The  was , back in 2009, to have proper alpha transparency so that it looks good on dark backgrounds too.  Apparently, it needs fixing again:  Please replace the ugly blog favicon with the .
120916
When you open a tab on the , and switch to another tab, the icon has a partial white background: Firefox (Most obvious) - note the difference between that and the normal Stack Overflow logo  IE  Edge  Tested on Windows 10 with Firefox 41.0.2, Internet Explorer 11 and Microsoft Edge v20.10240.16384.0. (If someone could test this on chrome that would be great)
36100
By January 2016, All communities have been updated     The design team has been rolling out design updates to sites as part of network-wide update to a new base css framework. The updates allow us to:   Use .svg sprites for retina displays  Fix layout bugs globally  More easily add new features to all of our sites in the future  Synthesize healthy, nutritive rations to feed employees from a small, battery-powered, toaster-sized device. Roll out the new (2015) Profile/Activity pages    As sites get updated, the designer who did the work posts on the local Meta, so the community knows the change is live, and can provide any relevant feedback.  They'll update this page too.  Done           (Apple)                                              On Deck  (I'm told this is a well-known "sports" metaphor.)  The order of this list is random (it is not the order in which the new design will be rolled out):   Looks like we are all done now...   Not Planned  Not scheduled for the redesign or the new user page:
113210
Yeah... um,  needs to go.    I can't find any way to edit the avatar, but I'm not sure that deleting the user is necessarily the next step.  Any ideas?  Link isn't very illustrative any longer - user had posted an offensive political/religious profile icon.  SU and SO mods - FYI      lock edit:  Sorry if this bruises some folks, but avatars aren't priority #1 in my mind. If an avatar generates a big administrative overhead (i.e. many complaints from many users) it'll be changed.  This isn't because anybody gets their rocks off changing avatars, it's because I'd like my Trilogy-time to result in something that enhances it, not strugging with issues that have nothing to do with the stated purpose.
112044
Update from Shog9:     Also affects Aviation, Cooking... Probably everything on the "not yet in progress" list here:  - I've passed this on to the devs. – Shog9     The  got busted in the last few hours.  It looks ugly and now needs to be scrolled, see below.  Other review pages (, ) are still fine. And the problem appears for me in both Chrome and Firefox -- and whether or not I'm logged in.        versus:
7963
I think the picture pretty much explains it all.  Not sure if this is the case for all SE sites, but this is from Stack Overflow.
50396
CHAOS members have (had?) :     Because they are doing so many edits at once, CHAOS operates in a special mode where editing a title does not bump it to the home page.    I moderate at Writers.SE, and I can attest that this ability would be extremely beneficial to mods as well, and for the same reasons. On beta sites, wide-ranging changes are not infrequent. An established tag might be ruled problematic; a certain class of questions might need cleanup; etc. etc.. When this happens, the ensuing edits flood the front page with old content (frequently the somewhat problematic content the new change has come to address...). Furthermore, since beta sites are much less active than established ones, this flood can drown out recent activity, and then wallow around on the front page for some time.  I propose, then, the implementation of a moderator tool for editing without bumping. The value to beta sites is clear; the danger of abuse, as a mod tool, is nonexistent.
103057
Spoiler formatting was used on the question ""  and it isn't completely hidden.    it looks like the text is colored assuming a grey background.  I can see how this could be an issue if it is used on other sites and the spoiler isn't exactly functioning the way it should be.
13542
On the  blog post, nearly all the images are broken. I assume this is because they are all hosted on stackoverflow.blog/wp-content/uploads/ rather than zgab33vy595fw5zq-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/, and they got destroyed in the removal of Blog Overflow. I looked around at a few other blog posts, and this post seems to be the only one having an issue.
123959
Been reading about . It's funny that ReadWrite, as well as StackExchange, has chosen a dark navbar as well.  Why this trend to choose dark navbars?
1608
When I look at e.g. , I see the following under &quot;Top Questions&quot;:  It appears that the MSO sprite is being stacked on top of the sprite for some beta site which I can't identify. I have cleared my cache and hard-refreshed, so this probably isn't a problem on my end. This appears to be related to the fact that favicon.css specifies a background-image for .favicon.
