Alternate Styling for Discourse

This comes actually very close to the NG look… not bad either

Is there a reason for resistance to a slight change in background color?

No, in fact I did one with a background color change, and posted the CSS for it.

1 Like

Ah, yes. Missed that. Is there a reason this shouldn’t be a core feature? Is there resistance to highlighting quotes from @sam etc? It’s not a huge deal, just feels odd to not have more built-in differentiation. Doesn’t seem like a feature that should require installing plug-ins for your browser…

Sure, it should be something we change. But there’s no sense having Discourse change it to something we can’t all agree on! That’s why I’m changing things here and seeing what people react to.

1 Like

So far, my vote is for your example with shading and a hard line on the left. Works for me. :smiley:
(PS: less of a fan of the italics, but that’s ok)

We are open to improving the styling of quotes in core css, I follow that it may be considered a bit too subtle now.

As a general rule both @discourse and me prefer indentation over boxes within boxes within boxes.

Just need to present a bunch of alternate designs on and see which the community / us like best.

You mean like a sort of tree structure? :wink: JUST KIDDING

Here’s my latest hack: a spare, white CSS that models the thread display after the GMail interface. I’ve posted it at so anybody can play:

I like this style for the most part. I found the place where the text size is 80% made the text too small for me. I changed it to 120%. Now I can read it. Just sayin’. I’m well aware that nothing is written in stone. I have a wish that there be more color differentiation between the read and unread topic names. It’s too subtle for me.

1 Like

I take it back. I didn’t realize that I had more than one style enabled. I still changed it so it is 100% instead of 80%.

I also wish that the color differentiation be made less subltle.

I’ve gotten to the point where making these style hacks with Stylish is getting too difficult. I have spent a total of about 12 hours trying to understand the styles coming down from the server, and there are lots of things that make skinning difficult.

I am confident that, eventually, Discourse will make skinning and restyling Discourse much easier. Until then, I’m not going to put much more effort into this.

1 Like

That was my gut feeling about the stylish thing. I’m happy to make suggestions and discuss the looks of the forum, but I really don’t want to get into a place where I’m skinning it myself.

1 Like

Said the man who makes a 3D program that deals with arbitrary vectors, and odd words like “NURBS”… Imagine what your bank account would look like if people turned away from Rhino after only 12 hours because they found it difficult to create exactly what they had in mind… :wink:

Exactly. One of the big pushes we’ve had internally lately is to focus only on things that are core to our business.

Some things we’re no longer doing:

  • Running our own email server
  • Writing and maintaining our own bug tracking system
  • Bringing up new servers in our Seattle office; instead running things in various cloud services.
  • Writing code to massively customize forums so they interact nicely with newsgroups (yes, we tried, it never made the light of day)

That way, we can continue to use our intellectual and financial resources to improve Rhino in ways that are significant to you and other users. That’s what we really want to be focused on. Sure, we could write an awesome discussion platform. We have some really smart people doing insanely difficult stuff. But we’ve chosen to make the best 3D modeling platform on the planet - and that’s where we’d like to stay focused.


Having great conversations with our users is core to our business. Writing, maintaining, and styling the system that we use to do that is not.

1 Like

Oh, and as I always expect you folks to do, I’ve logged a request to make it easier for me to hack the styling of Discourse. I know they want this to be easier, it’s just not the next thing on their radar:

Does this mean we’re going back to the newsgroup? :smile:

We? Not me!

1 Like