Sq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3127 times:
IMO The top banner is too pale, should provide more contrast to the logo. Prefer the previous dark blue background instead of gray. Light colored text is hard to read for older people, particularly the white text. QF website looks better to me.
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Got it to work finally. My impression is - boring. From a design point of view it's most uninspiring. Compared to Delta's revamp SQ's is rather tacky. Wrong choice of primary framing colours - making it look very sleepy. Contrasting with the vibrant colours of the picture insets, it makes everything else fade away. The layout itself is rather weak. Things simply float about aimlessly. There isnt a definite structure or skeleton where I can be sure the things I'm looking for are placed. The rather large picture insets are competing with each other for attention - too many of them I say - adding to the faded text, confusing navigation and hidden controls.
And their biggest asset - Star Alliance membership - is conveniently hidden down the bottom of the page...
I could have gone on and on to pick more bones but I'm sure I've provoked enough reactions. Please dont be offended if you like SQ but I think they've screwed this one up big time.
Dazeflight From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 580 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2711 times:
I have to agree with Cloudyapple - using a rather strong jpg compression resulting in ugly and clearly visible artefacts where you could easily use a gif image is an error I would only beginners expect to make.
The colors are a little pale but I cannot see any display errors in my Firefox.
Concluding - Nothing that was worth the effort (altough there might be some structural changes I am not aware of) or even better: a redesign just for the sake of a redesign.