Overall, I'd have to say I can't yet form a real strong opinion. It's pretty early in the process.
Still, I have to say that I can point to some pluses and minuses. Everything is a matter of balance, so each individual's mileage is going to vary here. Features can be nice, but overall, I usually have to vote for speed rather than excessive
rolleyes: ) features. I understand that everyone's estimate of what qualifies as "excessive" will be different, but I do note that a number of people have commented on the fact that the current version is slower. This will be reflected both in load on the server and in waiting time for users. I'd rate the new version slightly lower than the old based solely on speed. The features can help, but speed is the most important feature, IMHO.
I'll also make myself a PITA and respond to a couple of points by rdangerer.
I like some of the features, like being able to edit the subject
line, and like being able to add your own subject line to a thread
I disagree. I don't see much, if any value in adding a "subject line" internal to a thread. Changing the subject line is important in a usenet context, but in a web board, you have to open (and mostly read) a thread before you get to any internal "subject lines" so they don't strike me as adding any value in contrast to simply adding text to the reply. In fact, you can see in rdangerer's post that the heading style of the "internal subject line" can easily be swamped by the text. This is only a problem if the next "feature" is abused, but ...
It is easier to use bold, italic, and fonts/colors. And of course
many will, for example, TOTALLY overuse these features and make
their posts less readable in the process.
Too true. I don't think we ought to encourage this sort of thing. I find rdangerer's post far less readable
because he specified a font and size. In general, I am strongly in favor of web authors leaving font and size
unspecified so that users can choose the font that is easiest to read on their own screens. Making this too easy to use will just create more chaos. rdangerer has selected a font and size that he likes, but which may be less readable for others, e.g. me. Most browsers allow you to disregard all font specifications (except your own), but I normally consider that a little extreme. Still, I have had to do it at times.
Times Roman, as a proportionally spaced, serif font, is the
easiest for the human eye to read quickly, mostly because it is
efficient with space, and the little serif "feet" on the letters form
an invisible line that guides the eye from left to right. That is
why newspapers and books are nearly always printed in a
proportional, serif font of one flavor or another.
This is dependent on a lot of features of the presentation medium. Research has shown serif fonts to be more readable
if the resolution of the presentation medium is high enough. However, computer screens are rarely high enough, IMHO. Sans serif fonts tend to be more readable in relatively low-resolution situations. Serifs do have the effect he refers to, but on a relatively low-resolution device they tend to be excessively prominent where they should be subtle. If you really want serifs in low-res, you would be better off using a face designed with prominent serifs (i.e. a "slab-serif" font such as
Memphis) Still, I tend to advocate allowing the individual
reader rather than the individual
writer to make the determination for extended text. Personally, I find Times New Roman, despite its excellent hinting, to be less than optimal. I tend to make
Georgia my default web browser font (despite my own citation of research preferring sans serif faces).
I also disagree with rdangerer's reasoning about why TNR "should" be preferred. TNR is space efficient, but this does not make it particularly desirable for reading except in narrow (newspaper-like) columns. In wider columns, as normally found on web pages, a more generous, relaxed font is better (e.g., Georgia).
My standard advice is to specify face for display (headings) but leave text unspecified so that the user's default can be set for the user's own preferences. If this advice were implemented in the board software, there would be no need to worry about whether the default style is readable or not -- it would be automatically.
Paul
Time to go check out that "ignore" feature. 
