Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot CSS Redesign Winner Announced
The winner of the contest is Alex Bendiken. He will receive a new laptop as well as bragging rights as the creator of the new look of Slashdot. You can see his winning design in a near complete form now. Feel free to comment on any compatibility issues. We plan to take this live in the next few days. There will undoubtedly be a few minor glitches, but please submit bug reports and we'll sort it out as fast as possible. Also congratulations to Peter Lada, our runner up. He gets $250 credit at ThinkGeek. Thanks to everyone who participated- it was a lot of fun.
I really like the current look of Slashdot. What was the point in changing it? Just to change it?
~S
Blocky, too much wasted space and those same colors.
Mmmm.. Donuts
That is a very crisp look. it still feels like slashdot, just fresh.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Id just like to congratulate Mr. Alex Bendiken on a job well done and that his design was also one of my favorite designs throughout the contest. I cant wait till the design is rolled out onto the live server.
GL HF!
Welcome our new CSS overlord, Alex Bendiken.
steal it. Thanks.
Many of the entries were just too busy and distracting, or very Digg-ish (i.e. looked like a soul-less link farm). The winning design IMHO doesn't muck with things too much, but gives an aesthetically pleasing facelift to Slashdot. The only problem I could see with it is that the "Slashdot" logo (presumably should appear in the upper left) didn't show up on any browser I tried.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It looks nice, I guess. But I really like slashdot as-is. Biggest complaint is the new location of the 'Read More...' link after stories. I'll be searching for it for a month or two before I get it down to muscle memory like the current one.
Unpleasantries.
Yuck. The main body text is in a sans-serif font. Hard to read.
Compare the preview link to this PNG thumbnail from the author's website:n tent/uploads/2006/05/slashdot.png
http://summit.makalumedia.com.nyud.net:8080/wp-co
The images for all the rounded corners appear to be missing.
here is a laptop you may promptly sell to pay for your bandwidth bill
Just my 2 cents, but I think the use of a downward-pointing triangle on the left-most section headers is a poor choice. My natural tendancy (which may differ from yours) is to click on the triangle, expecting a drop-down menu. Instead, it does nothing in Firefox 1.5.0.3.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I actually like the runner-up's design better. The winner's is simple and clean but blocky and unfriendly. The runner-up's has a more friendly feel to it. I guess it's all the sharp corners vs. the rounded ones.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What about the light mode?
/. stories and comments. IMHO, it is the best way to view /. with no mess and a minimum of garish color schemes. The only thing it lacks is the Poll slashbox.
/. and I'm worried that it'll be removed as an option.
I have Simple Design, Low Bandwidth, and No Icons checked in my preferences. This gives me a very streamlined, efficient way to read
The winner's entry doesn't show this view of
Please calm my fears! Tell me light mode will be part of the new look.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
i like this design but pink was best evr ! bring bak the ponies :)
xx
bring bak the ponies!!
Slashdot'll never catch up to digg at this rate :(
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Looks to be the same to me, save a smaller harder to read font. A lot of other entries looked a lot more pleasant (no, I didn't submit, so I'm not bitter). I know Taco wanted the site to be different yet the same, but I think this is far too much on the "same" path. Not all change is bad, Taco.
today is spelling optional day.
I wonder if Peter's design going to be used as-is, or if Taco will make a few tweaks to it first. For example, Alex's design incorporates quotes as separate, indented paragraphs. Slashdot not only lacks this capability today, but Taco himself pointed out that it is not feasible given how much the quotes and editor comments tend to be mixed. Perhaps he's changed his mind?
Seperating the quotes does not require a change in the page structure. Right now all quotes are already in italics, so all he had to do was re-define the italics style with a border and some padding on the left.
