Hot answers tagged

4

There are currently no plans to update the look of Area 51. See What's going on with Area 51?


3

The formatting issues with the topbar have been fixed.


3

I would recommend deferring this decision until after the beta starts and we can observe how some product design questions "in the wild" are received, how well they are answered, etc. If it turns out they're not a great fit for a general engineering site we can have a meta discussion about whether they should be off-topic, and consider a separate A51 ...


2

The discussion listing embedded in the proposal is equivalent to 'active' tab on our main Q&A. The purpose is to show when new activity occurs within a thread (latest responder). If that listing always showed the original author, no one would know to go check out the thread when something is added. It would be a static display. We intentionally show the ...


2

This is marked as 'status completed' - but in my interpretation of WCAG the menu bar here is a disaster in terms of color contrast. I think that all the grey text, especially the "Stackexchange" and reputation count, but also the marginally lighter badge counts seem to be failures on level AA of WCAG, never mind level AAA. The situation is worse on the ...


1

This is consistent with the behavior of our our per-site metas. On the meta sites (as with the Area 51 discussions), the reputation is not linked. Since discuss.area51 has no reputation on its own, this is the desired behavior. The 'reputation' tab is a main-site function only, so there's nothing really to link to from the "discussion site" point of view. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible