Back in the day there use to be a joke website called "every fucking bootstrap site" [1] where it would lambast the popular design zeitgeist of the time.<p>I really wish websites would opt for more distinctive looks rather than the massive homogenization we see across the web. Everything looks the same when it doesn't have to. Things can be stylized while accounting for accessibility and usability.<p>I don't know what to call this "feeling" but man is it depressing. We went from replicating magazines to making unique (and often clashing) home pages to trying to appeal to the most average of sensibilities where it all becomes counter intuitive.<p>Probably not fair to pin this on w3c because this can easily apply to several hundred other sites.<p>It really does make you question why bother having a time of designers, frontend developers, project managers, etc, etc to just come up with the exact same thing as everyone else.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.dagusa.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dagusa.com/</a>
Nice readability and blazing fast to me. That's awesome.<p>It reminded me of how good is the performance and design of the UK design system <a href="https://design-system.service.gov.uk/" rel="nofollow">https://design-system.service.gov.uk/</a><p>Hope that at some point they can hire an illustrator to make some custom illustrations with more personality.
If the designer is reading this thread. My fellow human, please swap out the corporate memphis landing page image with something that's less overused in web design today.
Information density.<p>One thing I really dislike over the last 10+ years the web has brought is a huge reduction in information density.<p>W3C old site was great at being dense on content/info. This site is not.
Not sure why previous comments are so harsh towards its design.<p>The very header copy says the W3C strives to help people build web based on several principles, and accessibility is listed first. And this design resembles that - a strong focus on accessibility and feeling familiar and usable for most people. I don't think doing a "less overused" design in there would keep that goal in focus.
I like it. It's easy to be against change and difficult to get behind it.<p>Maybe in attracting developers who criticize it, some will end up finding something educational. The homepage could be more useful, especially around the ways to contribute. But the main categories are right there in the first sentence of the first section, and the data structures makes sense.<p>Good job!
Related: "W3C welcomes feedback on the beta of its new website" - <a href="https://beta.w3.org/news/2023/w3c-welcomes-feedback-on-the-beta-of-its-new-website/" rel="nofollow">https://beta.w3.org/news/2023/w3c-welcomes-feedback-on-the-b...</a>
Looking at the code on their site a saw this 'class="not-sidebar"' ... why describe what something is when you can describe what it isn't! :D
The menu is odd. I think I could grow to like it, but it has very harsh transitions for when I pick an option. And, since it is a bit of a navigation
menu, odd that it gives no indication of "where I'm at."<p>Similarly, before the site navigation, there is a language navigation. However, since it hides the currently selected language (that is, "where I'm at"), I did not actually know for sure that that would be the same page, just in another language, for those links.<p>I'm also a little disappointed at how bloody nested all of the markup is. Though, I suppose that is my not being current on modern standards? The "nav", in particular, feels excessive at 500 lines of code. I get not wanting CSS wizardry, but I feel like a lot of the items that are in that code should be done with CSS. (Or, have we moved so far that it is accepted to have presentation in the main document nowadays?)
So that's what W3C, Inc. is onto these days? I thought they were into standardizing HTML etc., meaning they follow a process to take HTML review drafts from the whatwg github repo ultimately to recommendation status these days? At least that's what their HTML WG charter says they do in Februars, but they didn't, when last year their review resulted in Steve Faulkner's major edit of the HTML spec to get rid of novel heading level interpretation and the so-called "outlining algorithm" - one of the original innovations that came with Ian Hickson's HTML5.
What is used to build this site? some SSG, or SSR, or SPA, or a CMS like wordpress? check its html source showed jquery 3.5.1 and bootstrap 4.<p>Also liked this newly updated page: <a href="https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/" rel="nofollow">https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/</a> and it's using jquery1.x still.<p>now I start to wonder all those new SSG|SSR trend along with SPA, maybe bootstrap + jquery combination is good enough?
Well i am somewhat interested (cynical?) of W3C itself and this website does not at all detract from my opinion.
I find the layout almost childish and "waffle centric ", the type of website you have when how it looks is more important than the message. (or you want to gloss over any deep consideration of the message?)<p>I guess W3C is so broad in concept that it is very hard to be specific without turning users off at first visit.
Unlike most comments here, I think this is very well made!, its much better than the original site, easy to read, easy to understand and invitijg to learn more about W3C, rather than an old website telling to stay away.<p>I think Debian should do the same, its much better now, but its no fedora website.
41 warnings.<p>It’s ironic this landing page doesn’t pass W3C’s own HTML validator.<p><a href="https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fbeta.w3.org%2F" rel="nofollow">https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fbeta.w3.org%2...</a><p>Edit: corrected to stated “warnings”, not errors.
Zooms in when I click menu on IOS Safari <a href="https://s.natalian.org/2023-02-28/menu.png" rel="nofollow">https://s.natalian.org/2023-02-28/menu.png</a>