-bradly
No offense to the design winner, but too often CSS styles websites just end up a bunch of gradient filled rounded corner boxes. Its like the CSS community thinks with one brain cell. The collapsing side menu is a nice touch though. I would hope that the state of the menu will persist between sessions. Having something collapse or expand is annoying if it resets on every visit to the page (i.e. no point in offering it then). Also, I hope you bring back the running tape of the last few article icons at the top of the page. At a glance I can decide if I should bother to read slashdot or wait for an interesting icon to appear first.
Overall though, it is only a cosmetic change to Slashdot, and I don't think there is any reason why Slashdot cannot start adding theme support to their website. Why fixate on one theme? Why not take the top 5 designs and offer them in the preferences. That IS of course the beauty of designing a website with CSS. With one change of the CSS link, you can have your website easily look completely different.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
But at least it's using CSS throughout, so it can be customized more easily. The current CSS use is quite haphazard, so while this new look isn't very impressive on the surface, it's a vast improvement underneath.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Some of us have a real hard time reading sans-serif fonts. I also like the existing soft edges a lot better than the harshness of the new design. But like everything else in this world, no one seems to give a damn what I think.
This design is too busy and too dense. You need to put some more whitespace in here. It is hard to focus on just the story summaries, for example, without feeling encroached on by the other elements.
Also, News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters is too tall and thin. It is difficult to read and distracting.
I wish we had something a little more fresh. This design it a little too loyal to the legacy design.
I do appreciate the move to Sans Serif fonts, however.
I like it. It has a nice clean look. I'm glad too see that the italics and serifs are gone. They are hard to read on many displays.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
P-P-P-Powerbook!
Humorless sig goes here.
When it comes to web design, you don't always want to come up with something really different. In this case, Slashdot wasn't broken, and he decided to not fix what wasn't broken. He redesigned it just enough to make it something new and improved, but not enough to make it so different that people will feel uncomfortable with. To extend the house analogy, when redesigning your house, you would want to stick with something similar to what you're already comfortable with.
Register the editry.
My main concern, though, is that these "advanced" interfaces are making Slashdot harder and harder to read in browsers like Links. It used to be totally text-browser friendly, but that is no longer the case. Sad for a so-called techie site...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
No title. Less slick than Kuro5hin. Lame.
Here it is in all of its incomplete and incompatible glory. http://jiggit.com/slashdot/newSlashdot.htm Congrats to the winner.
Personally, I feel the design was quite well thought-out. Here's what I noticed:
Here's what I think could be improved upon:
I understand that this is how things are on the current site, and simply persisted in the new graphical makeover.
Can we get rid of the all uppercase Slashdot slogan? "NEWS FOR NERDS. STUFF THAT MATTERS." I don't want to get yelled at everytime I go to Slashdot. Just make it normal "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
Why not have a selection of different CSS styles to choose from when you are logged in? That way people can select themselves what they like most.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
absofuckinglutely stupid unless you're blind and using a screen reader
You greatly underestimate how much like Work Slashdot looks in an 80x25 terminal with amber or green on black text.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I often read slashdot without signing in, doing so only for making posts.
Partly because it's more convenient, partly because.. you know, I don't always want to be signed in.
There's been a few comments about minor preferences, such as whether the body uses serif or sans-serif. These kind of things should be easily customized without having to sign in.
So: It would be nice if there was a way of choosing a style sheet or changing minor preferences by specifying it in the URL, so I could simply bookmark it. For example: http://www.slashdot.org/?style=ponies&font=serif
I mean, would it be THAT hard to do?
I see why it's necessary to choose a good, simple default design, but it would be fantastic if it was possible to bookmark your favorite stylesheet this way, being able to choose from a large catalogue of people's designs. Imagine every user could register designs and you could choose someone's stylesheet by specifying it in the URL: http://www.slashdot.org/?style=user_radarsat1
That way people would be submitting new designs all the time, it would be a great way to generate some creativity on the site.
I dunno..
Anyways, just an idea.
I've seen the two designs that came one-two... and they're not quite space efficent.
Take the winner and compare with the origional. The origional is tight... some say too tight. There is little or no spacing around the non-story text (titles, menus, etc).
