Now I'm wondering if I'm alone in saying that this <i>completely</i> goes against my experience with Github.<p>The layout at the top of the page is roughly hierarchical with a header for your account (which is standard). You have (edit: my numbers do not match the ones in the article):<p><pre><code> 1. where you are (project)
2. what you want to see (code, issues, etc) (within that project)
3. branches, commits, etc (associated with the code in the project)
4. latest commit (to the code in the branch in the project)
5. code
</code></pre>
There's a clear progression from "project" to "code", with only minor hiccups along the way (the description has to do with the whole project, but then it's pointless to have it at the top of <i>every</i> page, so it's beneath a single tab). And the latest commit seems arbitrary, IMO - it doesn't convey much useful information, aside from the 'freshness' of the project.<p>On the issues page, the 'new' button is next to the search field <i>because they want you to search first</i>. If you look for a search bar (standard in the top-right corner), because you should be doing so anyway rather than duplicating reports, you would find the new issue button immediately. This is relatively standard UI for a publicly-accessible bug-report-like system.<p>There are rough parts of Github's UI, definitely. After seeing a mention that it was hard to find how to change to an organization, I tried - very strange and non-obvious that it's only on the root page (that I've seen). And the different layouts between the main tabs for a project could be a lot more consistent. And commits could use a --graph display.<p>But the main project page? I've always found that to be the single <i>least</i> confusing part of the entire site, and the most immediately-useful. I've used nearly every control on the page multiple times, and hiding them behind more layers of access would only impede normal use of the site.