This re-design strikes me as totally insane. How does a site that spends the majority of its time discussing design fail to practice what they preach on so many fronts? The hierarchy is totally unclear, typography illegible, composition confusing and claustrophobic, and there's zero regard for mobile users. Both contributors and readers, not to mention the wonderful content itself, deserve better than this. I'm all for innovating and ignoring existing conventions and best practices, but only if it's because we're moving forward, not back.
Is this part of Facebook's experiment to make us feel bad?
(I wish I could give you more than an upvote right now)
The type... (Especially the navigation)
Looks like it was designed by a print designer.
I wonder how Erik Spiekermann, one of their contributors, will feel about Archer everywhere.
They probably all have to just pretend like it's not happening and not say anything—because, you know—criticism is bad and there is no wrong and everything's just a Ted talk .
This is offensive to print designers.
Looks like it was designed by a print designer.
This is exactly what I thought when I saw the redesign.
Spiekermann replied to me asking a similar question on twitter:
Something by Pentagram? Their web/interactive chops have traditionally been the weakest aspect of their work.
I completely agree with all the above points. The thing I find most offensive though is the GIANT Mailchimp logo. I mean...I get it, that they sponsor them, but come on!
lol at giving a sponsor that kinda space.
even if Mailchimp owned this property, they would never make a placement like that. yet for some reason, another brand lets them.
It looks like they just changed the logo, but there's still that huge space in the header. I can't get past that toothpaste blue color.
Um did anyone else get a dialog window saying "This website abuses rawgit.com. You should complain to its owner." ?
I did. One would imagine allowing MailChimp to take over 40% of your website's real estate would at least buy you a decent hosting solution, but apparently one would be wrong.
EDIT: I realize they're actually hotlinking one single github-hosted file. I'm still trying to decide whether that makes it better or worse.
Heh, you make a good point.
Why are they even doing that? To keep it up to date with the master repo??
Article on the new design.
Design Observer knows it will have it share of critics, but for his part, Bierut feels that that is just par for the course in a world where everyone cares about design. "I'm sure we'll be criticized for continuing to favor a design that is beholden to the legacy of print," Bierut says. "We live in a world where you can't even redesign a logo without a pile-on. But I'm grateful to live in a world where at least now people who are thoughtful will figure out why they hate it."
Am I wrong in saying that this goes beyond differing opinions on design? The type alone makes this close to (or completely) unusable for many people. Seems to me that on this medium (the web) a disregard for accessibility is unacceptable.
It's July—not April.
To be honest, it’s not surprising when you look at the contributors.
I went to TYPO Berlin this year. Pretty cool, right? One of the best design conferences on the planet. WRONG.
TYPO Berlin is the most pretentious, underwhelming conferences I’ve been to. I sat in the auditorium listening to people post-rationalise bad design—like the DO site—for hours on end. These people are jaded, out-of-touch, and the majority of them don’t understand digital.
They should stick to type design.
i agree. but if those pretentious, jaded, out-of-touch, and the majority of them who don’t understand digital are the target of TYPO and DO, then this design is totally fine.
And they abuse gitraw.com?! https://www.dropbox.com/s/r0k6no84jvxokoe/Screenshot%202014-07-02%2010.46.21.png
Yeah, what the hell is this?
I'm pretty insecure with my design skills, but I could do something better than this in 15 minutes.
Probably someone made a good site, and it got feedback and demands from too many people, and it ended up being like this
It feels like a late 90s site viewed in the 2000s, complete with pixel fonts (on a laptop screen that nav is TINY) and scrolling text.
Exactly! I feel like everyone is missing the point of this redesign. It’s clearly retro 90s ;)
hard to read in general. why create a line that impedes the content, i felt i had to duck my head to read.
This is breaking my brain—even a print designer would be able to pick an appropriate typeface. I just...I feel like this has to be a test or or practical joke or something.
WHO DOES non-responsive redesigns?!
[edited] Now I am absolutely sure it is a joke/PR stunt. There are just too many subtle design "jokes" going on, and the FastCo article kind of seals it: they know people won't like it, yes it looks like print, and they want people to talk about it. Mission accomplished.
No retina support either.
Hover over the articles. Holy unanimated transitions, batman! Those intro sentences should smoothly slip in and out.
WTF.. this looks like a practical joke :/
Woah, what are we, in 2003? This is just bad.
Marquee aside. The best thing by far on the side is the hidden bar at the top. Which only contains Log in / Register. So worth hiding that behind a click! bravo.
Set the time machine to 2006.
I thought my browser was zoomed out. Nope, that font is officially set to: mini.
Try clicking the 'login/register' arrow at the top. Could be ALOT smoother, and so easy to do, but I suppose that's the least of their worries!
That's one tall fixed header...
The typography is not illegible. Hard on the eyes for a long article or for scanning the menu, sure, but illegibility is something completely different.
It looks like an old blogspot template? .... Is it?
I get the impression a print designer came up with this.
Whoa... hello Archer used for body copy. :S
Unfortunate. A missed opportunity.
I totally agree. I don't even see this as a new design. It almost seems as if they've just re-skinned the old website with some new colors and poor typography. Very unfortunate.