Join 3,562 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Good Web Design
February 10, 2006 4:05 PM   Subscribe

Good Web Design
posted by Tlogmer (96 comments total)

 
Boring Good Web Design
posted by setanor at 4:15 PM on February 10, 2006


glass buttons design
posted by pmbuko at 4:16 PM on February 10, 2006


Too bad he missed that day in typography class where they taught us not to use sans serif typefaces for large bodies of text.
posted by Lockjaw at 4:18 PM on February 10, 2006


sans serif typefaces for large bodies of text

cough
posted by setanor at 4:20 PM on February 10, 2006


Sans-serif text. Fixed page width. Boring blog-template-like look.

Bad web design.
posted by Pinback at 4:29 PM on February 10, 2006


Lockjaw, did you also go over the fundamental difference between print and screen resolution that makes the serif-vs-sans argument much more complicated for computer applications?
posted by cortex at 4:30 PM on February 10, 2006


I can't help but laugh at any "design standards" that require specific styles of type and orientation. Maybe for government forms.
posted by setanor at 4:33 PM on February 10, 2006


Bad web design.

Care to offer some examples of good web design then, Mr. Pinback?
posted by afx114 at 4:37 PM on February 10, 2006



glass buttons design


Yep.
Stuff I saw online in 1996 is better than half this crap. Giant blaring text and stupid massive plastic learning difficulty icons.

Good to see we're adopting the web 2.0 giant text here for no reason with these new headings.
posted by fire&wings at 4:39 PM on February 10, 2006


More like idiot's guide to making everything look like OS X.
posted by cellphone at 4:42 PM on February 10, 2006


And I don't mean that in a good way. The internet doesn't need to look like a freaking playskool toy.
posted by cellphone at 4:43 PM on February 10, 2006


No, no no - no positive examples of good web design - I hereby declare that this thread is the property of disgruntled 90s web designers and associated hater hipsters.

Of which, I include myself, ahem: These pages are teh sux0r.
posted by Dag Maggot at 4:43 PM on February 10, 2006


Look, all the sites are nice. Real nice. But they all look the same - as a layman, I think an important element of design should be differentiating yourself from others. With the web being filled with hundreds of sites that all use "lots of white space", "subtle 3d effects", "rounded corners", "bright colours", it gets confusing and pointless. I know I'm on Metafilter when I'm here - one reason: background: #069. Fuck whitespace. Half the sites used as examples here, are what I would classify as the sites that in 3 years time we will try remember as being excellent examples of the Web2.0 crash, except we won't be able to because they all look exactly the same.
posted by Jimbob at 4:43 PM on February 10, 2006


"This section aims to demistify the art of writing good copy."
posted by davebush at 4:45 PM on February 10, 2006


While taste is individual, most of my web sites visits are for very specific purposes. I go to Metafilter to read postings, I go to Dell to buy a computer, I go to CNN to catch a few headlines. As far as I am concerned, the most important reason for graphical design is to make these tasks easier. I don't want an arty "experience" that just confuses me. So I applaud the "boring blog-template-like look" with lots of whitespace... or bluespace :-)
posted by Triplanetary at 4:46 PM on February 10, 2006


Too bad he missed that day in typography class where they taught us not to use sans serif typefaces for large bodies of text.

Too bad you missed the day in logic class where they taught us not to make arguments from authority.

In any event, any low-res fonts I find easier to read sans-serif.
posted by delmoi at 4:47 PM on February 10, 2006


Not good. Current.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:48 PM on February 10, 2006


Look, all the sites are nice. Real nice. But they all look the same - as a layman, I think an important element of design should be differentiating yourself from others.

Yeah, exactly. It gets a little dull after a while.
posted by delmoi at 4:48 PM on February 10, 2006


Good Design.
posted by setanor at 4:49 PM on February 10, 2006


Don't make me call Jakob Nielsen. He'll be all over your ass. Point at you. Make you cry and feel like dirt.
posted by hal9k at 4:53 PM on February 10, 2006


Setanor, that's one of the hardest to read and/or navigate sites I've seen.
posted by stenseng at 4:54 PM on February 10, 2006


Jakob Nielsen dreams that one day every web site will look like a default Microsoft Word document.
posted by setanor at 4:55 PM on February 10, 2006


stenseng

their site is awful, but their work for other clients is not.
posted by setanor at 4:55 PM on February 10, 2006


> I think an important element of design should be differentiating yourself from others.