The winner is very like the origional, except that the spacing around the titles, menus, basically everything that isn't story text, is very loose. The spacing is much much larger, and wastes screen estate IMO. It's unfortunately also rather plain, plainer than the origional.
Now take the runner-up. It takes all the browser width, which is popular in most sites now. It has a better spacing around the non-story text, but still could use some tightening up. It also looks much better -- it has the shiner look.
I think being tighter (more like Google's GMail) yet stylish, will help.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
You guys have obviously never been hacked.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
All true. I wasn't necessarily lashing out. I sometimes am frustrated by attention to things, as you put it, "not broken".
So, when there are things potentially needing fixing I'd rather see energy spent there. I haven't gotten mod points now for well over two years. Turns out, after being laid off from a job of 21 years, my available extra time to be MORE active on slashdot pushed me past +1 sigma in the slashdot activity -- slashdot picks modders from the norm.
Considering I do alright in my karma, etc., I think the modding system is broken (and there is evidence many others think so) and wish they'd redesign that.
(The telco that laid me off (sorry, can't give any clues in your qwest to guess which one) -- I was on the team that created their public facing web page. I can't begin to describe the discussions, time and energy spent over things like "this button is a little to brownish, it needs to be more yellowish". I was always the iconoclast, fighting to work on logic, database issues, but everyone wanted to be an artist.)
To the creator of the new design (in case he reads this): a "cursor: pointer" style would be nice, and possibly a hover attribute on the tag that has the section name, for those without internet explorer.
Everyone loves some sort of visual cue.
Looks good though.
The text on the buttons looks a little cramped in Opera 9 beta 1. screenshot
From the original article: "The winner will get a fancy laptop. We haven't picked the exact one yet, but it's going to be a good one- we're not cutting corners. You'll be able to choose from a MacBook Pro or else a bleeding edge Alienware laptop. We'll pick the specs when we pick a winner so you get whatever is supremely awesome, but valued up to US $4500. We'll also be offering a $250 runner up prize."
Changes in the CSS shouldn't affect in any way what you see in Links (assuming Links doesn't do much with CSS... haven't tried it in a while. w3m 4 life!!). Of course, some html changes were made it seems, but it looks mostly the same to me. As a frequent text browser user, the main thing that bugs me about slashdot is the glut of links that precede the main body. I don't care to scroll through those links every time.
Looking at the new design (out of text browser land), I will say it's slightly prettier than the current design. However it doesn't seem any more readable and abounds with 1 + 1 = 3 noise in the same way the current design does. People have been reading newspapers for ages, yet newspapers don't make every heading a heavy contrast stripe across the entire page or sharply delimit every margin... Is it because ink is expensive or because ink is distracting? I also would have liked an off-white background and unspecified font size and style of the main text for readability's sake. In my own modest web designing (home pages and such), I've come across a good rule of thumb: if the page is more readable in lynx, links, or w3m than it is in Firefox, then it needs work. The current slashdot is pretty darn readable in a text browser once you get past the ton of links at the top. I can't say I saw any CSS redesign entrants that improved upon that for readability. (Now if I was hanging slashdot on my wall, I might prefer one of the CSS redesigns... but I'm not; I'm reading it)
Rob didn't want something radical, he wanted an updating of slashdot itself; similar, but better. For everyone here who thinks it sucks and how dare Rob do something this screwed up to "your" site, go make a site and for your own community there! That's what Rob did 10 years ago.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
If you ahve to explain where the collapsable section is, it is not a good lay out.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"It doesn't give you a very good indication that there's any sort of functionality hooked into those headers."
You mean, aside from the arrows?
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
I'm honestly seeing no comparison to the Mac OS. Have you had any exposure to or experience with the Mac OS at any point? 'Cause I have, a few different times, and this design has precisely zero to do with anything Apple makes... Is it their Web site, which also uses a controversial white background? Or what?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Putting a re-design to a vote of Slashdot readers would be the ultimate example of design-by-committee, and would therefore result in the ultimate in useless, unreadable, un-navigable websites.
