Here is the welcome blog post for the new singularity.org.
There's a bug on the media page, and another with blog comments, and these bugs will be fixed later today.
Here is the welcome blog post for the new singularity.org.
There's a bug on the media page, and another with blog comments, and these bugs will be fixed later today.
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.)
Yes, I have to say that the unprofessional vibe given off feels absolutely horrible to me. I'm surprised that the designers of the site appear to be the same as previously, since the previous style and vibe felt very good to me, and this feels so much like the opposite.
The current crop of clip-art would really need to go, I'd say. Nothing looks as hasty and unprofessional as stereotypical clip-art. You especially shouldn't with your clip-art choices communicate that you're a very formal, ordinary and uncreative men-in-suits organisation, since you're really not (and if you were, who would think you competent or even sincere in undertaking such an unusual mission? Stereotypical and ordinary men-in-suits are the antithesis of creativity, exceptionality and thinking-something-that-isn't-a-politically-correct-cliche).
The current site design could perhaps be made to rock if all the clip-art was changed out to a new theme that was creative and original (and you) and wouldn't really look like clip-art. Some associated changes to color scheme and fonts might be required, but perhaps not a complete redesign.
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...
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
It may just be me, but it seems a bit strange to have the donate tab be the first one. It feels like you're trying to push me to donate, which is off-putting. I'd at least put it behind the "what we do" tab, or maybe further down.
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...
I like it. It's an attractive site with good calls to action and up-front display of content such as papers and articles, along with a much better domain name.
The minor changes mentioned in other comments (double use of the word 'important', the text 'no GD' on images, and I also get slow scrolling on my 2011 Macbook Air with Chrome) should be easy to make to sand off the rough edges.
Thanks for putting it together and finally getting it out.
Ugly as HELL [1]. I have not actually read any of the text, I will simply list elements I dislike, in the order I saw them. My opinion matters little, I suggest you get some critique from Hacker News [2].
logo does not stand out
grey buttons have a weird volume, I think the white border causes this
RSS logo stands out more than SI logo, I have not seen RSS logos used to denote a blog in years
text in search box has a weird white glow, glass effect is ugly, magnifying glass icon is aliased, it changing to orange on hover makes it look like you just lear
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...
I like the shade of blue. The site has a lot of the information I want, and reasonable information I wouldn't have thought of including.
Now for the complaints....
"Read our blog" is too similar to the background. If you're going to have an RSS icon, clicking on it should give access to an RSS feed. Just plain "Blog" is probably better. I'd sooner see it on the top bar.
These days, top bar topics tend to have drop down menus, and I think they make finding out what's on a site more convenient.
Media page: Do not put text across people's fac...
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...
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:
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.)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)
I agree completely with this comment from David Pearce (crossposted from facebook so LWers can see it):
...An excellent (and IMO also stylish) website update. My only real worry is the relaxation of the definition of "The Singularity” so the term "will just refer to greater-than-human intelligence." The IJ Good/SIAI conjecture on the advent of posthuman superintelligence, combining Moore's law with the idea of recursively self-improving artificial minds, may - or may not - prove viable. But IMO it's this restrictive definition that makes the S
There's an error in one of the homepage messages: under "Our Mission" it reads "smarter-then-human" instead of "smarter-than-human".
Like the direction it's going, well done! Also agree with some of the improvements suggested on this thread.
I like it. It's an attractive site with good calls to action and up-front display of content such as papers and articles, along with a much better domain name.
The minor changes mentioned in other comments (double use of the word 'important', the text 'no GD' on images, and I also get slow scrolling on my 2011 Macbook Air with Chrome) should be easy to make to sand off the rough edges.
Thanks for putting it together and finally getting it out.