51–60 of 81 posts
I guess W3C is so broad in concept that it is very hard to be specific without turning users off at first visit.
Back in the day there use to be a joke website called "every fucking bootstrap site" [1] where it would lambast the popular design zeitgeist of the time. I really wish websites would opt for more distinctive looks rather than the massive homogenization we see across the web. Everything looks the same when it doesn't have to. Things can be stylized while accounting for accessibility and usability. I don't know what to…
I agree with you... except this IS the W3C, and the whole point is they set standards for websites. If they looked nothing like every other site, that'd actually be a bigger problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you... except this IS the W3C, and the whole point is they set standards for websites. If they looked nothing like every other site, that'd actually be a bigger problem.
Hang on a bit. If this website should have a "look and feel" like other websites then what is the point of W3C? The stated aim as I read it is to make the web more consistent. But we need diversity, that is where progress comes from.
"W3C develops these technical specifications and guidelines through a process designed to maximize consensus about the content of a technical report, to ensure high technical and editorial quality, and to earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community."
I'm not addressing if I like the W3C or if I think we'd be better off if W3C was more diverse/progressive. I'm just saying that if you judge them based on their own stated goals, their website's design fits the mission.
Nice readability and blazing fast to me. That's awesome. It reminded me of how good is the performance and design of the UK design system https://design-system.service.gov.uk/ Hope that at some point they can hire an illustrator to make some custom illustrations with more personality.
What is used to build this site? some SSG, or SSR, or SPA, or a CMS like wordpress? check its html source showed jquery 3.5.1 and bootstrap 4. Also liked this newly updated page: https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/ and it's using jquery1.x still. now I start to wonder all those new SSG|SSR trend along with SPA, maybe bootstrap + jquery combination is good enough?
Nice readability and blazing fast to me. That's awesome. It reminded me of how good is the performance and design of the UK design system https://design-system.service.gov.uk/ Hope that at some point they can hire an illustrator to make some custom illustrations with more personality.
Hardly inspires confidence in this site as a shining example of simplicity and design…
Similarly, before the site navigation, there is a language navigation. However, since it hides the currently selected language (that is, "where I'm at"), I did not actually know for sure that that would be the same page, just in another language, for those links.
I'm also a little disappointed at how bloody nested all of the markup is. Though, I suppose that is my not being current on modern standards? The "nav", in particular, feels excessive at 500 lines of code. I get not wanting CSS wizardry, but I feel like a lot of the items that are in that code should be done with CSS. (Or, have we moved so far that it is accepted to have presentation in the main document nowadays?)
Nice readability and blazing fast to me. That's awesome. It reminded me of how good is the performance and design of the UK design system https://design-system.service.gov.uk/ Hope that at some point they can hire an illustrator to make some custom illustrations with more personality.
For me the UK design system page was half cookie banner, half “get started” pop up (which afaict just lets you through to the page you’re already on when you tap it. What’s the point?) Hardly inspires confidence in this site as a shining example of simplicity and design…
If I tried to scroll and they followed me, and it was all laggy, then yes it would be pretty bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me the UK design system page was half cookie banner, half “get started” pop up (which afaict just lets you through to the page you’re already on when you tap it. What’s the point?) Hardly inspires confidence in this site as a shining example of simplicity and design…
As someone who gets easily upset by bad websites, I actually really don't mind those banners. Why? Because it's extremely smooth and easy to scroll past them. If I tried to scroll and they followed me, and it was all laggy, then yes it would be pretty bad.
Edit: after trying the page again in a private tab, you’re right, you can scroll past it. But I had no idea that was the case when I first saw the site. Because the banners occupy the exact size of the viewport (I assume this is intentional) there is no indication that scrolling is even possible. You just have a huge set of banners taking up your whole screen. I stand by my statement that this is a terrible example of good design.
It’s ironic this landing page doesn’t pass W3C’s own HTML validator.
https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fbeta.w3.org%2...
Edit: corrected to stated “warnings”, not errors.