dictionary.com redesign
- Started
- Last post
- 31 Responses
- DanielLaskowski
Not sure if it was officially announced yet, but happy cog redesigned dictionary - and I think the result is really good. Just look at the search result page - nailed it!
- HumanMale0
Link?!
- republik80
It's a bit Web 2.0
- jamble0
Link?!
HumanMale
(Aug 25 06, 01:53)hmmm ... dictionary.com redesigns ..
- DanielLaskowski0
what is the web 2.0 apart from a gimmicky buzzword?
- kelpie0
web 2.0 backlash is so played out
- HumanMale0
hmmm ... dictionary.com redesigns ..
jamble
(Aug 25 06, 01:55)
----------------------Fuck me, everyone's a comedian today!
If someone posts something to be looked at, they post a link. Simple.
- HumanMale0
I think it's shit, by the way...
- DanielLaskowski0
Humanmale , why do you think it's shit?
- jamble0
I think it's shit, by the way...
HumanMale
(Aug 25 06, 02:09)I do as well, it's uninspiring. Yeah sure it's got giant text in the search box and some tabs but it really could be any website.
- elahon0
Hey, I like it. Looks clean, and it's functional.
- rasko40
they really turned this one around huh, totally turned it inside out.
I mean seriously, it's not exactly much of a redesign is it?
The results are still rather messy, they should have loked into that, they haven't really thought about anything, just brushed up on what was already there.
- HumanMale0
It's messy, those adverts are in the worst place possible, it's bland yet hard to read.
//Whoaaaa... big text in the search bar – genius.
- DanielLaskowski0
Ask yourself: when you land on the homepage, do you know where to look? What are the priorities?
The site's well-structured and the content is easily accessible. The search results are layed out beautifully.
I can agree the homepage is not the best-lookin' perhaps - but that might be as much down to the ugly logo
- rasko40
it really is shabby, so - a banner centred at the top is the tightest arrangement they could come up with?
- HumanMale0
DanielLaskowski... why are you sticking up for it so much?
Was it you?!
- rasko40
shut up, look at this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/…
you think that the typography there is good? You have to be kidding me, what's wrong with using some coloured backgrounds of alternating tints or something to distinguish between results and definitions etc, this is shabby and barely redesigned.
- DanielLaskowski0
At least we have some conversation actually about design in the PVN
ok maybe i'm wrong - it is much better than was before, can u agree?
- rasko40
there is an improvement yes.
- jamble0
I've used it a few times before in the old state so perhaps you couldn't consider my opion hugely valid as a long time user of the site but I never had much trouble with finding stuff on the old site and don't on the new one.
I just think that this is an example of an uninspiring redesign that does little more than sort out some messy code but ultimately does little to improve the look of what is a fundamentally text heavy site.
Sure it works but just because it's a happy cog redesign I'm not going to soil my britches on this occasion.