It’s a nice design but the coding *sucks*. It looks different on all browsers. Loads of text disappear on Safari for Windows, in IE all the images are loaded underneath eachother and all the text is unreadable if you don’t have a mac. This site needs a lot more testing and bugfixing.
The scripting does need work still as Steven has said – doesn’t work in IE for me. There is a disclaimer about the site not being completely finished, though, so maybe it is getting fixed.
I realize this is a mac product but it feels like another apple.com knock-off. Also, the gallery portions seem a bit cramped to me and the outline for links should be removed – I’m seeing them in Firefox.
This is a prime example of a developer knowing when and when not to care about IE. Clearly, as Jason pointed out, this is a website for a mac application. 0% of their target market would be using IE.
I understand what Jason’s saying about it being Apple.com-like, but I wouldn’t say it’s a knock-off. They are sticking to a style that is fairly common with Mac applications, that works for the target market.
It’s funny Pat, I knew this was a website presenting a Mac app – but focusing on what Steven had said about the scripting not working in IE, I checked IE anyway, completely ignoring the obvious face that they won’t need to worry about IE users. Thanks for bringing my head back out of the clouds.
6 Comments
It’s a nice design but the coding *sucks*. It looks different on all browsers. Loads of text disappear on Safari for Windows, in IE all the images are loaded underneath eachother and all the text is unreadable if you don’t have a mac. This site needs a lot more testing and bugfixing.
The scripting does need work still as Steven has said – doesn’t work in IE for me. There is a disclaimer about the site not being completely finished, though, so maybe it is getting fixed.
I realize this is a mac product but it feels like another apple.com knock-off. Also, the gallery portions seem a bit cramped to me and the outline for links should be removed – I’m seeing them in Firefox.
This is a prime example of a developer knowing when and when not to care about IE. Clearly, as Jason pointed out, this is a website for a mac application. 0% of their target market would be using IE.
I understand what Jason’s saying about it being Apple.com-like, but I wouldn’t say it’s a knock-off. They are sticking to a style that is fairly common with Mac applications, that works for the target market.
It’s funny Pat, I knew this was a website presenting a Mac app – but focusing on what Steven had said about the scripting not working in IE, I checked IE anyway, completely ignoring the obvious face that they won’t need to worry about IE users. Thanks for bringing my head back out of the clouds.
Well, beautiful but a little “yet another mac website”…
Compare, for instance, to: http://versionsapp.com/, which is macish yet creative.
it’s a great idea when you look for nice design image screenshots for inspiration.