In my opinion, the second place entry is miles away from the first place, and quick frankly, rather poor. There is little contrast - everything just kinda blends into one... one blegh. It certainly looks as if it were designed by an engineer, not by a graphic/UI person - perhaps engineers like to look at the website equivalent of pudding all day.
If that was second place, I dread seeing those further down the line.
The redesign chosen is definitely an improvement over the current look.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
You have to click the section headers (don't click the Vendors link). It doesn't give you a very good indication that there's any sort of functionality hooked into those headers.
To many, this is an indication of bad design. (See affordance.)
Of course, the "bad" in this case refers to usability for new users, not to the visual appeal of the page. The former often takes a second seat to the latter.
Please just use the user's default font and font size! pleeeeease! That's one thing I always liked about slashdot. There is really no need to screw with the fonts.
Regarding the "read more" link: it is too far to the right. I have to move my mouse like 7 inches to reach it.
I have to agree with some earlier comments. The runnerup is far superior. Less busy, more compact, streamlined and just plain easier on the eyes.
Heck, why not just skin the site? It's CSS right? Which means content is divorced from layout. So why on earth would you not just implement both and let us choose? I'm sure most of us are using browsers which support it, you wouldn't even need to implement switching on the site itself.
An inability to do this would tend to suggest that CSS is not exactly being used well here.
I'm in the minority of people who actually likes the design and looks forward to using it. Way to go!
firestream.net
The purpose of CSS is not to make pages pretty. It's to make pages portable.
What do you think this is, 1999 or something ?
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
I don't see why it would be difficult to have multiple versions of the site, one of which could be a text browser-friendly one (didn't there used to be a twin page like that?).
Having multiple versions of the site starts to become a administator's nightmare because of the overhead of keeping all the various versions working. Less of a problem when the content is all pulled from a DB like Slashdot is.
But this is what XSLT is for - serve up the content in XML and have the browser apply the XSLT stylesheet client-side. This has the added side effect of reducing bandwidth usage since you're not shifting the styling and layout data over the network every time the page is loaded.
The icky problem with XSLT at the moment, is that whilest all the mainstream browsers (even IE) support it, there's no way for the server to tell whether the browser is capable since there is no header the browser is required to set if it is.
In any case, if your web site doesn't work in both modern browsers and text browsers then you must be truely clueless when it comes to web design.
Use elements that are applicable to the *type* of content (i.e. tables are used to output tabular data, not to position random stuff on the screen. Menus can be presented as unordered lists, etc.). Then style those elements to give you the visual effect you need. Text-only browsers can discard the styling data and they still get to see the content - the correct use of elements gives the browser good hints as to how to display the data. Small-screen devices such as PDAs can select a different stylesheet.
And if you're expecting everyone to have Javascript then your site is very badly broken - Javascript-only features cause serious usability problems (for example, they may force someone to open something in a pop-up window when they don't want to). Javascript is an *enhancement* - build your site without it and then if you want to add *optional* enhancements then write some Javascript that modifies the DOM tree to add hooks to the right elements.
Interestingly, if your corporate website doesn't meet the W3 accessibility guidelines then (depending on your location) you may be breaking the law - many parts of the world have laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against the disabled. These often extend to corporate websites and large organisations have been sued for sizable chunks of cash for ignoring these laws.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Looks great - to me, with good vision. But can't Slashdot seize the opportunity to improve the accessibility of the site for blind fellow geeks?
Looking at the HTML, here's two really simple things that would really help:
I develop a free web browser for blind people called WebbIE) but I think these suggestions would help JAWS and WindowEyes screenreader users, IBM Homepage Reader users and everyone with non-visual browsers. How about it? Show everyone how it should be done!