That's what the content is for. But what would towel designers know about content?

posted by jfuller at 4:56 PM on February 10, 2006


Cute icons, used sparingly

Oh just go fuck right on off.
posted by AspectRatio at 5:02 PM on February 10, 2006


Can some naysayers please post links to what they consider "good" web design? That link shows some easy-to-read, easily-navigable designs. As a user, they please me. They are rather dull though--what else have you people got?
posted by plexiwatt at 5:02 PM on February 10, 2006


plexiwatt

Look up.
posted by setanor at 5:02 PM on February 10, 2006


But they all look the same - as a layman, I think an important element of design should be differentiating yourself from others.

This layman doesn't care if all web sites look the same. This layman suspect only vain web designers do. This layman thinks form should follow function.
posted by Triplanetary at 5:03 PM on February 10, 2006


Yeah, and damn those vain architects that design buildings not identical to the fifteen other buildings surrounding them.
posted by setanor at 5:07 PM on February 10, 2006


Web design problem #1: Designers designing to impress other designers.
posted by davebush at 5:07 PM on February 10, 2006


Complaint restated: It is pointless to continue to exist as a society if we are to be paralyzed by the constant fear of being confused.
posted by setanor at 5:10 PM on February 10, 2006


"Today's web designs are so fresh, they feel like they've taken a deep breath".

And some people produce copy so crappy, they feel like they've taken a big dump.
posted by palinode at 5:11 PM on February 10, 2006


What davebush said.
posted by Dr-Baa at 5:12 PM on February 10, 2006


as a layman, I think an important element of design should be differentiating yourself from others.

As a non-layman, I think an important element of design should be artfully conforming to usability standards, while still managing to differentiate yourself. I could make the most "different" web site in the world, and it might be the most beautiful one as well, but if it isn't usable it will be a failure.

Consider the car: do you differentiate your interior by the choice and color of materials, the shape of the individual elements, and so on, or do you replace the steering wheel with a far more estheticallly-pleasing alternative?

Consider the book: do you differentiate your product by the choice and color of materials, the size and weight, the typeface and kerning, or do you make your book open from the other side?

In short: the true art of good industrial design involves striking a balance between making your product different and beautiful (or at least striking), without rendering it difficult or unpleasant to use in the process.

So yes, these sites are very similar, and very boring, but they also work quite well. Personally, I like how they look, too.
posted by davejay at 5:15 PM on February 10, 2006


Complaint restated: It is pointless to continue to exist as a society if we are to be paralyzed by the constant fear of being confused.

Ah, but what kind of a society are we if we cannot say "this thing, it works quite well, and that is good enough for the moment; let us go address something else that is not working well enough"?

I can't bring myself to equate endless iterations of design with the goal of being "different" or "not boring" with valid societal progress.
posted by davejay at 5:18 PM on February 10, 2006


While there is some overlap, here's a list of galleries I keep an eye on

cssvault

cssbeauty

cssdrive

unmatched style

stylegala

cssimport



anyone got anymore?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:22 PM on February 10, 2006


Good web design.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:25 PM on February 10, 2006


OK, here's what I'm thinking when I see these:

9rules - ungodly cluttered layout. WTF. Horrible mess. Good on the sans-serif fonts, grayscale icons in the corners of each section but rejected out of hand for layout and excessive business. To Hell you go, citizen!

31Three - clean layout, good navigation, good colors, dotted line dilineation of page sections is subtle yet functional. FIXED-WIDTH COLUMNS + SIGNIFICANT FOOTER CONTENT = NO. Status: Denied.

Avalonstar - ridiculously large and ultimately useless header. Trim ALL of it down to the navigation. Bad general layout with no vertical frame of reference of any kind - I feel lost and alone. Colors are okay but a bit blasé, the effect of overlapping, translucent, beveled boxes is a minor eyesore and awfully distracting. Graded NI for Needs Improvement.

emaginacion - pure garbage. Garish color clashing, poor logo, lack of vertical elements in page as with Avalonstar. Uses serif for titles and sans-serif for blocks of text. Here's a hint: if you must mix typography styles, do the exact opposite. Email link on the bottom straight out of the 1996 style book. I care that you care about XHTML. No, really.

Iconbuffet: the yellow-beige/forest-green color clash simply does not work. Highlight with the orange element you've already got going on. Trim 20-40 pixels of unused space off the top and bottom of that logo, but don't overdo it. One of the oh-so-rare appropriate uses of fixed-width. Conclusion: Needs a bit of touchup but good potential here.

