It’s disheartening to see a website you’ve grown to love go from good to worst in design (thankfully the content will always be superb.) When they announced the redesign, I was excited. An improved Pitchfork that is easier to use, maybe? My hopes were high, but the unveiled redesign has left me bummed out. The design is even harder to use, it is disjointed, over-usage of pixel fonts, no selection of character encoding, the code is a verifiable nightmare, and the color chosen, while interesting, just doesn’t fit well with the site’s image. Don’t take my word for it though, check it out for yourself.
Designed by Some Odd Pilot their portfolio seem to have sites that look alike in layout principle (see site1 and site2 menu), and there’s no web standards to be seen. Maybe next time Pitchfork Media go with a redesign, they will go with a better web design studio.
Related posts:
ha i just said the same thing on my site
Taylor on Jan 14th, 2005
At least it’s not as bad as AMG’s redesign, but it didn’t become one iota more useful. How ’bout browsing reviews by rating or genre, Pitchfork? Eh?
Luke on Jan 14th, 2005
yeah, i was thinking the same thing. i just seached the web to see if there was any criticism of the new design and i found myself here. i thought it would have been a complete redesign… is it just me or does the font still look the same?
lindsay on Jan 17th, 2005
Unfortunately, as a web designer, there’s not really many choices when it comes to choosing fonts. There is a technique now, using Flash, to use any fonts you want, but it’s still fairly new and not everyone knows how to use Flash software.
Matt Burris on Jan 17th, 2005