Nolan T. J. said: 1. The LFG tool is now better integrated with the site. Several different areas now feed into it, meaning it no longer needed to be stand-alone in the toolbar. 2. The site is intentionally "cleaner" in design. 3. The virtual tabletop itself hasn't changed-- the site simply looks more like the tabletop. We'll be sorry to see anyone go over this redesign, particularly a Pro user, but we believed strongly that it was time to shed our three year old site look (and more importantly, site map). We hired consultants and had an extended feedback period for Pro accounts. We'll continue to refine the design, but are overall quite proud of what we're launching today. 1. Your LFG tool is like your biggest selling feature of the site. Hiding it (and yes, it is hidden in a menu instead of being front and center like it should be) is just silly. It's like a store that hides its product gallery in a sub-menu and tells its buyers it doesn't need its own menu option because it's "integrated into the site better". I promise you, this is not better integrated. 2. The site is also not cleaner. The GRANDPA SIZED FONTS are so large they are uncomfortable to read and make the whole thing look imbalanced from a design perspective. There is literally no reason ever that four words should take up a quarter of my browser window and three lines of text. To top it off, they overlap the From the Dev Team feed when you shrink your browser down. And it's not just the front page welcome text that's too big, the menu fonts are too big too. It just looks cluttered. More white with bold lines does not instantly make your site look "cleaner", there is more to balance than just that. 3. I guess in a loose sense it does? Your consultants were not stellar and had no eye for accessibility or design. Get your money back. Nolan T. J. said: Both LFG and our Subscriptions Page got a much deeper integration here-- multiple areas of the site push you towards those pages, particularly early on in your Roll20 experience. We think this is the best way to go. Truth be told, though, it's an experiment until we have data. If suddenly nobody is using LFG and nobody is subscribing, rest assured we'll play with the design to make things as functional as possible. My prediction is a lot of dislike is coming from difference, but if I'm wrong the data will show it and we'll respond. Again, moving a menu option to a less immediately accessible place for a main feature is not "integrating" anything. And collecting data on this is a silly thing to say at all. Your members are going to be FORCED to go the long ways around to access it, but the number of people who go to the LFG page wont dip because it's a primary function of the site. It's not intuitive and it is certainly not "integrated" (you throw this word around a lot when people are complaining about accessibility of basic site functions). The hate isn't coming from change itself, its coming because we the users think the change was dumb and we'll still think its dumb when you refuse to change it and we all fall into quiet discontent with it. Saying the word integrated a lot doesn't mean that you've successfully made a more intuitive site. (from the Oatmeal's comic " How a Web Design Goes Straight to Hell ")