummoxJR]

4 hours ago, jaeenox said:

Please tell me you are joking!  How about we program the website for the 99.9999999999999% of users who do not have this "disease".

Again, you're being needlessly dismissive. Even people without these issues don't want to have to hit pagedown every time they've looked at just 3 or 4 items.

[HeyYou]

15 hours ago, LummoxJR said:

That's fine for you but you're being too dismissive of the effect this has on all users. Anyone with repetitive strain injury will want to avoid scrolling more than they need to. Yes, this does add up, and it gets annoying very fast. A design that puts only three or four items on the visible part of the page is simply unworkable.

Moreover, being able to see more items on-screen at once, balanced of course with making sure the info presented is adequate to the user's needs, is of paramount importance to any design.

Where are you finding this mythical 'list view'????

[Filipi]

On 4/28/2025 at 5:37 AM, LummoxJR said:

Standard view (current) is the winner, at least with my style cleanups. There's basically nothing wrong with it that removing a ton of padding can't fix, and making the descriptions up to 5 lines. I'd be okay with moving the category line just above the bottom.

Classic view was okay but the bigger images and slightly bigger description font of Standard are actually really helpful. And even though I preferred full dates for last update and upload date, having them on two lines is just a waste. It's time to let this view go.

Standard view needs to stay. If Simple and (modified) List are added as choices for users who want them, that's good. But if only one view is to exist, for maintainability reasons, it should be Standard.

Have you never thought about pressing Ctrl and + on your keyboard? It makes everything bigger and presumably more helpful.

And seeing how the new view is adamant in displaying less tiles on the same page, with a classic view you get more tiles and they're bigger after zooming in.

Unfortunately Ctrl and - don't work as well since it shrinks the site horizontally, but zooming in should work wonders. If everyone who needed larger text and images knew how to use a web browser, no redesign of the entire website would be needed. Which came at the cost of those who find the reduced information density a large downgrade in usability.

[HeyYou]

1 hour ago, Filipi said:

Have you never thought about pressing Ctrl and + on your keyboard? It makes everything bigger and presumably more helpful.

And seeing how the new view is adamant in displaying less tiles on the same page, with a classic view you get more tiles and they're bigger after zooming in.

Unfortunately Ctrl and - don't work as well since it shrinks the site horizontally, but zooming in should work wonders. If everyone who needed larger text and images knew how to use a web browser, no redesign of the entire website would be needed. Which came at the cost of those who find the reduced information density a large downgrade in usability.

Control and mouse wheel will zoom in/out as well.