03 Nov 2003 | Mike said...

It looks great guys... super clean and efficient!

03 Nov 2003 | pb said...

Nice site.

The left nav requires the pointer to be on the text to click (not just in the box) on Safari.

03 Nov 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

Was working on this redesign what led you to make the comment a while ago that we are all just risk managers?

By the way, I agree with you now much more than I did then.

03 Nov 2003 | 8500 said...

Now that is a nice looking site. I really like the cropped photo of the suit on the ladder. Congrats.

03 Nov 2003 | Jesper said...

Old site was much better. ;)

I kid, it's great.

03 Nov 2003 | Joshua Kaufman said...

Wow, pretty. Great work guys - especially compared to the old site. Eesh!

The left nav requires the pointer to be on the text to click (not just in the box) on Safari.

Well spotted pb. Personally, I find that type of nav really annoying. If a button is going to give me mouseover feedback, I'm expecting to be able to click on it. It just makes sense in the context of a navigation menu. Also, this is a contrast to the main navigation where your pointer doesn't need to be over the text to click. So beyond a basic usability issue, it's also a consistency issue. These are minor points though. Again, nice work overall.

04 Nov 2003 | Adam said...

What type of CMS do you have for the client to update the news while still matching the feel of the site? (making sure text formating and linking is done correctly)

04 Nov 2003 | jupiter said...

It looks a bit like a blog - do you (or they) maintain it with movabletype?

04 Nov 2003 | Russ Weakley said...

Loverly, clean site but invalid HTML and CSS (not that this is the most important thing on earth. However, the CSS is easily fixed by changing a declaration within one rule:

#Content .right th {
font-size: 14px;
font-style: bold;
color: #000;
border-top: 1px solid #999;
text-align: left; }

Change "font-style" to "font-weight".

Keep up the great work
Russ

04 Nov 2003 | Paperhead said...

. . . if only all of the fonts scaled instead of just the homelinks class, which, if you don't mind me saying so, seems kind of dumb, like you forgot to nail the font size down . . . it makes it look like an oversight

04 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

Very nice. Only question would be why you didn't make the page width fluid? This minimal layout is ideal for that.

I also agree that if you are going to use the 'button bar' look for the navigation that the entire bar should be clickable.

BTW...why is their logo a beanie hat? ;o)

04 Nov 2003 | seor underpants said...

I am torn over fluid layouts. On one hand, isn't readability an issue because a column width could be extremely wide - but on the other hand, the user does have the control to "set" his own page.

04 Nov 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

What level of usability was done?

A lot of the points above are technical in nature and (probably) don't affect the usability of the site, though it's still good to point them out I suppose.

04 Nov 2003 | Mike said...

Just a quick thing I noticed...

If you go to Resources » Glossary and scroll down to the little hover boxes, the text right above them says how "clicking on them will bring up the terms in a new page" but they don't.

05 Nov 2003 | Scrivs said...

I do not think a fluid layout would be appropriate for the kind of content presented on the site. Maybe if there were more that had to be placed on there then the fluid design could be justified. I am more disappointed to see the site done in tables than anything else. Oh well...it is very nice a clean and anything is better than the old one.

05 Nov 2003 | mike said...

Nice and clean.

However, I notice that the site does not have a custom page for the "404 - Page Not Found" error that I would normally expect from a 37s project.

05 Nov 2003 | Jocke said...

I really like it. The only tiny bit of stuf I found that was a little confusing usability wise, was that underlined text were used at pages like this. I know they are of a different color than the rest of the underlined links but its still a bit confusing. The rest of the typography rule.
Well anyways. Great work.

16 Jan 2004 | Aveline said...

At WWDC, I listened to Apple representatives make some excellent points about taking the time to build a 100%-compliant Aqua application, and I think all developers need to look beyond the code and listen to what the folks at Apple have to say