or
bug completed
Monica
Question titles on the main page are nice and clear:

![Screen Shot 2019-12-09 at 7.12.26 PM.png](/image?hash=efaee81920b4f8f1876050463e1dda2ec6b56d2cffaf722cb84aca7e41f23a45)

On the question pages themselves, though, they've gotten fuzzy.  I think there's a faint shadow there:

![Screen Shot 2019-12-09 at 7.12.35 PM.png](/image?hash=5809547598fe2c1c57021db612cf06f82c1f4b32a965e4a98d85acf276fc99a6)

Is this by design or is it a regression?  (I don't think it's been that way all along; it jumped out at me just now.)

I turned off userscripts and styles to confirm it's not something I'm doing.  Doesn't seem to be.

Because it's large I can still read it, and most of the time I'm coming from the question list so I've already seen it, but just now I followed a link and thus my first view of the question title was of a fuzzy one.
Top Answer
Jack Douglas
In hindsight making the text a little blurry doesn't really add anything of value. We've removed the text shadow as of now.
Answer #2
Caleb
I agree, the shadow seems to have been added and I would consider it a visual regression. It shows up a few other places too. Even for those of us without vision challenges it doesn't improve readablity. It does balance the visual weight of elements on the page a bit, but with all due respect I think that problem would be better solved with an overhaul of the UI to cleanup the design, tweak the relative size and weights, and make better use of whitespace.
Do we need the "shadow" on question titles on question pages?
Paul White replying to Jack Douglas
 I quite liked the shadow. It was odd not to be applied everywhere, but I guess removing it achieves consistency as well
Monica replying to Jack Douglas
Huh!  I wonder why it didn't bother me earlier, then.  Thanks for fixing it!
Jack Douglas
@Monica funnily enough the shadow has been there from the beginning. It was intended to make the distinction between question title and body clear before we had such an obvious shaded 'bar' in between them, and is now superfluous I think.