When I redesigned this site over the summer, I confess I didn't give an immense amount of thought to the background colour pattern that sits behind its pages - other than to make it vaguely complementary to the CfJ blue (according to the colour wheel).

Since then, there has been a degree of comment from users about my selection. Some objected to the colour ("too yellow", they cried. I like to think of it as gold.) Others objected to the diagonal pinstripe in it - which admittedly doesn't render brilliantly in all browsers.

So in the spirit of open source collaboration, I'm opening up the selection of a background to all members of the CfJ community.

The eagle-eyed among you will have spotted that this afternoon we're sporting a pinstripe-free version with a subtle gradient fade from right to left, while still retaining the gold flavour.

Next week we'll experiment with a couple of other entirely different alternatives. In the meantime any suggestions are welcome. And by the end of next week, I'll assess the feedback and settle on a final decision.

Let the debate commence.


I like how it is right now, it's quite pleasing to the eye and the gold isn't too harsh.  I noticed Kent's colours are blue and red but I feel red would be rather harsh.  The only other suggestion I'd have is blue with a forest green perhaps with gold.  But that's my thought.  Otherwise, keep it the way it currently is right now as I think it's quite a nice colour. 

Just noticed the gradient background isn't working in IE browsers. Will fix that if it wins the vote.

Ian Reeves is head of the Centre for Journalism

'Gold'gate and the CfJ website background colour imbroglio