dav5 is not as good as it could be (that did say sucks, but I think that was a bit harsh). It's basically a reskinned version of the old one. The issues that really needed fixing were:

1. The length of the submission process: This still takes about 5 pageloads, which is unacceptable in our web2.0 era. Also, there is no desktop client, which, for a site like this, would be fantastic.


2. The awkwardness of the controls: I hate deviantart's layout as regards controls, I really do, it just doesn't seem straightforward to just click on something, there's always a new page to open, etc. etc, it's not logical and it makes me feel claustrophobic. Literally. Flickr is just so much better, with it's flash functionality. It's fast, it's to the point, and it's easy. This, on the other hand, is not, and the page is just so cluttered. Look at it, it's a violation. Thankfully, most people like minimalist design in this world.

I am assuming the inconsistent formatting is to do with the cache on my web browser or their server, not the site itself, so I won't slate them for it. OK, it isn't, I will slate them for it. You should have consistent formatting people, you can't just go around changing some of the backgrounds to light, and leaving some dark. I want 'em all light!
That said, I love the light backgrounds, I have said in the past a lighter background would show off the art better, the previous design was just so dreary. Pure white would still be better though. A neutral background is always best for art, but this is something, at least.
I am a web designer you know, so I do have some sort of authority to talk about this stuff. On the whole I agree with 's opinion.
Overhyped, and very slow. That's how I see it. I actually prefered the April Fool's joke. If they'd have had that layout, I'd have been happy (obviously, it'd have to be toned down a bit). It'd be dissappointing artistically, but it would work very well, which is far more important, as it's the art actually displayed on the site which is more important.