Attention Web-Dezynx0rs:
June 21, 2001 12:21 PM   Subscribe

Attention Web-Dezynx0rs: how 1337 are you? are you cutting edge? are you k10k-rad? :: ? ::
i suck. i only got a six. but then again, i'm more concerned about content and accessibility than i am being stylish or trendy. I IS SUCK!
posted by jcterminal (28 comments total)
yeah, well, i got a zero. yay for me.
posted by tolkhan at 12:35 PM on June 21, 2001

See I'm all torn up 'cuz...that was funny, yeah. The thing is I like all those cliches. Or half of them, anyway. But then, I am the lowest of the low: a design groupie.
posted by lbergstr at 12:35 PM on June 21, 2001

two... shame on me. i really wanted to be the "grinchiest."
posted by lotsofno at 12:47 PM on June 21, 2001

two. The serifs, and the use of "::".

Not bad, I guess.
posted by Succa at 12:50 PM on June 21, 2001

I got a six by randomly clicking boxes. I am L33t! Or L@^^3! Or something.
posted by Skot at 12:53 PM on June 21, 2001

I didn't click any. It said "You can't even check at least one?!" I said, "nope".
posted by claxton6 at 1:07 PM on June 21, 2001

I got "0 points: you can't even check at least one?!?".

But I tried to check one, and it told me to "Chill out, Vena"

How'd it know my name?
posted by cCranium at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2001

Wow, I got 15 points. I'm an average designer. But I found it odd that there were no questions about lots of zippy marquees (the core of my design style), like this:

Zippity BOP™!Zippity BOP™!Zippity BOP™!Zippity BOP™!Zippity BOP™!

posted by daveadams at 1:15 PM on June 21, 2001

dave -- Matt's gonna smack your ass if you don't stop putting graphics in your posts.
posted by briank at 1:17 PM on June 21, 2001

It's not a graphic! Besides I didn't know graphics were against the rules. Uh oh...
posted by daveadams at 1:18 PM on June 21, 2001

That's not a graphic.

Though certainly still worthy of an ass-smacking.
posted by cCranium at 1:18 PM on June 21, 2001

briank, view the source; that isn't a graphic, just egregious HTML abuse.

That said, Matt's gonna smack your ass.
posted by Avogadro at 1:19 PM on June 21, 2001

Avo, if you keep posting the same thing as me, people are going to realise you're actually my duplicate account.

posted by cCranium at 1:21 PM on June 21, 2001

Matt's gonna smack . . .

Mine too (hint: the graphics aren't in this thread). Actually, I doubt he'll mind the graphics. I don't know how he'll feel about the proprietary HTML.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:22 PM on June 21, 2001

Ass-smackerrific, I say.
posted by Succa at 1:22 PM on June 21, 2001

posted by Avogadro at 1:23 PM on June 21, 2001

I like it. I think it's appropriate.
posted by MarkAnd at 1:23 PM on June 21, 2001

I think it's appropriate.

But the question is: is it 1337?
posted by daveadams at 1:24 PM on June 21, 2001

But the question is: is it 1337?

It's qu173 1337.
posted by MarkAnd at 1:25 PM on June 21, 2001

"the link to your article explaining why you hate Jakob Neilsen doesn't work in netscape 4.7"

Okay, that one made me spew Diet Coke out my nose.

I was just pondering to myself that I don't like this year's fashion in web design. It's a bit subdued for my taste. But these things come and go just like haute couture--next year I may love it. And next year, this will be an entirely different list of questions.

And I'll still get a zero.
posted by frykitty at 1:31 PM on June 21, 2001

i always collect all the trendy stuff, and then zip it and lock it for use 2 years later.

then i can reuse all of them, and be called 'stunningly retro'.
posted by jcterminal at 1:56 PM on June 21, 2001

I scored a 3 -- sans serif fonts, :: as a design element, and two dead dot-coms in my portfolio. Hey, I like those things! Oh well, gotta go write my anti-Jakob manifesto now...
posted by spilon at 2:36 PM on June 21, 2001

two: (1) use of << >> as a design element, and (2) the fact that the dates on my weblog are like this: june.21.2001
posted by iceberg273 at 3:12 PM on June 21, 2001

Got a 5. I came close on the failed dot com, but luckily I've only worked at one of those [MXG Magazine, and I was a contractor there]... Like it matters but here's what I'm guilty of:

1) large, single-color panes of random polygon shapes [Once, but I'd rather not talk about it.]
2) :: as a design element [I'm a Cloud9ine/GeoShell user. Color me partially inspired by that.]
3) MM_* javascript functions [It was for a client, swear...]
4) No fonts with serifs [They just look cleaner, okay?!]
5) Use of scanlines as a design element [But never to the point where it's cliche.]

So not only did I get a five, but I'm also in denial... Can anyone tell that my shrink makes good money off me?
posted by dincognito at 4:07 PM on June 21, 2001

"1 point You are not a designer"
who am i to disagree. ho hum
posted by quarsan at 12:41 AM on June 22, 2001

What are you all on about, eh? Eh? Who is this "Jakob Nielson" and why should anyone care?
posted by Mocata at 5:59 AM on June 22, 2001

I'm abashed to admit that I don't even know what "MM_*" JavaScript functions are.

The only thing I've ever done on that list is the gratuitous scanlines.
posted by kindall at 8:13 AM on June 22, 2001

I scored a big fat zer0. Hooray!

Of course, I don't even understand what all of it means. Good for me.
posted by dr. zoidberg at 4:18 PM on June 22, 2001

« Older Press sez "good", public sez "bad"   |   Did you see it? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments