4 ms·

Love the project, but that website is pretty cold and soulless (as mentioned by others). I quickly put together a "cleaner" design for anyone interested, which

Love the project, but that website is pretty cold and soulless (as mentioned by others). I quickly put together a "cleaner" design for anyone interested, which also uses the original (and objectively better) logo: https://ladybird-dev.netlify.app/ https://ladybird-dev.netlify.app/

beretguy 2y ago
I love this version SO MUCH BETTER. Clean, easy to read and I don't have to scroll down for half an hour to get to the bottom. I hate "modern design", whatever it is. To much padding, to much useless css and styles.
aAaaArrRgH 2y ago
Hard disagree. If you're a fan of the strictly functional "what's CSS?" look, you might as well stick to viewing README.md on GitHub and call it a day.
- rchaud 2y ago
  This design makes it look like something that is looking for developer contributions. The original looks like something where a sales chatbot is likely to pop up in the corner.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
kome 2y ago
This version is clearly superior, both in design and use. Great start!
endemic 2y ago
Yeah, that original logo is way better. Kind of reminiscent of the Firefox logo before it got abstracted away into minimalism.
- Springtime 2y ago
  Interesting, as the icon present on the parent user's site seems to be an even earlier, less refined (and clearly AI generated) version than the prior iteration[1] before changing to the abstract design. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240208004519im_/https://ladybird.dev/ladybirb.png https://web.archive.org/web/20240208004519im_/https://ladybi...
refulgentis 2y ago
1. "cold and soulless" 2. gives black text white background 3. now its "clean(er)" 4. "also your old logo is objectively better" This isn't design work.
gitaarik 2y ago
Maybe it's because they want their website to work in their own browser ;)? I can see that if they start off simple with the browser, they start off simple with the website too, and it progressively grows with the browser.
- chengiz 2y ago
  What? The redesign is way simpler than the original website.
kumarsw 2y ago
The original sure looks bland, but a HTML4-esque webpage gives absolutely the wrong message about the maturity level of a browser regardless of how much more usable it may be. Branding matters even if it's a tough pill to swallow.

beretguy 2y ago

I love this version SO MUCH BETTER. Clean, easy to read and I don't have to scroll down for half an hour to get to the bottom. I hate "modern design", whatever it is. To much padding, to much useless css and styles.

aAaaArrRgH 2y ago

Hard disagree. If you're a fan of the strictly functional "what's CSS?" look, you might as well stick to viewing README.md on GitHub and call it a day.

rchaud 2y ago
This design makes it look like something that is looking for developer contributions. The original looks like something where a sales chatbot is likely to pop up in the corner.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

kome 2y ago

This version is clearly superior, both in design and use. Great start!

endemic 2y ago

Yeah, that original logo is way better. Kind of reminiscent of the Firefox logo before it got abstracted away into minimalism.

Springtime 2y ago
Interesting, as the icon present on the parent user's site seems to be an even earlier, less refined (and clearly AI generated) version than the prior iteration[1] before changing to the abstract design. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20240208004519im_/https://ladybird.dev/ladybirb.png https://web.archive.org/web/20240208004519im_/https://ladybi...

refulgentis 2y ago

1. "cold and soulless" 2. gives black text white background 3. now its "clean(er)" 4. "also your old logo is objectively better" This isn't design work.

gitaarik 2y ago

Maybe it's because they want their website to work in their own browser ;)? I can see that if they start off simple with the browser, they start off simple with the website too, and it progressively grows with the browser.

chengiz 2y ago
What? The redesign is way simpler than the original website.

kumarsw 2y ago

The original sure looks bland, but a HTML4-esque webpage gives absolutely the wrong message about the maturity level of a browser regardless of how much more usable it may be. Branding matters even if it's a tough pill to swallow.