So what are these designers actually looking for? The information is well structured (I picked a random Microsoft product or service and I got to their pages in 2 seconds), and the responsiveness is superb (Resized my chrome and they were some really nice transitions). This is a big step forward for them.
The visual focus of the page is a carousel of bland stock images. A smiling person on a laptop representing Office, a group of people climbing a mountain to represent Visual Studio. A crass waste of space.
Everything between the carousel and the footer is just filler. Nobody goes to the Microsoft homepage because they want to 'Discover' Windows or Office, or because they want to see some vapid corporate news.
Everything else is just navigation. An enormous amount of redundant navigation. Missed the link to Windows in the header? Don't worry, we put one in the carousel as well. Miss that too? You silly billy, we put one under the 'Discover' heading just for you. Miss that one? You should really get your eyes tested, but in the mean time, we put another link the footer for you.
Compare this to the Apple homepage. No stock images, just one big image of their latest product. A small number of interesting product updates (even if they are of the "A letter to our customers regarding Maps" kind of interesting) and navigation. Done.
About stock images; I really don't have much of an eye for it much, but this http://o7.no/Pte5y2 to me shouts 'cheap'. From the laptop to the pose of the woman. I would expect exactly this pic on the site of my local computer shop, not on the homepage of the largest software maker in the world. This is one of things that looks completely 'off' to me.
I cannot stand stock images in any context... E.g. biotech or pharma web sites with a (usually young, pretty, female) scientist standing over a lab bench. Or the many ones on MS pages (often amusingly with disguised Mac laptops).
If a company doesn't have its own genuine material to feature and its own damn image, just leave it out!
My random product was Office for Macintosh. I couldn't find it without resorting to search.
I also found the navigation confusing. Sometimes, the choices seem from different categories. An example: Microsoft Store, Windows Software, Office Software (all under the heading "Store"). For me, all three could lead to a place for buying Office. Two of them do; the term "Windows Software" seems exclusively reserved for OS versions. I think Excel, Word and the like are "Windows Software" (this is a tough one. "operating systems" probably is too technical. Maybe just "Windows"?)
Also: the Store (at http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/home?WT.mc_id=MS...) has a link to "other Microsoft Sites". One of these is Labeled "Microsoft Store". I would either remove t link, or change the text to "all Microsoft sites" (even though that likely is a lie)
Yes, that first one works, but adds points to my 'confusing' score. Two levels in a breadcrumb that are named "products"? I would have expected that second one to bring me back a level.
I cannot check the second one at the moment. Microsoft now apologizes that that site isn't available from my country, in a minimalisit way (one line of text, no HTML in sight)
Yes, I agree. That's what I said, I was just surprised about his 'overwhelming positive' while I read so many negative comments. Nothing more. I like it; it's clear and easy to read.
Are developers noting (I assume) similarities between it and some stock theme actually criticizing the theme, or are they criticizing the designers in question for not being original (whatever that may be worth)?
I suspect some artistic types may mistakenly place too much importance on originality. Originality is certainly important, but not in that way.
