New IUCN Red List site

I like how the images are more prominent on the new site; previously they felt like a bit of an afterthought shoved away in the corner. I also like how distribution maps appear within the main assessment rather than in a separate window.
 
Ew, I really don't like that at all. I do like the distribution map being right there - on the old site it was just a pain - but as a whole it doesn't look like a professional trustworthy site at all now, it looks like some kid made it. What's with all the giant dates and lettering? If I was looking for source material and came across that site randomly without knowing it was the IUCN site, I'd pass right over it because it looks so amateurish.
 
The new site is an awful horrendouns nightmare!!!! I used extensively this page as one of the sources for made my own species factsheets. It was perfect, a great quantity of valuable data in the text, often difficult to find in other public sources. Now we only have a page full of colour squares, with two (instead one) repeated global maps that make the PC run very slowly instead a clear nice text indicating the distribution in detail, and with all the info about the species hidden. This is a great loss. I can't be more agree with Chlidonias!
 
I'm hoping it's a work in progress and some of the obvious faults will be ironed out; there are paragraphs containing gobledigook too as place holders (or whatever they're called). Send them some feedback?
 
Last edited:
The new website is modern, which I like, though it really isn't like the old informational professional style it was, it is an improvement in style, though it lacks in information.
 
Add me to the unconvinced list. It's got 'Windows 8 Disease' - clearly designed for small screens, it's really hard to find a particular piece of information on a standard monitor - you just see random blocks of colour and headers within headers.

I know the current trend is all against text-based websites but it's possible to go too far the other way.
 
Looks like yet another popular website directed at children. More graphics heavy than Wikipedia. Hard to dig the actual information.

Probably somebody told a graphic designer to make the site more attractive, and he/she made it look cheap and unprofessional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top