3 ms·
Agreed. I'm a regular user of the BoM website, and from my perspective the old version was absolutely fine. I wasn't one of the people instantly panning the red
by retsibsi 11mo ago
Agreed. I'm a regular user of the BoM website, and from my perspective the old version was absolutely fine. I wasn't one of the people instantly panning the redesign, but after using it for a while I haven't found positives to outweigh the minor annoyance of the change, let alone justify the expenditure. I can totally believe there were some accessibility issues that I was oblivious to, but it's hard to imagine they couldn't have been fixed in a much narrower, cheaper way.
(It was slightly weird that the old website didn't support https -- but on the other hand, I can't really think of a realistic case where that mattered. And I reckon they could have sorted it out for closer to $0m than $100m.)
- brokenmachine 11mo ago>It was slightly weird that the old website didn't support https It always did if you linked to https://reg.bom.gov.au https://reg.bom.gov.au , eg https://reg.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60801/IDN60801.94768.shtml https://reg.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60801/IDN60801.94768.shtm... https://reg.bom.gov.au/products/IDR711.loop.shtml https://reg.bom.gov.au/products/IDR711.loop.shtml
- jiggawatts 11mo agoIronically it had HTTPS enabled and set up on the 'www' site as well, but it obnoxiously redirected you back to HTTP if you tried to change the URL. I've never seen that anywhere else, ever.