4 ms·

Can you expand on the "actively hostile" comment? I thought it was a technically and aesthetically impressive implementation but I'm no designer.

• cooldeal 14y ago
  It looks, feels and reads like someone used a PowerPoint to HTML5 converter to make that site,and as others pointed out, seems to have issues supporting browsers.
• thalecress 14y ago
  When I try to read the text in the upper left, I keep getting distracted by animated numbers falling into the bottom right.
• jsnell 14y ago
  Other people already posted different annoyances, but my issues with that page were: The animations are choppy to a distracting level on Chrome 22 running on a reasonably beefy desktop machine. The font size is unreadably small, and due to the three column layout it doesn't degrade well when zoomed. It'd be merely crappy if zooming required vertical scrolling. It's disabling all methods of vertical scrolling entirely that really make this design special. It replaces normal page navigation with a custom version, which is already bad. They then compound that error by mapping that custom navigation to the wrong keys. An example: maybe you'd like to check one of the footnotes they have. In a sensible design those would be hyperlinks, but for whatever reason that wasn't done. Ok, so I guess you need to go to the end of the document to see the footnotes. Wouldn't still be too bad, but they forgot to map the "End" key. So the only way to get to the end of the document is with the slider. And after doing that, how do you return to the original position? Well, I'd expect to be able to do Alt-Left for that. Except that this keybinding has been overridden too, and you need to instead click on the back button. Doing this kind of stuff might be just about acceptable in a web app. But this isn't an app. It's a document. And they've managed to break the only two things that matter for a document. I need to be able to read it, and I need to be able to navigate it.
  • halefx 14y ago
    FYI, the animations look great to me in Chrome 22 on a year-old Dell laptop. The font size is smaller than I would have used, but I wouldn't describe it as "unreadable". There are some other big problems, though. They've obviously never heard of Unobtrusive Javascript[1]. Try opening the site without Javascript. And the HTML/CSS is garbage. What a joke. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtrusive_JavaScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtrusive_JavaScript
    • jsnell 14y ago
      My vision isn't very good. The text becomes comfortable to read at around 175%-200% zoom level. The default size is so far outside that range that I have no qualms about describing it as unreadable, even if it's not literally true and I could read it with sufficient concentration. Just to be clear, I don't think the problem is the tiny font size as such. It's the tiny size combined with gratuitously unscrollable and unscalable layout. It's a similar problem to many default themes for blogs disabling zooming on mobile browsers for no good reason. This got so bad that the Android browser sprouted an accessibility option to force zooming to always be enabled.
  • redthrowaway 14y ago
    I'm using Chrome 22 on a 2 year-old MBP, and it works fine. The only complaint I have is that it breaks the back button, which Google is usually pretty good about. All told, it's a slick bit of CSS/JS that looks like a native PP slide deck, but with more functionality.
• recursive 14y ago
  "Please update your browser and come back to visit us."
• MaysonL 14y ago
  Try selecting some text. :)