Iomega: With Flash, it's absolutely beautiful. Nearly flawless, though the header navigation is a bit busy. That's with Flash, though, and forcing popups/singing & dancing ads on people for every other website out there - just to use yours - gives you an automatic score of 0 out of 10.

LinkedIn: requires logins. Horrendous implementation of tabbed header navigation. Goodnight, Gracie.

Mozilla: A study in how to properly handle tabbed header navigation. Good layout, good colors, good everything. A+

Plaxo: On the default page the blue-gray color gradient on the logo clashes with a) the shade of blue used immediately to the left and b) the shade of gray used for the background. The layout of the header navigation works fine, but could use a bit of visual refinement - a touch too 2001. Good work overall.

sirruf: Nothing overtly wrong here, but I can see a lot of potential touchup work. A slightly softer shade of green, the dotted green lines under the links would look better with a very soft green solid line. The logo is lowercase AND uses serifs, so it looks extra, extra weak. The reflection is superfluous. Good try but needs so many little tweaks as to being annoying.

squarespace: I love you, I love you, I love you - come home and have my babies. Perfect. Absolutely and completely perfect. You win the Internet.

Wishingline Design Studios - cluttered, excessive number of links, horrible use of a three-column design in the sub-sections. Not vomit-worthy, but definitely disdain-worthy.

*whew* I'm fresh out of snobbery. Anyone else want to take a crack?
posted by Ryvar at 5:25 PM on February 10, 2006


Lotta cranky MeFites today.
posted by knave at 5:40 PM on February 10, 2006


The problem with "good" is of course it's obviously subjective. See many MetaTalk threads about how awful FPPs are and the various opinions within for more details.

Personally, I don't think something that isn't spectacular (also subjective) but is dull (also subjective) doesn't mean that it is not, therefore, not good. My reaction to many of these pages is varied but if there are a few dominant design trends these days I'd like to think that they mirror the somewhat dominant design trends that still, aaah, dominate other mediums, like magazines and newspapers. Mirroring not in appearance necessarily, but in maturing as the medium itself matures. We can argue chicken and egg but as davejay said "what kind of a society are we if we cannot say "this thing, it works quite well, and that is good enough for the moment; let us go address something else that is not working well enough"?

When developing web pages in collaboration with designers who know nothing about the web world and only about print, I am constantly frustrated with their "just put a page up there" mentality rather than taking advantage of the unique properties of browsers on multiple platforms/devices. The reverse, no doubt is also true.

That said, many of the guidelines (I won't say rules) in print design, motion design, etc. still apply for web work. Recognizing all these factors goes a long way. In each case, the medium is always a factor in the design (as well as the content of course) and I've noted an increase in exploiting the medium of the web and being constrained by its limits (or Browser bugs!) as well.

It reminds me of the Mac OS X versus Windows debate to an extent as well. Holier than thous will show up and Ryvar wonderfully parodied that.
posted by juiceCake at 5:42 PM on February 10, 2006


Thanks. It was fun pretending to be a fashion critic. The actual substance of my criticisms was genuine, though.
posted by Ryvar at 5:45 PM on February 10, 2006


Design trends seem to be playing a big part in this Web 2.0 Culture.
posted by Ekim Neems at 5:49 PM on February 10, 2006


anyone got anymore?

The CSS Zen Garden.
posted by Gator at 6:02 PM on February 10, 2006


I think these are designs which are probably "good" in one key sense, and that's usability. I don't think this is impress-the-designers design. It's largely pretty functional, and very much in line with 37signals-style minimalism. There's a lot to be said for that.

Functionality, after all, tends to regress toward a mean. That results in a certain sameness. The goal of marking important functions -- especially in an AJAXy environment -- by using pastels to make the less important stuff fade out of view doesn't help this. But for the person using the site every day, it works well.

I think I'd want to listen to what Metafilter were saying about a design that got linked, if I were responsible, but mainly for comments like Ryvar's.
posted by dhartung at 6:04 PM on February 10, 2006


Premier Internet Design.
posted by brownpau at 6:18 PM on February 10, 2006


Complaint restated: It is pointless to continue to exist as a society if we are to be paralyzed by the constant fear of being confused.

Fear poorly designed websites is a threat to society?
posted by longsleeves at 6:19 PM on February 10, 2006


of.

(poorly designed snarky post, sorry.)
posted by longsleeves at 6:21 PM on February 10, 2006


I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only good Web design will remain.
posted by Gator at 6:23 PM on February 10, 2006


setanor: their site is awful, but their work for other clients is not.

