> It has the appearance that it was knocked up in notepad, but after using it, I have a modicum of respect for how it makes government usable.
I'd wager that the looks have a lot to do with accessibility. Government sites are interesting in that to fill their purpose they're on the far end of the spectrum of website and system accessibility—in that they must be usable for:
1. People who don't have typical eyesight—colorblind, blind, vision with poor focus, issues distinguishing text without a sufficient level of contrast
2. People who don't use keyboards or mice to navigate—this could include folks using screen readers, voice assistants, or more exotic interface devices (think paraplegics using eye-tracking software or tongue switches).
3. People who are not neurotlypical and may struggle to use the website—think dyslexia, anxiety (info-dense walls of text can trigger panic attacks), or individuals who have trouble using computers or the internet.
There's likely a lot more there than I'm personally aware of, but making even a basic service available and usable to a constituency can take a huge amount of effort. The UK gov website guidelines[1] touch on this and I applaud any government or organization that takes these things seriously.
1. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-p...