Yes.[1] The rest of the internet has been there for a while now. Many high quality web applications utilize javascript frameworks to render the majority of the page. If you use NoScript today, you should be able to reasonably expect most of the web to be broken and not lament it.
Actually most of the page does load with JS disabled with exception of their logo.
> "The rest of the internet has been there for a while now."
This is not my experience at all. Most of the sites I use, especially text/image content-driven websites, load fine without JS and it saves me from having to deal with a lot of annoying UX issues.
In fact, in this case I was able to avoid having to suffer through the intro JetBrains decided to show visitors on this website, until just out of curiosity I decided to enable JS to see if their logo would render.
I am well aware that some web applications use JavaScript frameworks but even then it's possible to render content for SEO and other purposes where JS might not be enabled. Certainly the logo can and should be rendered without JS even in these cases.
I would imagine that web applications implemented in a JavaScript framework are a minority as should be the case. The vast majority of websites simply display text and images and there is no sane reason to require JS just to view text and image content.
It took long enough for the home page to load that I wondered whether it is broken. That's not a good message for a company that makes software tools. From a perspective of graphic design and branding it is pretty busy. As an immediate fix I'd use all logos from clients only in black and white and reserve the use of color for my own message. The generous use of gradients in logos creates an already dated look.
While I think it's a strange choice, it only does that on your first page load, and I suspect that it is a temporary "new branding roll-out" type thing.
The loading time is too damn high. For the longest time it just showed me black screen. I didn't remember what their old logo looked like, so I looked it up and it was pretty bad, like a shareware software logo from the 90s. The new one is much better. Also, I'm disappointed that their CLion software (abbreviated as CL) has nothing to do with Common Lisp.
i liked the cookie warning. i am just visiting jetbrains to download ide. i don't know whom for they had created those web agency style web site, but i don't care while their download button is working.
i liked the cookie warning. i am just visiting jetbrains to download ide. i don't know whom for they had created those web agency style web site, but i don't care while their download button is working.
I like JetBrains and their products. I am glad they exist.
My take: The site is not really appropriate given that their supposed target demographic is developers who are quick to cut through marketing BS and skip to the details. All the flash and distraction leads me to...
My guess: They will be selling the company in the next year or so and are adding (perceived) value for the prospective buyers. Just from my past experience.
The writing was on the wall for JetBrains as soon as Microsoft announced Roslyn, pretty much ensuring that somebody (maybe volunteers, maybe Microsoft itself) would write an open-source version of ReSharper with better VS integration than the real thing. Management knows this and they're trying to get some money for it while they can.
Are you kidding? JetBrains is much more than just ReSharper. They might make some enterprise bucks off it, but it's definitely not what makes or breaks the company.
> ...their supposed target demographic is developers who are quick to cut through marketing BS and skip to the details.
Although developers are their end users, they don't make up the entirety of the site's target audience. From my other comment in this thread:
As ridiculous as it sounds, the design of a software company's marketing site affects the impression a buyer will have of that company. A site that looks like it hasn't been updated in years can make someone think the software itself is outdated, or the company is slow-moving, or the company isn't growing anymore. If you're the CEO, CMO, or head of sales at JetBrains (or any other software co), that is NOT what you want people to think of you.
Completely disagree. For me it actually gave the impression that things might be going in a better direction for them. I can only hope the desire for design gets put into their products. They're currently stuck in the 90s in UX.
I will be. Acquiring a software development company like JetBrains would provide absolutely no value to Google, and would go completely against their new corporate structure.
I think the target demographic includes the managers and corporate types who are responsible for approving software licenses for products like JetBrains.
The InteliJ 15 loading splash is hideous, and looks like it was designed by a 12 year old or someone who couldn't be bothered to spend more than 5 minutes on it. JetBrains obviously doesn't have a designer on staff.
Hate it. Besides being kind of gaudy, it's simply less readable than the old site. Instead of having all of the product information neatly laid out in easily readable columns, I now have to scroll constantly.
I mean, I know it's the current design fad, but I wish it would stop.
Looks like a bunch of the bloomberg.com designers broke out of their NY offices and took over Jet Brains'... Could this mean 90's gradients are making a comeback? I hope not, for the sake of my eyes.
Not a fan of the weird "intro". Just show me the content I came for. I don't have an opinion on the new logo, but I definitely think they should have put more work in making this redesign easier to navigate and more readable. It looks like it was a redesign for the sake of a redesign. What problem was this trying to solve?
