Microsoft.com

[Tech_Dude_5000]

Check out the new microsoft.com page. Its officaly out of beta.

On December 14 we introduced a new home page for Microsoft.com. The new page incorporates months of research, testing, customer feedback, and refinements. We hope the new page makes it easier to find what you're looking for on Microsoft.com, and that you find new items of interest along the way.

[Slimy]

Cool! Thanks for the heads up!

[:: Lyon ::]

Ooooooooh :o

Don't really go their site often, but it certainly looks much more professional now!

[planetik]

Sick.

[Helba]

Well, I like it better than the old one, anyway...

[MrKuro]

very nice

[L3thal Veteran]

Beautiful!

[Gstar]

Smart stuff! Now to wait for AU site to also be updated! :yes:

[:: Lyon ::]

LoL this is the first time I hear people praising Microsoft :D

[primexx]

Wow just five errors to HTML 4.01 Trans. That's a record for Microsoft! http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&am...%2Fdefault.aspx

CSS is awful as usual though... http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat...%2Fdefault.aspx

I like the design a lot.

[amrinders87]

Thanks for the news.

The site looks awesome.

[mattrobs]

And when you click on the right menu items you get a menu-windows-vista-control-panel-esque pane.

.. and even different views: tile, icons (with little website thumbnails), and details.

[Code.Red]

Why do people like this now, but not when it was in beta? :p

[Pc_Madness]

Looking good, seems to show up fine in FireFox. :)

And a cookie to the OP for a descriptive thread title. :p

[NienorGT]

Why do people like this now, but not when it was in beta? :p

I *still* not liking it. Sure it's nice like desing, but all other pages aren't on the same style, so it's have a crap feel like browsing.

[qdave]

I *still* not liking it. Sure it's nice like desing, but all other pages aren't on the same style, so it's have a crap feel like browsing.

but it looks so nice :D and i doubt many people will browse throw it. at least not i.

[MazX_Napalm]

Shows what can be done with SharePoint.

It is not as good as the Office site thought.

US only? Come on MS.

[trek]

I *still* not liking it. Sure it's nice like desing, but all other pages aren't on the same style, so it's have a crap feel like browsing.

I agree. Even without the consistency between pages... I've said this about the beta version of that site too, but there are no lines on that new page... Some content touches the borders, some doesn't; that sidebar on the right isn't aligned with anything, the enormous Microsoft logo is sitting in the middle of nowhere in relation to the other content... I don't know... maybe I'm weird but it just doesn't look right to me.

[NienorGT]

It is not as good as the Office site thought.

True! Just looked and damn! What a nice site!, everything is on the same "patern" great :)

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx

[MediaSoldier]

Looks hell of a lot better than before id say they done a decent job with the site :D

[smctainsh]

Very nice site update. I saw this when it was in beta, and I was very impressed. :)

Smctainsh

[fmxer]

That looks very nice. Very nice indeed.

[+mrbester MVC]

Wow just five errors to HTML 4.01 Trans. That's a record for Microsoft! http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&am...%2Fdefault.aspx

CSS is awful as usual though... http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat...%2Fdefault.aspx

I like the design a lot.

Running the homepage through the Fox (with HTML validator) flagged 117 warnings. Let's see: there's incorrect nesting of elements, a peculiar instance of about:blank, proprietary attributes (the validator might mention "tabindex" on a h1 only once, but it's everywhere), inline JavaScript (in this day and age?), unescaped character entities, empty attributes for things that should have value (like img height WTF?), named anchors with + in them (invalid character according to the specs, use - instead) and a whole bunch of empty spans for no good reason.

Also included is the idea that the source should be on one line (yet they don't remove excess tabs), even though there are rendering issues in older browsers if the linelength is too long. The content-type <meta /> is repeated, with different values and to top it off, the very first <h1> is a list header for related sites, not where you are right now.

As for the CSS, all the usual proprietary crap is in there, instead of being in a separate file.

As far as accessibility goes, the homepage passes 508, fails WAI and is rated A. With a little effort it could have been AA. With just a little bit more effort it could have been AAA.

Months of testing? That testing took me 30s in just one browser.

Addendum: Why HTML4 Transitional? Transitional from what? 3.2 is obsolete, so there's nothing to transition from.

Edited December 15, 2006 by mrbester

[Quillz]

Errors aside, it looks nice.

[Fourjays Veteran]

It's messy. It could be nice, but you get the feeling that they just chucked bits together. Everything right of "Try the new office" looks like it doesn't belong there. The menu box doesn't look like it is part of the page - in design, or position. It is also very slow to respond too - menus are supposed to be quick easy access to the rest of a site.