You can set the size of the type in your browser. Be sure you have clicked on the right hand window [although you could do it for both] before you try this. It seems to hold when you change threads.<BR><BR>For Netscape click on VIEW on your tool bar, then on INCREASE FONT&gt;<BR><BR>For IE click on VIEW, then run your mouse down to text size. You'll get a set of options. Pick the next biggest size and see how that works.<BR><BR>Grabted that doesn't solve the problem of the small type that is in the images, but it's something:)

I love the new format! And the search function for me at least, is very fast! Much better than before....I did a search for Edinburgh B&amp;Bs and loads of great info appeared.....I was sooo happy!<BR>:-) Judy

To tony - - <BR><BR>I think many people will agree that the search box is poorly identified (would a newcomer know to do a search at all?) and it seems quite counter-intuitive to simply hit "enter" (carriage return) to initiate a search. For me (and this is specific to a person's videp settings - - mine are at 1024 x 768), there is a fairly large "wasted space" in the upper right hand corner - - it would be better used with tips and reminders (FAQ, how to search, etiquette, whatever). But perhaps at 800 x 600 (or 640 x 480 - - is anyone still there?) maybe that space is small or not there. And I suppose it would require going from (the present) three frames on screen to yet a fourth. does that really slow anything down? I am not techno-knowledgeable enough to know.<BR>

I think, Rex, that you'll find the majority of Internet denizens still operate at or under 800X600. You'd be surprised at how much of the world continues on 14" monitors, some lucky ones 15". Not everyone can afford 17s, 19s, 21s and LCD panels.<BR><BR>And while I run at 1280X1024 on my desktop machine I can run only at 800X600 on my moderately-priced laptop despite having it attached to a 17" monitor when it's here at home.<BR><BR>Unless Fodors wants to shut out many more users than just WebTV, that upper righthand space YOU see is useless for teh most part.<BR><BR>Give Fodors credit for squeezing a lot into a very small piece of real estate. It's been pretty well done.

Okay, Ed. Points all well taken.<BR><BR>Still, the search box is uninviting. What IS that teensy little (all-blue, circling-man) logo for, anyway? there is certainly room for "Search here ==&gt;", to the left of the search box, for example.<BR>

when did it become counterintuitive to hit "enter" after entering search text?<BR><BR>

&lt;&lt;when did it become counterintuitive to hit "enter" after entering search text?&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>I guess when "GUI"'s and mice took over the world. Okay, counterintuitive is too strong a word.<BR><BR>But just like "enter" doesn't "post" your message here - - I think that a lot of people are used to looking for a "target" to click on. When you click on that little blue logo and realize that nothing happens, I fear that some people will experience frustration (even if only for a second) - - thinking - - "okay, now what do I do?"<BR><BR>I did.<BR>

SFOWLER: Bless you! It's amazing the things you can keep learning....My squint is gone and I'm much happier.<BR>And in terms of things I do like...it's nice that once you've posted a response, your name and e-m comes up automatically for any further response posts...

i miss the country pulldown!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi All --<BR><BR>Typing the country/state/topic name into the search text box (above Search Tips on the top right-hand side of the forums pages) achieves the same results as the former drop-down menu. (I.E., type "France" into the text box when you're in the Europe forum, and you'll get France posts.)<BR><BR>Hope this helps. <BR><BR>Danny Mangin<BR>Editorial Director

To be more specific about what I don't like: When I search on "Greece" I get the messages by Relevence. The top messages may be very old. When I hit sort by date the messages are indeed sorted by date but only 15 of the first 50 are directly related to Greece. The first question has a relevence of only 8% and 61 responses to the question. Buried somewhere in there is a reference to Greece. A specific question about Greece does not turn up until the 6th question and then the next is 16th.<BR><BR>I think if anybody thinks this an improvement over the old system they probably didn't understand how to use the old system. In that system you could sort by country with the "Country pulldown" and then you could sort specifically within that country by topic. If you wanted to search the whole europe forum for a subject you could do that by selecting multiple countries.<BR><BR>You could do everything and more with the old system than you can with the new. What has been lost is flexibility and specificity.<BR><BR>Of the dozens of travel forums out there this was my favorite. It was the most convenient, helpful and easy to use. NOW ITS JUST A JUMBLED UP MESS.<BR><BR>CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE IS NOT ALWAYS AN IMPROVEMENT.<BR><BR>SORRY TO BE VENTING LIKE THIS BUT WHAT AM I MISSING?

Great job Fodor's. I like this new format. I like the jump to most recent post. I like the fact that my name and email are stored and I don't have to keep retyping them . I think it just may take me sometime to get used to it, but it's SOOOO much better then the last time you updated. Thanks Danny et al.

i agree with rex. i do not like that the search engine is poorly identified. i know were creatures of habit but i dont like the idea that i have to change the selection of sort by date. i'd like to see the most recent discussions come up to the top.

I don't like the new format either. Why did they have changed the old one, I don't understand. Also, it takes lot of time to loading. Please, please come back to the old one !!!!!!!

No, I don't like the new format. It is too easy to get lost and never find what you are looking for. I would MUCH PREFER to determine the country and city, I am interested in. For instance, I plan to travel this year to Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary. This year, I'm not particularly interested in other countries. Next year perhaps.