Funny you should say that, because this site’s glossy effect somewhat reminds me of a 3D cartoon, like an episode of the new Winnie The Pooh.
There could have been a hundred different ways that the art style could have gone – hand drawn, cel animated, scribble, retro, pixel, etc.
Yet, the art direction went the way of the very overdone shiny glossy look.
Not all gloss is bad, I agree, but there is an appropriate use (and limit) for it. Apple practically invented the gloss approach, and even on their site, they try to minimize it.
You could always use your real name and maybe provide some sort of reference to who you are (like a website).
I know you’ve already argued previously that your comments shouldn’t be affected by who you are. Well, I would disagree. I am much more interested in hearing what an accomplished designer with some experience behind them has to say than some one who has read a few articles on “minimalism” and thinks its all about white backgrounds and black text.
(I’m not saying you’re either of these, I’m saying we don’t know. I expect movie critics to have some sort of knowledge of how a good story is told to provide me a solid critique. We’re just asking the same for design.)
Why?
I think dudeydudedudes comments are the most profound critics I have read so far on this playground.
And forgive me…at least he has something to say. And that’s more than just ‘loe the colors, brilliant’. *yawn*.
WebDesign is not science. And if you got talent your posting will tell at least he has got the right eye for it. Or do you actually know a filmcritic who makes movies himself.
And you don’t have to do that to know how a good story has to been told….
I am not attempting to say that dude’s critiques have no value because he doesn’t “sign” them. For all we know, there are several people posting with this name.
What I am saying is that much of what he critiques is subjective. He clearly favours minimal design, which is not wrong. However minimal design does not equal design. It would be helpful for those reading his critiques to understand who he is to provide some context to what he says. I could go on and on about how “cool” I think the effects on this particular website are, however I wouldn’t know to say whether the script used to produce the effects meets any sort of standard as I do not have a lot of knowledge in that area.
Anyway, the whole point really doesn’t matter. It’s just a design gallery, and dude can freely do what he likes.
I agree…but that’s the problem not only with every critic, but with every human soul (lost or not).
Everybody has got a personal preference.
And the nature of discussion and debate is to convince, that it is better than others. )
the most ironic thing about the past 20 post is that they have all been fueled by anger and bitterness, can we get back to critiquing websites and talking about good design and coding…
As for this site, its coding is through the roof and thus its functionality is amazing. I love how so much content is loaded without having to refresh pages…anyone who knocks this use of js needs to rethink their approach to web design, for this style js coding is the way of the future!
Actually, with the speed the web develops, I think you’ll be seeing AJAX/Javascript until… well… 2016.
@Pat:
I admit that I do come from the school of thought that supports minimalism, but not just white colors and black text – I’m talking about try minimalism. The line of thought that follows the saying “you know it’s finished when you have nothing left to take away.”
But that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate other styles. If there is a list of questions I follow when designing/criticizing a site, they would be:
1) What/Who is the site about?
2) What is the purpose of the site?
3) Does the art direction align with the above?
4) If the art direction aligns, was it well executed?
5) If the design was well executed, do the additional elements (effects, flash, JavaScript, overall coding) add or detract from the overall experience?
So I really do look at each site before I open my mouth (or type out a comment, as the case may be).
I would like to make it clear: I’m not against textured sites. In fact, I do have a preference for textured sites that have a lot of hand-drawn elements in them (e.g. Web Designer Wall), what I do NOT like are designs which are inappropriate to the purpose and/or content of the site. (Number 1 and 2 on my list).
If, for example, you have a site for an engineering firm. Should it be grunge? Of course not. Without going into so many words – the very idea/thought/concept behind grunge are a direct acronym to what a professional service firm should be, especially one that handles infrastructure.
In the same way: where do glossy, 3D-enhanced designs belong? To a person? Or a service/product that is technologically related?
If we take the above example, we’re looking at a person who works in a technologically-inclined industry: ours.
Now If I were to enumerate why I do not like the art direction:
1) The site is meant as a personal site for one person.
2) Said person is the creative director for a web company.
3) Said person claims to be a superstar. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
4) Said creative director has obviously taken inspiration from icons which are offered free on a regular basis from Smashing Magazine. Which is, as we all know, the [sarcasm]epitome of good design taste.[/sarcasm]
– why do I say that? Because Smashing Magazine isn’t run by design people, or even art students. It’s run by a bunch of guys that like the shiny glossy stuff that apple-makes. Imagine if one of your clients created a “design blog”, but weren’t designers themselves, THAT is what Smashing Magazine is.
- the sad truth is, 90% of web design galleries are run by these same people. Which is why you don’t see true design creativity, and always see the same web 2.0 shite being showcased, day-after-day-after-week-after-week.
5) So is the guy a design “superstar”? No.
6) Does the design properly represent what a “superstar” creative director would show? No.
7) So in the end, is the design appropriate to the “superstar” content of the site? No.
Now if you all want to see a list of a few of the true design superstars, both on the web and off, here you go:
39 Comments
Beautiful! Absolutely stunning! Not too often does an interface break convention and still retain usability as well as this.
good work. i don’t like the small contents in the front. especially the blog. But the navigation is great and it’s nice styled.
I don’t care much for the art direction (glossy et al), but the javascript and code work are top notch.
@ddd
the art direction shouldn’t botter you as it isn’t “overdone”. I think this site has a fair balance between design, content, etc.
Deserves a “Best of…”
superstar? what a cocky bitch
dudeydudedude is clearly someone who lives in a 2d cartoon world where there is no light source and uses a MacBook Pro with a matte display.
Not all gloss is bad, you know. Gloss has not been “overdone.” It’s just been misused and abused.
…and unoriginal. rip someone off then showcase it stat!