I've often thought about setting up an agency called Cobbler's Wife. All we will produce is other agencies' websites.
posted by blag at 6:23 PM on February 10, 2006


Horrible shock today - I have become so used to Metafilter that I am now incapable of fashion ponce nitpickery when it comes to the layout here. It's like waking up one morning and finding out you're over thirty.
posted by Ryvar at 6:33 PM on February 10, 2006


F.I.R. is the mind killer.
posted by brownpau at 6:34 PM on February 10, 2006


Ryvar: squarespace: I love you, I love you, I love you - come home and have my babies. Perfect. Absolutely and completely perfect. You win the Internet.

Excuse me? With an 800pixel wide fixed width page? Some of us have smaller monitors. Some of us don't like to maximize the browser. Some of us have the dock / taskbar on the side. Some of us would really not have to scroll right to get the contact link. Puhleeze.
posted by Popular Ethics at 6:35 PM on February 10, 2006


Slapfight!
posted by Ryvar at 6:41 PM on February 10, 2006


Is it Memorial Day? Can we wear our white shoes yet?
posted by gimonca at 6:45 PM on February 10, 2006


brownpau: that site is beautiful, it just show's the paucity of imagination in the examples linked in the FPP. I've learnt so much already...

SEE HOW MUCH MORE ATTENTION YOU PAY TO THIS COMMENT!!!!!
posted by meech at 6:57 PM on February 10, 2006


It'll be a cold day in hell when you can get two web designers to agree on what constitutes "good" web design. As much as web design esthetics have evolved, the amount of disagreement is precisely the same. But we're all agreed that ultra-minimalist Flash sites with grey pixel fonts on orange backgrounds are out, right?
posted by slatternus at 7:07 PM on February 10, 2006


My fav sites:posted by afx114 at 7:17 PM on February 10, 2006


PS, the MeFi white-on-blue KILLS the eyes when switching over to a dark-background window. You still see blue for a good 30 seconds after switching.
posted by afx114 at 7:18 PM on February 10, 2006


afx114:

Nice choices. My favorite is Hybrid Logic. Very elegant, unusual placement of the main color field relative to the text. Simple bits is nice too, but it seems to me that the nice stylish shell makes the conventional bodytext seem clunky somehow.
posted by slatternus at 7:26 PM on February 10, 2006


Mm hmmm... Hybrid Logic is gorgeous.
posted by iconomy at 7:28 PM on February 10, 2006


Mm hmmm... Hybrid Logic is gorgeous.

I ALWAYS respond to bile green with little things disbursed in and around
posted by longsleeves at 7:42 PM on February 10, 2006


These are fine, safe little designs. But what they are is TRENDY. A few years from now, we'll look at this motif and say, "Oh my God, do you remember when web sites looked like that? All simple and safe and kind of playskool? Wow. What were we thinking."

And then we'll make sites look some other way that will itself be stale a few years later.

Makes me wonder though, what would web sites have looked like in the 1980's? Those would have been some totally gnarly web designs, dude.
posted by JWright at 7:53 PM on February 10, 2006


I like Criterion's website (oh noes teh fixed width and no shiny buttons or roll-overs!). It's clean, functional, has good content, the design augments but doesn't distract from the content, and it's consistent with their brand in print and on DVD cases/media.

It's so not web 2.0 without being pretentious about it.

Anyways, people should chill the fuck out about treating web design like some high art form that can be criticized. It's barely been around as a concept for 10 years, and it's not stable thanks to constantly evolving technology.

I miss under construction animated gifs, is all. Call me an iconoclast.
posted by tweak at 7:56 PM on February 10, 2006


woops: Criterion Collection.
posted by tweak at 7:57 PM on February 10, 2006


Wikipedia
posted by storybored at 8:03 PM on February 10, 2006


anyone got anymore?

Not sure if this has been mentioned -- can't read through the bile -- but NetDiver plucks the occasional sweet apple.
posted by undule at 8:05 PM on February 10, 2006


Not to retread an earlier point too much, but what was that crap about sans-serif being bad for large blocks of text? For printed documents, sure, you're definitely right. It's rare to find a book set in a sans serif.

