31–40 of 87 posts
I am using Chrome on Windows 7. The menu bar on the top of the page cuts off the title and the bottom of the page slightly cuts off the * FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE WEBSITES. Is that the way it should look?
http://imageshack.us/a/img228/8256/alat.png I see the same thing. I have a hard time believing it is intentional, but even so, I think it looks sloppy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://imageshack.us/a/img228/8256/alat.png I see the same thing. I have a hard time believing it is intentional, but even so, I think it looks sloppy.
I don't think it looks sloppy. It's intentionally styled like a magazine. Magazines deliberately break typographic conventions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://imageshack.us/a/img228/8256/alat.png I see the same thing. I have a hard time believing it is intentional, but even so, I think it looks sloppy.
I don't think it looks sloppy. It's intentionally styled like a magazine. Magazines deliberately break typographic conventions.
It feels to me a bit like a glossy magazine printed on good quality stock having a cover with a crease in it by design. Most would just assume they got a creased copy until the saw the others.
I don't think I've ever said this about a website, but the font size is way too large. There is also too much text on each line. I feel like this was approached from a layout perspective rather than a typographic one. For a site like ALA, I find the design to be really, really disappointing.
I wonder if the font size issue is because of display resolution. It looks perfect on my screen, but I usually have to zoom into pages to make them readable.
I want to believe that the people behind it didn't bother to test it on different viewports, but I have created websites that look fine on everything from iPhones to large monitors without writing viewport-specific CSS.
It just seems incredibly sloppy, which is hard to believe for a company like ALA.
I don't think I've ever said this about a website, but the font size is way too large. There is also too much text on each line. I feel like this was approached from a layout perspective rather than a typographic one. For a site like ALA, I find the design to be really, really disappointing.
I wonder if the font size issue is because of display resolution. It looks perfect on my screen, but I usually have to zoom into pages to make them readable.
I'm a bit surprised that the huge image isn't responsive so that it changes in size - to always show or hint that there's something below the fold (ie: https://yourkarma.com/ )
This new design have nothing to indicate there are stuff below the fold when viewed on a MBA 1366x768 or any with 768 height - it looks like a giant magazine cover. Unless that was the intended effect.
(But then I'm using Chrome, so might look different in other browsers)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://imageshack.us/a/img228/8256/alat.png I see the same thing. I have a hard time believing it is intentional, but even so, I think it looks sloppy.
I don't think it looks sloppy. It's intentionally styled like a magazine. Magazines deliberately break typographic conventions.
I thought that with this page.
So, that's one glaring difference.
I am using Chrome on Windows 7. The menu bar on the top of the page cuts off the title and the bottom of the page slightly cuts off the * FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE WEBSITES. Is that the way it should look?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they are not putting content in the spotlight, they are putting unreadable letter bottoms and empty space in the spotlight, the content is shoved away to somewhere far down. Maybe the design works on a tablet in portrait mode, but not on a laptop screen. To see more the four lines of content there, you have to scroll.
I think that the site is suffering from heavy load and some image(s) was/were not transferred to your browser; there should be an image, not empty space. No, it's not perfect, but better than most sites. No distracting sidebars, no ugly social media buttons, nothing extra (except the letter bottoms).
There is a certain artistic consistency in that, but from a usability standpoint I would call this only a partial improvement over the situation with the missing image.
I'm kind of at a loss for words. It used to be unique and friendly, and now it is just another Medium, 37signals, altered Bootstrap-looking thing with no personality. Not including dates in the highlighted articles on the homepage (and only highlighting two to begin with?), along with putting it at the bottom of the "More From" is a huge miss (as the date of these types of articles is important to the context and to…