<p>Funny, it was actually brought up in a number of web design circles as an impressive site. I personally think it looks great, but do agree it can hinder you when your trying to get somewhere, which is a really big negative. Goes to show you what happens when you put presentation over functionality. It should be a website, not a brochure.</p>
<p>Also, it seems like a ton of time was put into the front pages while the pages with actual content on them look much less attractive.</p>
<p>Would you be able to elaborate on why you think it looks good? For me, there is a sort of elegance to it. However, I find it functionally poor, and I think I have to agree with the author of the Spectator article that it loses the "community" feel.</p>
<p>The biggest problem isn't it's appearance-- which, other than the Brown being too dark and the name Brown being too meek looking-- is fine. It's all about the functionality. Splitopen said it best-- this functions as a great piece of coding that creates a fancy online brochure. The old site was filled with information and far more utilitarian. The website should be somewhere in between these two things.</p>
<p>Bump.
It looks like the website was never changed. What do you guys who are just getting into the admissions cycle think - is it detracting from your opinion of the university?</p>
<p>i think nobody particularly cares about what the website looks like when applying</p>
<p>it looks great to me. and it works reasonable well. want to see a horrible website? <a href="http://www.duke.edu%5B/url%5D">www.duke.edu</a></p>
<p>i like the site.. but i havent seen the old one/</p>