|
|
|
|
|
by mnicole
4888 days ago
|
|
I'm kind of at a loss for words. It used to be unique and friendly, and now it is just another Medium, 37signals, altered Bootstrap-looking thing with no personality. Not including dates in the highlighted articles on the homepage (and only highlighting two to begin with?), along with putting it at the bottom of the "More From" is a huge miss (as the date of these types of articles is important to the context and to give me an idea of how often they are written). Having to click into, and then scroll, to see all of the topics instead of having them in a sidebar adds more clicks for the user to navigate. The mix between bolded blue links and thin black links.. the differences in formatting between every single title, date and author depending on which part of the site it is on.. The awkward "No" in "Issue No." and the misaligned/missing top padding on the button-looking elements.. The terrible overall typography.. Just noticed that when you're in an article and hover over a subheader, it shows a hidden element that pushes all of the content down.. The fact that the "Share This" crap is on there at all (or that it isn't just one line of gray icons) and that it is not spaced apart or visibly different from Kevin's byline (which deserves more).. . |
|
Which is basically intended only to increase page views. If you're searching for something about web design, and Google's results show the slug for an entry as "Sep 21, 2004", you're probably a lot less likely to read that than the other link that is "current". So, better to take out a date altogether. The only person who loses out is the viewer, who might rely on sometimes vastly outdated information (says me, who has spent the last couple of days looking at Crystal Reports forums and having to discard search results from the early 2000s and even 1990s).