You're downplaying the original CSS redesign. Before the redesign, Slashdot was not anywhere near CSS/HTML spec compliant. The redesign accomplished 2 things:
- pages load faster due to smaller pages
- seperated most of the styling from the content (CSS)
- easier to maintain/modify
Don't downplay the original CSS redesign. While the front look may have not been altered much, a lot of changes went on behind the scenes.
oh FFS - text based browsers in 2006?
absofuckinglutely stupid
Why is it stupid? I frequently use eLinks because it's a whole lot faster than firing up a graphical browser (why exactly do I need graphics in order to read text news stories?).
I've also found myself using Elinks in an 80x25 console on a machine while waiting for it to install a Linux distro - it certainly helps pass the time. Not to mention those times when I've had to go searching for drivers/configuration/whatever which I needed in order to actually get a GUI (how many people do you think use eLinks to hit nVidia's website and download the drivers?).
Next you'll be telling me that reading mailing lists in PINE instead of using web forums is "absofuckinglutely stupid" because clearly the fact that it lets me read the interesting posts 100x faster than a forum is pointless, right?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
In re collapsible sections, just realised you need not to be blocking Java, if you're using a browser with that capability.
I don't enable java by default, and it works fine for me.
Maybe meant JavaScript?
Big difference. JavaScript is OK (its part of the web), Java and other plugins are not.
ARROWED!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
When I look at the winning design by Alex Bendiken, I can't find any portion of it that has been done better than Peter's. The nesting menus on the left aren't nearly as smooth, and the text size is the same as the article text, so everything seems to blend together. I commend Alex for attempting to make teal look trendy again, but he has failed. Peter's color choice, although only slightly lighter, makes all the difference. Differentiating between separate sections of the site is extremely easy as well. It is obvious that Peter put a lot of thought into simulating real-world readership when he designed his layout. As far as content delivery goes, Alex's design floats boxes and dumps content in. Peter's is much more polished, with slight accents between copy shifts. This makes the right things stand out where they should. He even included a lovely box for the new tagging system, which is completely absent from Alex's design. The Slashdot people need to create functionality for users to pick their primary content layout from a list. After all, one of the main advantages of CSS is the ability to completely change the design of a site with just one click from the end user. I guess we can't expect much from a judge who's homepage looks like it's frozen in 1993.
P.S. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
That idea was good when I had it too, but apparently all we get is applause, and some references to using a Firefox extension.
And I still think it's a great idea.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Collapsing the left sidebar works in my Konqueror 3.5.1. HOWEVER, I found out that the left sidebar gets out of whack if you increase the font size. You need to collapse and uncollapse a section to make it look right. Conversely, shrinking back the font size after that produces empty space in the sections.
It also looks weird that on the default font size headers and article texts are of an equal small size for me. This is (obviously) not good for usability. I determined that that's because the article text has been set to a fixed value that would be ridiculously small on my screen (1280x1024 pixels and 17") and therefore triggers the minimum font size setting. Font sizes set as pixels are a Bad Idea(tm).
- (Normally) a lurker
Nope. I dropped lynx years ago. Links is a completely different text-based browser that shows things like tables and frames in a proper way, which makes some attempt to match text colors, and which (in some variants) also has a GUI display so images and other things are present just like they are in the Big Boys.
Here's an example of www.osnews.com being viewed by Links via PuTTY on a SunOS server:
http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner/links.gif
and the main project site is here:
http://links.sourceforge.net/
I've personally used Links under OS/2, Linux, and Solaris with some regularity, and also on BeOS from time to time. It's a really nice browser for what it does. Except on Slashdot.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I have just one serious complaint with the winner... The center column, which is the IMPORTANT part of the site, gets very, very badly smashed if your browser window isn't full screen-width, while the other 2 columns are full-width. Big mistake!
f r.png
/. and much better than the runner-up, IMHO.
eg.: http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7969/slashdot0
Fix that one issue, and I won't complain much. It will be a big improvement over traditional
Two minor things though, if anyone is interested:
Many others have already said it, and I agree... There's just too much whitespace around everything. The nav-bar and slashboxes at the sides are twice as tall now, for no good reason. Having 50% whitespace doesn't look good... Not at all.
