[rident]

The article says wraps up by stating the design hasn't lost any information but where's the fork count, watch count and other download options? Also, the lack of borders and flattening of button styles does not improve the design. Borders are even more necessary when data density is increased. Buttons, menus and links now have a variety of borders where they were consistent before.

The menu is marginally better but the extra density there makes the options run together, especially as counts increase, and lacks room for feature expansion. The grey background is useful also as it gives the page sections depth and context without having to label it. A all white background with various text sizes and lengths is not optimal for supporting more than the example design and projects using more text or with longer titles will suffer.

This design doesn't take into consideration how the homepage of a repo relates to the subpages of a repo. The article mentions showing more files yet the in the current design, file view one click away from the current homepage removes most of the account meta data and shows more files already.

This design also doesn't consider the logged out view which has a large call to action banner to get an account strategically embedded at the top of the code tab. This focal point is somewhat lost in the presented redesign and would likely require rounds of A/B testing to decide on a new content breakpoint for this business need.

5/10 - needs work

[roryokane]

> where's the […] other download options?

In the “Get code as” section. You can see it was moved in there when solving Problem 11. It’s true that the fork and watch counts are missing though.