The design for the CVF when I worked on it could accommodate either a straight deck or an angle; at that time the decision to go STOVL or CV had not been made and the design could easily have been built either way. When we persuaded the RN to accept the two islands we argued its merits for both the CV and STOVL case.
D O Guerrero is right, us WAFUs don't know much about ship driving but what he says pretty well explains why we ended up with the bridge in the forward island and flyco much further aft. The two functions demand entirely different positions relative to the hull/flight deck and all previous designs which co-located them were a severe compromise (usually in favour of the fish-heads).
Happy landings