That header section is astonishingly hard to read.

Something about the eye trying to distinguish between those reds makes it almost impossible to focus on that white text on a black background on those tabs which end up seeming almost blurry, complicated by yet another red in the "top features" headings. Or maybe it's the same red as the background in the large banner, it's hard to look at it long enough to tell.

The rest seems like your basic standard Web site these days, which is sort of a shame since you actually had your own visual identity before (less cluttered, more white space) which was one of the things I liked about Salon. Go look at CNN's new design, for instance, which also just appeared this week. Astonishingly similar. Same reds, blacks, and so on.

Somehow the most disappointing part however is the "Camille Paglia" header displayed so prominently, driving home the fact that despite how some of us actually hope and even imagine that you're considering dropping this ridiculous Limbaugh devotee, in fact she's probably what keeps you afloat and thus your most treasured feature. Too bad.

There seems to be no interest whatever in addressing plainly and directly some of the scores and scores of objections and complaints and questons about this really bad new design. All of you continue to claim that the feedback has been deafeningly positive with just a few negative whines. But you offer no evidence that that claim is true, and every time you have provided a means for Salon readers to comment, the negatives far outnumber the few positives.

The design is bad. It's cluttered, it's more difficult to read, it reduces readablility, it's unpleasant to look at, it offers no discernible advantages over the old one, and it's derivative of several other, lesser blog designs.

I like being a premium member at Salon and I read a good deal here every day. But you seem to be uncaring and unresponsive to the many thoughtful and professional objections more knowledgeable responders than I have made about this design. I don't see how I can justify the cost if I believe the design will keep me from bothering to visit very often.

Love the new design.

Welcome back Karen!

I've been a subscriber off-n-on of Salon.com since the early '90's and you're correct that a redesign is *always* slightly disorienting. But this latest so-called "update" might just be the straw that broke the camel's back and force me to leave the Salon Community completely.

It really is that bad!

Your website designers appear to *not* follow standard practices when it comes to the front page. Clicking on a link doesn't change the header text color like it should, instead relying on a slight fading of the text color. Which for those of us who are older or don't have the best eyesight just isn't enough to distinguish read from unread links.

You state that you appreciate the various comments and are taking them all seriously and under advisement. And yet the front page is still a mish-mash of bad layout, making it difficult to visually follow the overall page to see what might be new and worth reading.

This is the Number 1 complaint and yet there appears nothing has been done to address this major complaint.

All in all, I suppose you will continue to grow your userbase, but I have to wonder at what expense? Current old-time users like myself that actually made it possible for Salon to grow and become what it has now become?

*sigh*

I'm trying my own Salon Beta - using the mobile site on my laptop. In the past, I always used the regular Salon site, even on my iPhone. But given how painful the new design is, I've started using the mobile site in Safari on my MacBook Pro. It's nowhere near as good as the old site was, but it's definitely the lesser of the two evils.

Why doesn't the Salon staff ever address the complaints that people have about the redesign? It seems like the people who complain have brought up many very specific things that are inferior about the new page, while the positives have been limited to "I like it." Given the amount of time and money that's been spent on this change, I would think that the editors would be happy to explain "why this is better." That might help some of us better understand what the point of this is, which might cut back on the complaints.

Just a thought ...

I get it. You are trying to shove everything up into the top of the screen. Bottom line is that everything is cluttered. WAY too difficult to find what you are looking for. WAY too difficult to distinguish what is new from what you've already decided whether to read or not. Really needs to be re-thought. I've been paying money for this site from the beginning. I've been reading it most every day for more than 10 years. You owe me. Pay attention.

We deserve thoughtful, user-friendly design, or barring that (apparently), we deserve an honest explanation for why the design was implemented and what it's supposed to achieve.

The silence from the editors about the new design's logic is insulting. And its over-reliance on red, black & white with no link color change for articles we've read is baffling and defies long-standing usability conventions.

My subscription is up in 33 days and for the first time ever, I won't be renewing. Maybe Salon needs an ombudsman.

Somehow, its need to find new readers has twisted into a permanent disdain for its past readers. Two reader suggestions have been a constant over the years: get a better comment system, and get rid of Paglia. Now, they've redesigned the entire site EXCEPT FOR the comment section, and elevated Paglia to a permanent perch on the mast-head. The comments are now regularly flooded with right-wing wackos lured over by Paglia, and are deeply unpleasant places.

attempting to mask recycled content, and the fact that Salon is relying more and more on reprinted articles from elsewhere.

This BS that this new design is anything other than a total disaster is more of the dishonesty we have come to expect from Salon as it continues its decline.