Good point. In the spirit of using colors and schemes to represent content, I propose the following:
Meta: Fuzzy Pink, like a navel
Op-Ed: Bovine Brown.
Technology: Pure Gold.
MLP: random combination of a random number of random colors, on a character by character basis, newly generated for each page reload - with obligatory <blink></blink> tags everywhere.
Seriously though, what's wrong with a consistant, classy theme as we have now? Making sections visually distinct will only fragment the site. It won't really help with mis-classification since, when a submission is classified by the author, they assign the section. Rarely is this done incorrectly by accident.
If customization is really needed, which IMHO it is not, then it really ought to be user selectable. A color scheme is like a logo, it's a brand of sorts. Everyone here knows "Slashdot Green" when they see it, and the only reason for this is not because it's only on their front page, but because it was the color of the whole site. Then, they began colorizing their sections, and shortly thereafter the fit hit the shan. Once they started looking like Wired, they started generating fluffy content and attracting 'that sort' of discussion.
K5 is a content oriented site. It has a clean and sophisticated look (both before and after the change) and this sort of subtle coloring, consistent throughout the site, leads people to pay attentnion to the content. Worrying about appearances, IMO, would be the first step to losing focus on content.
So, the happy medium seems to be user-level color customization. I for one won't use it.
|"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"|
[ Parent ]