4 ms·

And, unsurprisingly it looks just like direct.gov.uk with some polish. Money well spent!* * Sarcasm for reference...

• blahpro 14y ago
  My understanding is that the benefit is the consolidation of various agency websites into a single site, initially replacing DirectGov and Business Link.
• erinaceous 14y ago
  I disagree, I think it looks a lot different to directgov. It's a helluva lot cleaner - every page on directgov is a mass of links to other places, whereas this one focuses much more on the content. The design is also responsive, which is nice (directgov definitely isn't responsive) - it'll look nice on mobile devices. The floating 'relevant links' thing is a nice touch too. I don't get why the default font for the size is so huge though, they ought to make it smaller a couple of points.
• happymuffin 14y ago
  Good job it's apparently a lot less money to run than direct.gov.uk, so a huge win for the UK taxpayer!
  • pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    In what way does it save money? Would be interested in some stats if there are any; presumably they'd be projections at this stage.
    • simonw 14y ago
      It saves money because they're doing the work with an in-house development team, instead of blowing millions of younds per project on expensive consultants from IBM, Accenture etc.
• johneth 14y ago
  It's cheaper to operate and improve upon (by combining various websites into one over time), it's demonstrably clearer and easier to use than the current DirectGov site(s) - see their design principles here: https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples https://www.gov.uk/designprinciples - and it's designed for the use cases of right now (not 8 years ago).