> Type `man cookies' to learn more or `exit' to close.
>
> ~ root$
Really gives the site an "over-engineered just for funsies" look and feel. Why not just a link and be done with it? While cool the first time, it's just clutter that adds nothing of value to the site.
For a company that focuses on products that "just work, and work well" this website is giving off the wrong impression.
One interesting thing I've noticed is that my comments like this often get downvoted to -1 or -2, then go back up. It happened for this one. I wonder why that is. Are grumpy people more likely to get in early?
It's not a responsive design, and they don't redirect to a mobile friendly version. Granted, most visitors are likely to be on a desktop or laptop, but why go through all this trouble to redesign your entire site (and company?), but stick to old design methods not catered towards the "modern" web?
If you look at the underlying markup, you can see that the web site was designed to be responsive. The sad part however is that it's going to take a bit more time for mobile resolutions to be supported properly.
I tried it using Chrome Dev Tools and emulated several mobile devices (some apple, some android, etc...) and even after a refresh and dumping cache, it did not go into responsive mode. It only gets smaller so the entire page fits on-screen for the mobile.
This has nothing to do with supporting mobile resolutions. The site just doesn't do responsive... at all.
Sorry, your browser is not fully supported
There may be some issues with pages layout in your
current browser.
Please use an alternate browser until we resolve the issues.
Thank you.
and no way to skip - it's fullscreen, I see no website.
74 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 71.7 ms ] threadHave we really reached the point where JavaScript is required to display a logo on a website?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JavaScript_libraries#W...
> "The rest of the internet has been there for a while now."
This is not my experience at all. Most of the sites I use, especially text/image content-driven websites, load fine without JS and it saves me from having to deal with a lot of annoying UX issues.
In fact, in this case I was able to avoid having to suffer through the intro JetBrains decided to show visitors on this website, until just out of curiosity I decided to enable JS to see if their logo would render.
I am well aware that some web applications use JavaScript frameworks but even then it's possible to render content for SEO and other purposes where JS might not be enabled. Certainly the logo can and should be rendered without JS even in these cases.
I would imagine that web applications implemented in a JavaScript framework are a minority as should be the case. The vast majority of websites simply display text and images and there is no sane reason to require JS just to view text and image content.
Especially for a logo.
Coupled with the intro video, it feels like we're back in the early 2000's where flash intros to every site ruled the web.
[0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Zune_log...
Neither informs nor amuses the user. It's just (beautiful) clutter.
My take: The site is not really appropriate given that their supposed target demographic is developers who are quick to cut through marketing BS and skip to the details. All the flash and distraction leads me to...
My guess: They will be selling the company in the next year or so and are adding (perceived) value for the prospective buyers. Just from my past experience.
Although developers are their end users, they don't make up the entirety of the site's target audience. From my other comment in this thread:
As ridiculous as it sounds, the design of a software company's marketing site affects the impression a buyer will have of that company. A site that looks like it hasn't been updated in years can make someone think the software itself is outdated, or the company is slow-moving, or the company isn't growing anymore. If you're the CEO, CMO, or head of sales at JetBrains (or any other software co), that is NOT what you want people to think of you.
Between Kotlin and the IntelliJ team, this could benefit a lot to the Android ecosystem.
I mean, I know it's the current design fad, but I wish it would stop.
The usability on the old site was too high, developers loved it but management were confused by the directness and lack of bullshit.
So they redesigned it for sales, and away from their core demographic.
PS - Google should really penalise sites that operate intros.
>
> ~ root$
Really gives the site an "over-engineered just for funsies" look and feel. Why not just a link and be done with it? While cool the first time, it's just clutter that adds nothing of value to the site.
For a company that focuses on products that "just work, and work well" this website is giving off the wrong impression.
One interesting thing I've noticed is that my comments like this often get downvoted to -1 or -2, then go back up. It happened for this one. I wonder why that is. Are grumpy people more likely to get in early?
This has nothing to do with supporting mobile resolutions. The site just doesn't do responsive... at all.
They do need to work on the responsiveness of that site.
That said, the new branding is...troubling. Aesthetics is a matter of taste, over-engineering and fuss are not. KISS never goes out of style.
It is troubling, because it may hint at suits taking over. I hope I am wrong.