But on the web it's a different story. Sans-serifs are much cleaner and easier to look at on screen, and from a brief survey of the sites I visit, the NYTimes was the only site I could find that set its body in a serif.
posted by heresiarch at 8:28 PM on February 10, 2006


I ALWAYS respond to bile green with little things disbursed in and around

Thanks for sharing.
posted by iconomy at 8:37 PM on February 10, 2006


As soon as the horizontal scrollbar showed up at the bottom of my browser I clicked back.
posted by furtive at 9:21 PM on February 10, 2006


Thanks. It was fun pretending to be a fashion critic. The actual substance of my criticisms was genuine, though.
posted by Ryvar at 8:45 PM EST on February 10 [!]


As would the substance of mine, which is pretty well opposite yours. Substance... the worst New Order compilation ever. Remember their record covers...
posted by juiceCake at 10:01 PM on February 10, 2006


their [kleber] site is awful, but their work for other clients is not.

That's a pretty weird marketing stratagy, but yeah their client pages do look nice. I think the design is meant to draw the eye to the client work, which it does well.
posted by delmoi at 10:32 PM on February 10, 2006


juiceCake: ironically I hold the opposite opinion on Substance. My all-time favourite compilation...by anyone.
posted by meech at 10:44 PM on February 10, 2006


Hybrid Logic is a nice design, but try highlighting it -- they're using white JPGs to control layout! Ew.
posted by neckro23 at 10:45 PM on February 10, 2006


Web 2.0 Design
... in a nutshell

posted by VulcanMike at 10:55 PM on February 10, 2006



posted by delmoi at 11:00 PM on February 10, 2006


Pixelgraphix is the primary example of beautiful web design. Manuela Hoffmann, a German web-developer, knows how to create beautiful and accessible web design.
posted by vitaly friedman at 2:41 AM on February 11, 2006


Best Homepage Ever.
posted by MetaMonkey at 3:50 AM on February 11, 2006


...and I'm still not seeing any personal work samples of any of these self-appointed experts. Anyone care to put their money where their mouths are?
posted by ghastlyfop at 4:40 AM on February 11, 2006


ghastlyfop, why should a good critic also be a good designer?
posted by ryanrs at 4:48 AM on February 11, 2006


Web Creme seems to have some pretty good stuff, although most of it is very bloggy. I'd like to see a site that collected examples of good web application design.
That said, I do like the Web2.0 approach found in things like BackPack for two reasons: 'easy to use' and 'not actively ugly'.
posted by bashos_frog at 5:03 AM on February 11, 2006


Oh, come on. A lot of the shit I'm reading here reveals a depth of technical knowledge and understanding several degrees beyond the layman's. It implies a "this is how it should have been done" mentality. Some of the nitpicking is so over the top I really can't tell if you're all being serious or not.
And who said anything about "good" critics? I feel like I'm just reading the rants and raves of a fleet of underemployed bitches.
That said, keep the positive examples coming. I'm enjoying them, and I'm also enjoying the inevitable posts explaining why your favorite sites sucks.
posted by ghastlyfop at 5:04 AM on February 11, 2006


I think precision nitpicking is "better" than vauge complaints. It's more interesting, anyway.

Your posts appear to imply that only good designers can criticize bad design. That's akin to saying I can't criticize a crap FPP unless my personal website is better. Seems a bit nonsensical.
posted by ryanrs at 5:43 AM on February 11, 2006


You're missing my point--I'd rather hear the opinions of someone whose outlook is not colored by a depth of professional experience designing web sites. And if I'm going to be seeing some unnecessarily detailed nitpicking by know-it-all web pros, I want to know exactly where they're coming from--their sense of style and aesthetics.
If you're going to throw around words like "horrendous" and "garbage" (even in jest, right?), I'd hope you'd have the balls to subject your own work to this kind of review.
posted by ghastlyfop at 6:16 AM on February 11, 2006


What? Someone asking for self-links? Is it the appocalypse? I'll put some money where my mouth is. Also, an HTML newsletter design, though not a full-blown webpage with navigation, etc. Eventually it will be... but I must warn you, it's ugly on purpose. And another simple little site.
posted by afx114 at 7:35 AM on February 11, 2006


What vitaly friedman said. That pixelgraphix site is really really nice.

I think we all have different expectations with different kinds of sites at different times which also differs depending on our familiarity, as dhartung hinted at. Some things grow on you as well - MeFi being a good example.

Functional ease is still number 1. I want to get a grasp in under 20 secs. All and any impediments whether by gross colouring (as with that Hybrid Logic some of you frothed about) or crap fonts or too much text or too many columns - cluttering in other words; or other distractions whether by flash or jpeg will make me leave very very fast if I have gone to the site on spec or to seek specific info.

