[galaxyLogic]

The web-sites I create look much like that, but that is not my goal. I would like to look modern.

Can you say what in particular makes it look like 90s? And what could be done to make it look more current?

[tannhaeuser]

Not responsive, presenting the same layout on mobile and desktop

3-column grail layout (not bad per se, and not badly done at all, just something that was chased in the 90/00s to the extent that it looks dated - still could be ok for the intended target audience)

Why are there two nav menus? The horizontal menu appears to contain the same links as the vertical one, or the first couple items of it

Center body text doesn't have margin/padding

In general, allow content to have space rather than trying to cram everything into the first page impression; there are exceptions, though

What's the central message/tagline for the ATS site? The teaser syntax examples in the right column, with proper typo, are about the stuff that should be featured as central or only content

+1 for crafting a site for your project in the first place

[Zababa]

For me the annoying part that screams "old website" in a bad way is having two column for two different contents. I'd like to have one main content and be able to zoom on it easily. Outside of that, I think the "holy grail" design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_grail_(web_design)) and the muted colors are a characteristic of old web design.

[riffraff]

I am no designer, but I would guess:

* underlined links in sidebar (we are familiar with sidebars now, we know we can click those, this looks like a page made with <frame>)

* same for top nav bar

* solid non-subtle background colors (more subtle ones or patterns these days are more common these days)

* too many font sizes

* odd intermix of rounded corners (very round!) and square ones

* unstyled textual header (if you just adopt a "visual" font for the title it will look nicer)

I don't mind it, anyway.

[jcelerier]

> * underlined links in sidebar (we are familiar with sidebars now, we know we can click those, this looks like a page made with <frame>)

please no. my parents had an internet connection since 1996, and they have SO MUCH TROUBLE with links that aren't underlined, especially on the phone. It's one of the most basic affordances of the web.

[riffraff]

Are you sure about this? I agree this is the case for generic links, but it seems odd for the navigation ones.

Basically every site I could think of (NYT, Yahoo!, BBC, Google/GMail, HuPo, Amazon) has navbars without underline.

Even the site for "Don't Make Me Think!"[0] avoids them.

[0] https://sensible.com/dont-make-me-think/

[tartoran]

Layers and layers of styling, all sorts of frameworks and web trinkets. I like the style of this website, it is simple and not overwhelming. It does look older but old in UI/UX doesn’t mean worse, it could mean better in many ways. However, the left banner overlaps the content and it makes reading the content on my phone nearly impossible so I guess it’s got its flaws.

[lolski]

The one that adds a lot to the retro look for me was the colour scheme - look at how each section has different colours.

The combination of typography, colour scheme, borders, corners, and margin used doesn't add up to a "unified look and feel".

Anyways, I made the discussion go off tangent here talking about the website and not the language itself :D

[mejutoco]

IMHO, it is mainly The default styling of links (blue with underline)

[galaxyLogic]

I think you're right that's the main non-modern thing, you don't see such much these days. I always did "hate" the default blue of links.

Why does it bother me (and I guess others)? It is because it looks like the links were done fast and cheap, with no style, except the default style.