But that's obviously false. If the legibility were the same or improved nobody would be complaining. Well, except me ... But I'll always find something! Here's the legibility difference as I saw it. Bottom: The oversize quotation mark is a visually distracting and extraneous element, and the delineation between the quoted area and the response area is insufficient. The delineation is insufficient because the offset is not enough of a visual clue, and because the oversize quotation mark emphasizes the quoted area and draws your eye away from the main text. Top: No visually distracting elements, and a clear delineation between the quoted area and the response area (because of the box). There are probably ways to improve the quote box (perhaps instead of a border, an understated color change), but if it is changed the distinction between the different text areas should be clear, it should be free of distracting elements and it should be easy on the eyes.
You are missing that there is no room for personal preference in something as important as this. My God, the people don't like the quotes, Jesse. Don't you get it? Think about the children. They'll be waking up with nightmares of giant quote marks chasing them and all we will find is sobbing youngsters wondering where the giant close quote is. Think about the children and not your selfish legibility issues, which we have already determined are just a load of crap!
Is this the same guy who did those silly print ads? Thanks for changing them back, regardless. The giant quote mark is distracting and there seems to be a spacing issue between the two styles. In the classic style, there's more room under the quoted text. In the new style, there's less room and there's no line separating the text. Minor things, but they were annoying.