The content seems more useful and directs me towards specific actions. And I particularly like the media page. (Hiding and showing the pictures is sort of gimmicky but for some reason I like the gimmick. Having the picture show up felt like a "pleasant" surprise)

But the vibe of the website feels less professional to me than the old website. Part of the issue is the gratuitous use of clip-art, part of it is font choice and color scheme. (Your logo doesn't stand out very well against the dull blue background, and there are several different random fonts getting used, few of which seem to match the feel of either of the sleeker fonts used in "Singularity Institute" title.)

• The "What we do" page contains three short summarizing sentences, but no links to further information. A tiny bug: the second picture has alt text "photo_what_we_do_2".
• On the "Get involved" page, there are "read more" links, but the impulse is to click on the pictures. These should lead to the same places as "Read more". Ditto for pictures at the bottom of "Media" and on the "About" page, and the picture through the "Read our blog" link in the header of all pages. There is also a phrase "Another important way you can help is by reading these important papers". Too much "important" (I'd cut both).
• Of the first three buttons in the menu, two are "Donate" and "Get involved", with only mostly content-less "What we do" in between. This doesn't seem optimal for new visitors, who first need to be convinced that what SingInst does is worthwhile (and what it is, exactly).
• Is there a good reason for the auto-hiding of pictures on the "Media" page? (For example, it might really look worse if shown all at once...) It looks out-of-place, an unnecessary co

In my opinion, you guys should try to project a somewhat academic vibe: no personal stories, cite established researchers, qualify outlandish seeming claims with words like could and might, etc. Focus on communicating with the smartest laypeople (young and old) who come across the website in a straightforward, credible, and intelligent way. For a quick example, on this page, I would suggest "proving the safety of artificial minds" over "foundations of Friendly AI theory".

A link on the homepage or tab in the navigation specifically targeted at academics would be cool. The research tab is a good start, but "Research" doesn't say "click here if you're an academic" the same way "For Academics" might. I'm suggesting that as soon as someone has clicked this hypothetical link, you start assuming they are a smart, skeptical CS professor who is trying to shoot you down and hasn't read any of your stuff yet.

Who are the most important people you are hoping to influence with your website and how are you hoping to influence them?

What's going on with this page? http://singularity.org/get-started/

I agree that you should cut down on the number of f... (read more)

The site is slow on my not-so-new PC with win32/WinXP/Chrome. When I wheel-scroll, there is a 300ms-ish delay before the page moves. This almost never happens for any site, so it stands out. On another newer PC (win32/Win7/Chrome), the blue background loads slowly in jumps (it's a 1MB png file hosted on siai.helldesign.net).

"Donate" should not be the leftmost tab.

It should go

• About
• What We Do
• Research
• Media
• Get Involved
• Donate

Unlike Raemon, I like the color scheme (Facebook made blue cool again). However, for me the site appears lacking in usability.

For example, I expected on the front page (or any other page) a number of terminal links you want people to click, say, in a column along the right side. By terminal I mean links to papers, ideas, examples, conclusions, not other collections of links. Each such terminal link should be a summary of what's inside. An extreme example of this approach (which works well in news media) is The Register.

There is also very little use of mou... (read more)

Assuming you're soliciting comments on the design...

A few things on the front page: What's the "Go to next page" for? There are links all over the page, what could "next" page possibly mean?

What's the text box on the left? If I type random text into it and hit return, I get two error messages to the effect that I'm STOOPID because I did something WRONG. It appears that what was expected was an email address, but the text around it doesn't suggest that very well. And second most prominent thing on the front page is not the place to put... (read more)

I prefer black text on white background (instead of #4A535D text on #F6F8FC background), because it is easier to read. Especially when the text is long (Singularity FAQ), lower contrast makes eyes more tired.

on the about page "Meet the Team" links to http://singularity.org/visiting-fellows/ instead of http://singularity.org/team/

The link "applications for new Visiting Fellows" on http://singularity.org/visiting-fellows/ just redirects back to the same page. Also, Thomas Colthurst's entry has overflowing italics.

There appears to be a 404 at http://singularity.org/techsummaries/brain-computer-interfaces/

The website left me a positive impression. From my cursory exploration, the only thing that stood out negatively was the existence of the subsection of Life Stories inside Media; I think this subsection will need to be handled with care.

Web of Trust, a browser app designed to build a website security rating and trustworthiness oriented community, is warning me that singularity.org has untrustworthy attributes. I don't find it particularly likely that singularity.org is trying something malicious, but whatever the circumstances have been, I would like to know why this has occurred, or at least to point it out. Could be a false positive on WoT's part, or something else (I know almost nothing about web security).

If it is simply a case of WoT failing to be thorough enough in how it weighs r... (read more)

I am not fond of the blue, nor of the (what looks like) clip art on the Donate page, Get Involved page, Media page...etc. To me, personally, the site lights up the part of my brain that screams "SCAM! SCAM!" Probably because it looks like it was made by one of those pre-made websites where the owner fills in the content (I'm not actually sure what they're called.)

I suggest developing an idea of what you want people to feel when they see the site, then base your design around that.

There's a spelling error on the first section of the Research page:

"If you’re new to the entire topic, see the 5-page Reducing Long-Term Catastrohpic Risks from Artificial Intelligence."

It should be Catastrophic.

This link on the research page: Complex Value Systems are Required to Realize Valuable Futures.

Is broken.

I like the new site; looks very good, and seems to guide me to interesting places nicely.

A few nitpicks though:

• Many of the reference sections have URLs that aren't links.
• The summary is fairly hidden: it's 2 clicks from the front page (Get Started -> research summary). If this is meant to be a bit of an introduction, it might be nice to be more obvious. The "Recommend readings" section could be better formatted, so that the text is more obviously separated from the references. (And, the in-text citations aren't hyperlinks.)
• The keep up with

I see a lot of mistakes pointed out here, but also a lot of claims about preferences, many contradictory. Are there any plans to A/B test stuff or at least something more rigorous than 'I agree with X, that blue is too dark'?

Broken link at http://singularity.org/transparency/ Additional Reports Strategic Plan (August 2011)

There's an error in one of the homepage messages: under "Our Mission" it reads "smarter-then-human" instead of "smarter-than-human".