Yes, I agree about the font size. What I wanted to say is that the new 
site has a too small font. I don't like Times New Roman myself, but 
displayed with a bigger size it just beats better fonts of a smaller 
size. In my opinion programmers and designers often are only accustomed 
  to use small fonts for their product and their development tools, 
because they have the problem to utilize space.

I believe users prefer bigger fonts and the "penetration depth" of many 
websites could be improved simply with increasing default font sizes. 
For that matter this holds true for newcomers to Squeak for the Squeak 
system itself.

Regards,
Martin


John Pfersich wrote:
>>
>> Regarding the style I have to say that I like the old site much more. 
>> It has an idiosyncratic charm, the new site looks like thousands of 
>> other sites. Even the font and font size of old "crappy" squeak.org is 
>> more inviting for a further read.
> 
> 
> The old (current) site uses Times New Roman as a default font. TNR is a 
> retched, hard to read font that was designed to cram as much information 
> in as small a space as possible (for the New York Times newspaper), 
> something you needn't worry about of a web page.
> 
>  I agree that new site's font defaults of  Verdana ( boring), Arial 
> (even worse), and Helvetica are almost as bad as using Comic Sans. How 
> about a readable serif font?
> 
> And by the way,  specifying font sizes in pixels is just plain bogus, 
> it's too small for all other platforms than Windoze, especially when 
> using screen sizes greater than 800x600.