5 ms·
I really hate saying this because I know it must have taken a lot of work to get to this stage... but it looks very 2005. Fewer gradients and shadows and try to
by stdbrouw 14y ago
I really hate saying this because I know it must have taken a lot of work to get to this stage... but it looks very 2005. Fewer gradients and shadows and try to slim down the menus and columns. I know the current site isn't exactly a beauty, but I liked how it had a Wikipedia-like gravitas. This design looks too young for the audience.
- Stately 14y agoThe previous one looked very 1998 so it's still a progress
- w1ntermute 14y agoI don't think it's that 2005. For example, it has RWD, which is wonderful.
- fleetfox 14y agoI don't think it's 2005 if it's not m$ flat.
- JeremyBanks 14y agoTake that back to $lashdot, please.
- sauce71 14y agoI was more in 2009, still, it has probably taken a lot of work and a lot of time so the design became dated in the process ...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- meerita 14y agoI felt the same. The design looks pretty older to me, as well those sans types makes my eyes bleed.