On 4/6/19 6:30 PM, bauss wrote:
Just going to respond to this:
"If you haven’t visited the site in a while, you’ll surely notice that
it’s been redesigned. The old version was not responsive and was quite
annoying to manipulate on small screens."
The design is terrible and it really looks unprofessional.
While the old site wasn't responsive, the design was at least slightly
better.
It just doesn't look very well done.
I'm not trying to be negative or anything, but it looks like someone who
just learn html/css in 1999 tried to make the design of the page.
Aside from perhaps an overuse of padding on the left navbar, it looks
good to me. Whaddya want, a bunch of those vaguely-relevant full-screen
introductory images you have to scroll past just to get to any nuggets
of actual content there might be?
The vast majority of "responsive" pages I've seen out there are
absolutely god-awful for both aesthetics and practicality. This design
is far better than any of them. Bear in mind too, that not playing an
endless game of follow-the-crowd with design is a far cry from looking
"terrible" or "unprofessional".
Not saying there isn't room for improvement, but "The design is terrible
and it really looks unprofessional." makes it seem like you're looking
at completely different site than I am.
