Comments on: Comments on 17921

Post number 17921

specialk420 — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:15:53 -0800

a beautiful web site worth visiting splendid in my opinion.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:19:54 -0800

use your space bar to navigate !

By: winterdrm

winterdrm — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:23:31 -0800

I always enjoy nice web designs. This one, however, caused my Mozilla (on Linux) to explode.

By: silusGROK

silusGROK — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:33:35 -0800

Glacial loader (Mac 9.4 IE 5.1).

By: timeistight

timeistight — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:48:35 -0800

New frontiers of unreadability: set your text in a tiny font and then turn it on its side!

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:53:17 -0800

use your space bar to navigate ! Nagivation should not come with disclaimers!

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:53:31 -0800

Ugh...me spell bad before coffee.

By: Skot

Skot — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:55:32 -0800

Why must I use the damn spacebar? How can I turn off the damn music? Where's my medication? NURSE!

By: monkeyJuice

monkeyJuice — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:57:08 -0800

having to bend my neck 90 degree to read the teeny weeny text, did not go down well in the monkeyJuice camp.. view the source, thats kinda cool thou.

By: monkeyJuice

monkeyJuice — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 08:59:00 -0800

...its also irritatingly bland. Minimalist or just short of imagination

By: dobbs

dobbs — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:07:06 -0800

thanks specialk420. i agree, quite beautiful, to the ear and the eyes.

By: iceberg273

iceberg273 — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:07:50 -0800

MetaFilter: Nagivation should not come with disclaimers!

By: gordian knot

gordian knot — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:13:37 -0800

Most beautiful blank page I've ever seen. Another Mac-unfriendly site?

By: dangerman

dangerman — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:19:04 -0800

"a beautiful web site worth visiting" eh...not so much.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:19:12 -0800

Minimalism. Yes.

By: Dillenger69

Dillenger69 — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:33:05 -0800

mystery meat navigation ... YAY!

By: i_cola

i_cola — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:34:59 -0800

Opera / OS9 *KLUNK* Nice pix in the end...

By: Marquis

Marquis — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:35:42 -0800

Is there any content here? Or just colour-filtered photos, small text, and terrible usability? Seems like style over substance, and not even a particularly elegant example.

By: n9

n9 — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:36:26 -0800

In the spirit of "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound..." Does a webpage that crashes Mozilla, Netscape and Konquerer dead really exist?

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:01:29 -0800

Is there any content here? The content is Minimal. If you take a breath and linger for longer than a millisecond, the images start to work really well with the sound. Like mini-Baraka moments. Oh, and Issue 2 is friendlier, for the folks who felt crippling agony by having to turn their heads sideways. The browser thing does suck, though.

By: Su

Su — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:09:40 -0800

Really nice images, and treatments. I was a bit irritated by the nav at first, but it's nice they thought to provide an alternate method. MonkeyJuice: Happen to know what font you viewed the source with? I use something that made it totally unrecognizable, an Courier gave me a decent idea what was going on, but still doesn't seem quite right. People, if it crashed your browser, try another one. No browser, not even yours, whatever it is, is perfect. If you only keep one on your machine, you deserve whatever you get. If you did try a few and it happened anyway, well, sorry. It happens. There are so many reasons browsers crash, and so many versions of them, that sometimes show you the same number even though they're different, that it's nearly impossible to account for all of them. For the record, it didn't crash any browser(NS6, NS4.79, IE6, Moz1) on my machine(Win2K) or IE5.2 on the OSX machine across the room.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:25:19 -0800

Crashed Opera on my box, but worked fine in IE6. Weird, but cool. I like it. But then, I used to be one of the art school girls of doom, so I probably can't be trusted. :)

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:38:14 -0800

Nagivation should not come with disclaimers! Why not? If art like this or this is allowed, then why not Web art that plays with navigation conventions? Isn't that what we want artists to do? Holding nineaem.com to the standards you'd use for a business site makes no sense. Would you react to a book like this by saying, "This book is made of grass! How do you expect me to read that?"

By: dangerman

dangerman — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:01:48 -0800

"why not Web art that plays with navigation conventions?" How likely would it be for people to enter an art gallery if the door handle had to be first pulled out, then turn counter-clock-wise twice, then turned clock-wise once, then pushed back in and turn 3/4 to the left? Now think of the few who actually twiddled about with this f@cking door handle until they mastered it...only to be severely let down by the disappointing artwork inside. Think they'll come back? If sideways navigation was a completely new idea then I might have agreed with your statement, however....

By: Su

Su — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:17:23 -0800

Dangerman: The doorknob would piss me off, yes. But I'd also have to respect, not to mention be damn amused by, the concept. But I'm perverse. And while I might not go back, I might sit outside to watch others fight with the damn thing *grin* Anyways, my view is that if a site is meant to be, and is taken as, a piece of art, conventions and their expectation pretty much have to be tossed. Which is not to say you give up the right to be frustrated by it, but you do have to accept it's likely not going to be Useit. And yes, I've run into art sites that made me immediately run away and not look back. No big deal. We're all willing to accept different thing, under different terms.

By: dangerman

dangerman — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:29:27 -0800

Painting the Mona Lisa on a door shouldn't necessarily change the function of the door. =)

By: gwint

gwint — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:48:56 -0800

why on god's green earth would the rollover state of a button cover up the button's text?

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:05:21 -0800

...if the door handle had to be first pulled out, then turn counter-clock-wise twice, then turned clock-wise once, then pushed back in and turn 3/4 to the left? Aw, come on. Listening to repeated sounds while tapping the space bar to scroll through a series of photos hardly qualifies as a beffudling set-up for enjoying a site. Ok, sideways text I can do without, but I wish they'd kept the space bar thing. It's so much nicer than clicking. only to be severely let down by the disappointing artwork inside Issue 2 really is sharper. I love the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 8th and 10th photos in the series. Count to five before going to the next pic and you'll see plenty of content there -- composition, color, precision, technology and nature, speed, etc. But maybe Minimalism isn't your thing, dangerman. Me, I listen to Oval all the time.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:13:18 -0800

why on god's green earth would the rollover state of a button cover up the button's text? Why on god's green earth would someone paint a stripe in the middle of his wife's face? [oh: "befuddling" not "beffudling." urk.]

By: Su

Su — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:15:26 -0800

Dangerman: Painting the Mona Lisa on a door shouldn't necessarily change the function of the door. =) I dunno. It'd be fun if you had to give Mona a little tweak to make it work. I should stop.

By: dangerman

dangerman — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:29:31 -0800

*tweaks su*

By: cakeman

cakeman — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:32:30 -0800

yawn.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:19:48 -0800

yawn. See? cakeman gets it. :)

By: sixtwenty3dc

sixtwenty3dc — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:47:13 -0800

...its also irritatingly bland. Minimalist or just short of imagination or lack of imagination on the part of the viewer perhaps? it's a free world (or so i'm told)

By: riffola

riffola — Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:43:46 -0800

I liked it.

By: Taken Outtacontext

Taken Outtacontext — Thu, 20 Jun 2002 06:34:00 -0800

As an artist whose interested in audience, I try to work with general conventions (like reading from left to right, usual web conventions, etc.), not against them. If the viewer is plopped down in the middle of an alien environment, how is she/he supposed to receive the content? I learned in art school: first you learn the rules, then you learn how to break them. But it seems that this site breaks convention without understanding why convention is important.

By: pigasus

pigasus — Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:42:38 -0800

Product of a graphic design thinktank. Also, snore.