I like simple and I don't mind white space - for the majority of sites I visit. Artsy sites are different, when I have much much more of an open mind and expectation of weirdness.
posted by peacay at 7:35 AM on February 11, 2006


Excellent thread. I'm supposed to build a website for my girlfriend's father's charter fishing business. He's in the process of getting his license, and I've never designed an entire website before. This thread is filled with good info AND nitpicky personalities. I hope you'll all be as constructive when I post it on Projects.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:39 AM on February 11, 2006


afx14 that branchome site is excellent. Elegant and easy to navigate and informative. Really nice.
posted by peacay at 7:39 AM on February 11, 2006


I'll second that, peacay.
posted by ghastlyfop at 9:00 AM on February 11, 2006


In fact, I'd really love eventually to see a thread showcasing the design work of MeFites. Would this constitute self-linking, even if the links weren't necessarily to one's own personal site or blog?
posted by ghastlyfop at 9:02 AM on February 11, 2006


This newfangled Web 2.0 stuff isn't just for websites. It's also quite handy when developing local html files. But since these files are not hosted, I can't provide a link.

I use html files to organize my vast collection of mp3s and movies. The html is generated by a bunch of little python scripts that parse metadata stored in text files. Most of these scripts only use a couple simple tags: a, p, img, table, tr, td, br, and hr. Text++.

Recently I've started experimenting with Javascript and dynamic html. Client-side processing is really handy when you don't have a server. My DVD page uses Javascript to catch keypresses and perform shell-style name completion. This lets me navigate my movie library without using the mouse. Since I already know my library's contents, keyboard navigation is extremely fast.

My CD album art gallery uses a similar navigation aid. But instead of movie titles, each image is assigned a two letter shortcut code. I use CSS to alpha-blended the codes over the image thumbnails. Any image can be instantly selected by typing its two letter code. When viewing an image, the left and right arrow keys advance throught the gallery as if it were a slideshow. And since the page is not reloaded, just rewritten, the interface is very snappy. Holding an arrow key will flip through a gallery at about 10 fps.
posted by ryanrs at 9:20 AM on February 11, 2006


ryanrs, plzpostpxkthxbye.
posted by foot at 9:26 AM on February 11, 2006


Doesn't get in the damn way+
Intuitive to use+
Doesn't make you vomit*+
-----------------------------------
= Good web design


(*unless it's a pro-bulemia site)
posted by HTuttle at 1:46 PM on February 11, 2006


Didn't Strongbad already teach us all we need to know about great web design. His sites (1,2) prove it.

LOTS of animated GIFS!

Strongsad's blog is a good example too. Homestar's is not. And, of course, there is Thorax Corp.
posted by FeldBum at 9:37 PM on February 11, 2006


This may come off as inane and airheaded, but this clean, glossy and minimal design aesthetic is so two years ago. I'm sick and tired of seeing sites like this and I fully believe the dominance of the clean'n'glossy look has led to a period of stagnation in web design. All I have to look forward to in this brave new world of anything-goes interface design is faux-shiny buttons and new styles of subtle crosshatched backgrounds? Are we really looking for more versions of Frutiger, but make this one slightly blander please?

I remember when people like the Designers Republic were making amazingly hard to decipher, cross-your-eyes complicated pieces of art and design that were obviously designed to win design contests and nothing else. You'd never design a readable document around that sort of thing. But did we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Stuff like TDR's work on Wipeout for the Playstation was what made me want to go into design. It was like they were carving out the future out of technotribal glyphs and abstract line formations and I loved every bit of it. All this new shit inspires is boredom.
posted by chrominance at 10:04 PM on February 11, 2006


foot plzpostpxkthxbye

There's not much to see. The pages are basically bgcolor=white text=black and some imgs. I might tar up one of the image galleries but it's a bit of a pain. There are quite a few dependencies on my overall file structure. Since the library is over 1.5TB, it's spread across 10 filesystems on the server. I don't use raid because it needs to spins up all 10 disks just to read a single file. So there are a lot of hard coded paths. The system just isn't designed for portability.
posted by ryanrs at 10:22 PM on February 11, 2006


Good web design is in the eye of the beholder. Those pages were definitely very neat but I'm not sure that I agree that they were all state of the art.
posted by pancreas at 1:40 AM on February 12, 2006


« Older Now you too can feed your pet endangered meats!...  |  Rap Producer J-Dilla Dies; Kid... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments