3 ms·

Interesting information, but I must say I hated the delivery. A faux slideshow format with animated graphics in between very busy images with overlaid text. O

Interesting information, but I must say I hated the delivery. A faux slideshow format with animated graphics in between very busy images with overlaid text. Oh how I miss the good old simple web page with a block text on a white background, an image, a block of text, an image... etc. as you scroll down the page.

elsurudo 9y ago
Personally I liked it. Looking at those authentic, old, typewritten documents added a certain charm, and brought me back in time. I wish the "animated" segments were longer, and included audio, though. I was even looking for an "unmute" control on the first one.
- strawcomb 9y ago
  I also thought the delivery was pretty good. But found the image quality too low to easily read the notes in the background (and would also have liked audio for the videos).
benmmurphy 9y ago
I got stuck on the Who page for a bit. I found it hard to distinguish between a white arrow and the tan background.
delta1 9y ago
It honestly made me close the tab after one "page"
dkersten 9y ago
I didn't like it either. It was slow and sluggish and the images behind the text too distracting. At least it wasn't a slideshow just so they could show adverts though!
sudojudo 9y ago
Arriving on the page, I'm prompted to run 11, no... 13 scripts. After allowing everything from BBC and reloading, the page is still borked and I'm prompted to run 34 scripts. All of these third-parties surely have nothing but the best of intentions when executing code in my browser, but I'd still appreciate a simplified alternative for viewing the content.
tessellated 9y ago
I won't bother to read the article anymore if the readability function in my feed reader can't fetch the content. Straight to the discussion. Life's too short.
Angostura 9y ago
I quite liked it. I don't mind the BBC experimenting with new forms of presentation.
King-Aaron 9y ago
It's almost as if the website was aimed at a different target audience

elsurudo 9y ago

Personally I liked it. Looking at those authentic, old, typewritten documents added a certain charm, and brought me back in time. I wish the "animated" segments were longer, and included audio, though. I was even looking for an "unmute" control on the first one.

strawcomb 9y ago
I also thought the delivery was pretty good. But found the image quality too low to easily read the notes in the background (and would also have liked audio for the videos).

benmmurphy 9y ago

I got stuck on the Who page for a bit. I found it hard to distinguish between a white arrow and the tan background.

delta1 9y ago

It honestly made me close the tab after one "page"

dkersten 9y ago

I didn't like it either. It was slow and sluggish and the images behind the text too distracting. At least it wasn't a slideshow just so they could show adverts though!

sudojudo 9y ago

Arriving on the page, I'm prompted to run 11, no... 13 scripts. After allowing everything from BBC and reloading, the page is still borked and I'm prompted to run 34 scripts. All of these third-parties surely have nothing but the best of intentions when executing code in my browser, but I'd still appreciate a simplified alternative for viewing the content.

tessellated 9y ago

I won't bother to read the article anymore if the readability function in my feed reader can't fetch the content. Straight to the discussion. Life's too short.

Angostura 9y ago

I quite liked it. I don't mind the BBC experimenting with new forms of presentation.

King-Aaron 9y ago

It's almost as if the website was aimed at a different target audience