-
201022 Feb
Posted in Site Updates
I’m pleased today to be able to announce the completion of CSS3 .info’s redesign, bringing the site a much needed new look and feel.
The site has been completely redesigned to offer a more professional brand / design, easier navigation (with the site having long since outgrown its current navigation structure), faster loading times (due to less reliance on images in the layout) and to showcase some of the new functionality offered by CSS3 (including text-shadow, box-shadow and border-radius).
At present there are still one or two tasks left to complete, such as adding the search box, completing the page footer, filling in content on new pages, etc, however the main bulk of the work has now been completed, with any remaining tasks due to be completed over the next few days.
What’s Next?
Following the completion of the redesign, our priorities for the next few months are the launch of a new forum on CSS3 .info and a long overdue overhaul of the site’s CSS3 Preview pages.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
-
Comments
-
01.
The old site had the bounce and spirit of a well-designed hub to an idea. It was CSS3, to those who didn't know any better, and seemed to personify the spirit of the spec.
This new one is very lifeless. Reflections under the title? How 'Web 3.0'. It's boring and corporate and completely generic, with no flair of its own.
Which is why I personally believe an unfinished design shouldn't be put up prematurely. Let's see what it's like when it's finished. - 02.
-
03.
The old design was fun; cheerful and better resembled what I would think a design blog should look like. The new design is more plain and corporate looking. I do like both designs but I think the old version had more of a creative and inspirational feel. Just my 2 cents worth anyway! :)
-
04.
-
05.
I can't wait to see the final version of the site's redesign! =)
Already using css3 to design my myspace page and a website I'm working on for my boss.
Thanks for the inspiration.Greetings outta Germany,
Marco -
06.
akiaki says:Comment » February 22nd, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Dark shadows on dark texts everywhere. The whole site is ugly as hell. Please, revert it as soon as you get an FTP access. Please.
-
07.
-
08.
Richard says:Comment » February 22nd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Very nice! This is much better than the old one. Finally the use of shadows and round corners like it's suppose to be. IE, sorry about your luck. I love it.
-
09.
-
10.
Ertbor says:Comment » February 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Awful. Blue text on dark gray. Bad idea. Currently I see black bullets next to each article title in the Popular Articles box. Barely visible as are "number of comments" besides them (black text on dark gray). The site was once distinctive. Now, it looks like a template off the factory floor.
-
11.
-
12.
-
13.
Uhmmm… I think the old one was much better =/
-
14.
-
15.
-
16.
Shadows and border-radius on the comment textarea are nice, there are some strong points to the new design though I have to honestly say I liked the previous design more.
If there were no changes to XHTML then why not simply add the ability to choose themes?
Also black text on dark-gray doesn't work all that well.
Plus if a menu is a drop down it needs to have a background-image denoting that hovering and focusing that anchor will display further options otherwise some users may feel they have to dig for specific pages.
…but most importantly…there really needs to be CSS3 used all over the site where it can be executed tastefully.
-
17.
Nice redesign, I can't wait for the updated previews.
Keep up the good work!
-
18.
I think the header's too deep with a lot of wasted space off to the right. The black text on a grey background in the popular articles box is pretty hard to read.
And if you run a colour contrast test on the page, the blue on black headers passes Luminosity Contrast Ratio (for large text only) but fails for both Difference in Brightness and Difference in Colour.
A button for Submit Comment rather than a text link would be useful too.
-
19.
Just because you can… doesn't mean you should.
-
20.
-
21.
-
22.
anon says:Comment » February 22nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
I wouldn't say you should go back to the old theme just yet. Now that you've already pushed this new theme live, why not try to flair it up with some life here and there.
I think you've made a great start, but like others have said…it's a bit lifeless and needs more of a fun feel than a business feel. Something fruitful should stun me at the top of the page to capture my attention and interest similar to how the previous theme did.
-
23.
Aurélien says:Comment » February 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Really really bad and old fashion while the old one was great !
It tooks like 10 minutes to make it right ?
-
24.
Font size is still in pixels… Is it really impossible to use ‘medium’ for content?
-
25.
I like the old look better. It seems to me that it hinted at the "fun" possibilities of CSS3 better than the new one looks at this moment.
-
26.