@Pat
Funny you should say that, because this site’s glossy effect somewhat reminds me of a 3D cartoon, like an episode of the new Winnie The Pooh.
There could have been a hundred different ways that the art style could have gone – hand drawn, cel animated, scribble, retro, pixel, etc.
Yet, the art direction went the way of the very overdone shiny glossy look.
Not all gloss is bad, I agree, but there is an appropriate use (and limit) for it. Apple practically invented the gloss approach, and even on their site, they try to minimize it.
Brilliant design
Excellent Work, Chulo sitio!!
I’m better than all of you. Bow down and pay tribute to your king!
Wouldn’t call this brilliant. The coding is excellent.
The design is mediocre. and nothing special
Sigh. This is the problem when you don’t have a proper sign-in. Immature children can’t take the heat, and respond in such a “playground” manner.
Yes, I’m talking about post 11 – that wasn’t me.
You could always use your real name and maybe provide some sort of reference to who you are (like a website).
I know you’ve already argued previously that your comments shouldn’t be affected by who you are. Well, I would disagree. I am much more interested in hearing what an accomplished designer with some experience behind them has to say than some one who has read a few articles on “minimalism” and thinks its all about white backgrounds and black text.
(I’m not saying you’re either of these, I’m saying we don’t know. I expect movie critics to have some sort of knowledge of how a good story is told to provide me a solid critique. We’re just asking the same for design.)
Why?
I think dudeydudedudes comments are the most profound critics I have read so far on this playground.
And forgive me…at least he has something to say. And that’s more than just ‘loe the colors, brilliant’. *yawn*.
WebDesign is not science. And if you got talent your posting will tell at least he has got the right eye for it. Or do you actually know a filmcritic who makes movies himself.
And you don’t have to do that to know how a good story has to been told….
I am not attempting to say that dude’s critiques have no value because he doesn’t “sign” them. For all we know, there are several people posting with this name.
What I am saying is that much of what he critiques is subjective. He clearly favours minimal design, which is not wrong. However minimal design does not equal design. It would be helpful for those reading his critiques to understand who he is to provide some context to what he says. I could go on and on about how “cool” I think the effects on this particular website are, however I wouldn’t know to say whether the script used to produce the effects meets any sort of standard as I do not have a lot of knowledge in that area.
Anyway, the whole point really doesn’t matter. It’s just a design gallery, and dude can freely do what he likes.
I agree…but that’s the problem not only with every critic, but with every human soul (lost or not).
)
Everybody has got a personal preference.
And the nature of discussion and debate is to convince, that it is better than others.
ahhh….what the hell….
))
the most ironic thing about the past 20 post is that they have all been fueled by anger and bitterness, can we get back to critiquing websites and talking about good design and coding…
As for this site, its coding is through the roof and thus its functionality is amazing. I love how so much content is loaded without having to refresh pages…anyone who knocks this use of js needs to rethink their approach to web design, for this style js coding is the way of the future!
‘way of the future?’ With the way technology advances, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was completely replaced in less than 3 years.
@Jamie:
Actually, with the speed the web develops, I think you’ll be seeing AJAX/Javascript until… well… 2016.
@Pat:
I admit that I do come from the school of thought that supports minimalism, but not just white colors and black text – I’m talking about try minimalism. The line of thought that follows the saying “you know it’s finished when you have nothing left to take away.”
But that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate other styles. If there is a list of questions I follow when designing/criticizing a site, they would be:
1) What/Who is the site about?
2) What is the purpose of the site?
3) Does the art direction align with the above?
4) If the art direction aligns, was it well executed?
5) If the design was well executed, do the additional elements (effects, flash, JavaScript, overall coding) add or detract from the overall experience?
So I really do look at each site before I open my mouth (or type out a comment, as the case may be).
I would like to make it clear: I’m not against textured sites. In fact, I do have a preference for textured sites that have a lot of hand-drawn elements in them (e.g. Web Designer Wall), what I do NOT like are designs which are inappropriate to the purpose and/or content of the site. (Number 1 and 2 on my list).
If, for example, you have a site for an engineering firm. Should it be grunge? Of course not. Without going into so many words – the very idea/thought/concept behind grunge are a direct acronym to what a professional service firm should be, especially one that handles infrastructure.
In the same way: where do glossy, 3D-enhanced designs belong? To a person? Or a service/product that is technologically related?
If we take the above example, we’re looking at a person who works in a technologically-inclined industry: ours.
Now If I were to enumerate why I do not like the art direction:
1) The site is meant as a personal site for one person.
2) Said person is the creative director for a web company.
3) Said person claims to be a superstar. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.
4) Said creative director has obviously taken inspiration from icons which are offered free on a regular basis from Smashing Magazine. Which is, as we all know, the [sarcasm]epitome of good design taste.[/sarcasm]
– why do I say that? Because Smashing Magazine isn’t run by design people, or even art students. It’s run by a bunch of guys that like the shiny glossy stuff that apple-makes. Imagine if one of your clients created a “design blog”, but weren’t designers themselves, THAT is what Smashing Magazine is.
- the sad truth is, 90% of web design galleries are run by these same people. Which is why you don’t see true design creativity, and always see the same web 2.0 shite being showcased, day-after-day-after-week-after-week.
5) So is the guy a design “superstar”? No.
6) Does the design properly represent what a “superstar” creative director would show? No.
7) So in the end, is the design appropriate to the “superstar” content of the site? No.
Now if you all want to see a list of a few of the true design superstars, both on the web and off, here you go:
jasonsantamaria.com
airbagindustries.com
designchapel.com
duffy.com
heeboklee.com
dannyyount.com
visitoffice.com
brandnewschool.com