60197
I recently noticed that the red background highlight behind deleted posts is now a much lighter shade of red than it used to be in the past.  While I'm generally in favor of having higher contrast ratios for text across SE, I think this crosses the line a bit. The previous background was readable to me and didn't pose any contrast ratio issues to me. On the other hand, the new color is less visible than the old one and difficult to see on monitors with higher contrast settings. In other words, the contrast ratio between the red background and the white surroundings is too low.  As a test to see the magnitude of this issue, I tried raising my display contrast. By default, it's set to 20%, but setting it to 40% made it barely visible unless I really squinted at it, and setting it to 50% made it just about invisible. Some users may turn up their monitor's contrast to a higher level to better read text on screen, but this change makes it more difficult for those users who engage in moderation to identify deleted posts, especially if they've scrolled down.  Can we please make the shade of red that appears underneath deleted posts be darker (while still retaining WCAG Level 2 AA compatibility)?  Here's an image of the current configuration:        ...and the previous configuration:        I hope that this is one of the  of the CSS refactor.
121592
The new top bar layout is fine, but the black color is very visually jarring/intrusive.  Is using a lighter color an available option?
98323
Currently the "hot networks" column is showing wrong icons for some, but not all of the sites. (The URLs linked to have the correct site).  It seems to happen only on some sites -- I see it on Mathematics and Travel but not here, for example. It happens both in Firefox and Chrome for me. This screenshot is from the math.SE homepage in a fresh Chrome session. I don't usually use Chrome to access SE, so I doubt it is something getting stuck in a browser cache.    The icons for Academia, Ask Ubuntu and Ask Different are right, but "Why doesn't Cersei make peace with Jon Snow" is definitely not a Music question. Neither is "Why did Neo even have to fight?" really about Information Security ... hmm, it might be, but the actual question is on Scifi.  It also affects the navigation and global inbox dropdowns, when I view them on a site that has the problem.  The site's actual favicon is not affected.
41175
Odd CSS link colors have appeared again on at least some of the sites without the CSS update, specifically including Science Fiction &amp; Fantasy and Mi Yodeya, and likely others.  User profile pages also have broken layouts.  I believe it's related to this previous bug report:    This time, Seasoned Advice is not affected as they've had the CSS redone.
78738
It's heresy I know, but look at . It's raw, hand written HTML, it's plain, boring typography, it's something any UX or Graphic designer would scoff at if you handed it across their desk. But it works, and it works well.  Drudge's design has been fairly consistant and it's pretty much exactly what it looks like, it's raw HTML and it has barely been changed since . Lots of mud is slung at it's design, but it's considered by some to be .  Drudge's design scores great on conventional measures of usability: It's effective, users find stories that they consider interesting and stories are prioritized to indicate "big" news. It's always clear what's a link (underlined) and what's not. It's efficient, there's hardly any interface and a simple click on a headline takes you where you need to go. Arguably it's satisfying, it's a highly ranked site, though I don't have any user satisfaction surveys on hand.  So when can something aesthetically "ugly" give great UX and how? What else does deliver this ugly but beautiful level of effective plainness?  is another example of this, though arguably not as great from a usability standpoint. I don't often see sites like Drudge Report, but it's interesting to consider such an unconventionally minimalistic implementation and where it can be applicable.  Update: I'm not talking about just usability; it's long been known that you can have a super efficient and effective design and people hate it because it looks like crap. I'm talking about designs that look "ugly" but still leave the user with a good or even a great experience, experiences people enjoy for than just the bare functional reasons, but not because of pleasant, trumped up aesthetics either.
119339
Well, I'm uncertain if this is truly a bug or not, or if its just Imgur who happened to 'mess up' here, but there appears to be a slight issue with SE's handling of career company logos, and their banners:     As I'm sure can be seen from the image, the logo blocks the banner text.  One solution is to simply move the thing, or it could (maybe) be removed altogether..  though I do realize that this would likely cause complaints.  On the possibility that it cannot be moved, maybe the companies could be alerted of how such an ad would look.. or even offer the possibility to not display the logo.. or something else, if anything.  I'm honestly wholly unfamiliar with how that side of things work, so sorry there.
121938
It doesn't reproduce on Meta, but it will on any beta site.  To see an example, check out :        Edit:  I noticed that on SciFi, English, Area 51, and Electrical Engineering (at least - those are the only ones I've tried), spoilers with monospace will show the monospace part whether or not the mouse is hovering over the block (though the normal font will continue to operate normally).  On those sites, however, it hasn't yet joined the Dark Side.