Please make it a somewhat different color. The "dark-green into black" gradient is very hard on the eyes, and doesn't fit in with the white page anyhow. Either start from a much lighter green, or make it a gradient to white (or grey, or yellow, or anything else that is NOT BLACK!).
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The winner did a great job but I like the runner up so much better. All the underscored links look ugly.
Is it because ink is expensive or because ink is distracting?
I'd imagine that it's a little of both. Don't forget that major newspapers will be printing hundreds of thousands or millions of papers every day; all that ink is going to add up over the course of a year.
There are also other issues, of course - newsprint tends to come off on your fingers, so if there was a lot of extra cosmetic ink on the page, the readers' fingers would get that much dirtier (I know I hate how dirty my fingers get after reading a paper now).
Finally, PCs are not newspapers. They have different design considerations, and so naturally lend themselves to different types of design.
've come across a good rule of thumb: if the page is more readable in lynx, links, or w3m than it is in Firefox, then it needs work. The current slashdot is pretty darn readable in a text browser once you get past the ton of links at the top
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say there - do you mean that the current page *does* need to be redesigned?
Now if I was hanging slashdot on my wall, I might prefer one of the CSS redesigns... but I'm not; I'm reading it
I know where you're coming from, but for me (and I suspect a lot of people), I tend to spend a very large proportion of my day staring at my monitor. What's on it had better be pleasing to my eye, and while plain text in a terminal window is definitely *usable*, it's not very aesthetically pleasing. That's a very subjective thing, of course, but my opinion would be the exact opposite of yours.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You should try reading your journal entries yourself:
Generally I hold slashdot users as a group more intelligent than the average person, so seeing bigotry - which is the direct manifestation of ignorance and immaturity - running around slashdot like wildfire was disturbing so say the least
I think you've just made a prime example of yourself.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Anyway, I think that he was referring to your comments about holding slashdot users as more intelligent than the rest of the population and that you were shocked to see immaturity and ignorance displayed here. The vehicle that was used to display the ignorance and immaturity is immaterial here. I think that he was just thinking on a deeper level than you....and if are shocked to see bigotry on display on slashdot, then you simply havent been here long enough.
Congrats LordKazan, you have obviously made some fine friends today with your witty, erudite and insightful commentary on the subject of text browsers. I am sure that the slashdot community is now painfully aware of your knowledge of the subject. Now go away and post somewhere more appropiate, say perhaps myspace?
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
If you really have to sit in a dark room, then you should know how to turn the brightness down accordingly, also a recommended thing to do. The assault happens because of difference in brightness compared to your surroundings, not because of some arbitrary color on the screen.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
... just mosey on over to www.ghostzilla.com, install it, and then put the browsing window in a contextually appropriate app window on your screen. My bosses totally don't care what I do on company time as long as I meet my deadlines, but if they did and I were feeling sneaky I might, say, integrate the window into an Eclipse panel...
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
As a user interface designer I'll put in my 2c. For me the runner up is significantly less polished and a much clumsier design. It is 'heavy' in parts and looks quite dated.
The winner is much more subtle, makes more use of light and shade and will not age as rapidly.
The runner up is more initially striking it would become tiring quickly. I feel the right choice has been made and looking at the code behind it, appears an elegant solution.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Fine! I'll get my own website! With blackjack and hookers! On second thought forget the blackjack. And the website.
Tahoma as primary body font is a disastrous choice, particularly on CRT screens. The letters are generally spaced so narrowly that words are hard to read, particularly between letters like i and l ("million"). And there is no italic, so the normal weight gets forcibly slanted. Tahoma is intended for use in dialog boxes and menus, not body text and headlines.
Just install your own CSS. Forefox I did just that in Firefox. Read my journal for the details.