Ron van den Boogaard says:Comment » February 22nd, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Generic, no fun anymore. The old one had much more spirit. Time for a roll-back.
-
27.
just coz you can use box-shadow, doesn't necessarily mean you should. Tone down the shadows and make them more subtle. The design looks ok, but you've just gone overboard with the shadows.
-
28.
Thorsten says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 2:33 am
Have to agree with a lot of people here that the new design kind of underwhelms. The old one was much better in my opinion, because it had more character.
-
29.
The first time I've ever disliked a redesign. Congrats.
-
30.
Marv says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 7:21 am
The old one was much much muuuuuuuuuch better. As this plain blue shit. Everbody who play the first time with html can produce this.
-
31.
-
32.
Recs says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 7:31 am
The old design was soooooo much better.
This site now looks boring like any other site. -
33.
Ugly, ugly, ugly. Totally boring new design. Please go back to the creative and inspiring css3-site.
-
34.
-
35.
Steve says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 8:33 am
Urgs, ugly. Looks like my school intern made it.
-
36.
-
37.
emil says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 8:47 am
Ugly. Very bad redesign.
The old design was much better.
-
38.
Theres a few nice touches, but too few of them. Like the RSS and Twitter icons for the 'subscribe' and 'follow', but overall I have to agree with most of the comments – its too bland and no spirit.
While it looks 'clean', 'modern' and 'professional', it lacks character. You need to spice it up a bit, add a bit of flare here and there, showcase CSS3 to its full potential rather than the over use of drop shadows. The headers are too dark and look all jaggerty on a windows machine.
While I appreciate the hardwork thats gone into this, I think a site like this needs to be cutting edge and pushing whats possible on the web.
-
39.
incevolebus says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 11:14 am
if anyone who says that this redesign is “great” then you should see an eye doctor!! please revert to the old design, this new version is awful and it looks like it’s been redesigned back in 1993!
-
40.
Oh. I really like the redesign. It’s not yet perfect, but I personally prefer simple designs. I can see as well that this design is splitting everyone here, too. :D
And you should really fix this comment form. Look how crappy it looks in Fx3.6:
http://s7b.directupload.net/file/d/2079/44thhe3w_png.htm
And is the white bar below the footer intended? -
41.
Shame. Looks like so many other sites now. It's no longer standout or exceptional. To be honest, it looks like it was done with a framework like Thematic, Headway, Hybrid etc and little effort was made to deviate from their standard layout..
CSS3 is leading edge, so CSS3.info should have a leading edge design.
This isn't it. The old design captured that much better.
-
42.
Alexandre says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 am
Holly Jesus. Got an eye cancer just looking at the new design.
-
43.
I guess they were so excited about getting the site re-designed they made a boob and put it up too early.
The point of a well designed and thought out website is to have a direct influence on users, clients and the general traffic.
This is not having a positive effect from what i can see, however looking at the coding itself, its a solid design and executed well.
Regards
Craig Reville
-
44.
Suneet says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 am
Talking from a graphic designers point of view, I think this design is less child-like in comparison to the last. Much easy to navigate, it is clean and fresh and doesn't make me feel like I should be reading something child related.
Yes, the design is a much more simple yet sophisticated, but it uses CSS3, which is what this website is for… It is a teaching example!
Just like every website, I am sure with time, it will adapt, develop and grow….
Fantastic new look, good luck with rest! :D
-
45.
Gofromiel says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Are all the unicorns dead ? Is this a corporate site now ?
-
46.
outch…who did that? The old design was far better…far, far, far…
-
47.
-
48.
Andy says:Comment » February 23rd, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Just adding my voice to the others requesting the old design be restored. It was so much more lively and interesting.
-
49.
WTF! Even if I understand the need of something more professionnal, why have you made this … hu… things!
I find this so ugly. My god, is there any more fun in professionnal webdesign?
To me it's this redesign it's an epic fail.
It's so sad, so dark, so straight… what a pity. :'( -
50.
Absolute boring relaunch. Just that you have the ability of CSS3 features doesn’t mean you have to use it on every element (shadows). Furthermore, the line-height is terrible. You should set it to 18px at least.
The margin between headlines and paragraphs on the front page is to unclear.The old layout was ay better.
-
51.
well. like me this but The old one had much more Beautiful and useful . This is the final version of new design..?
-
01.
