It’s pretty for a site with 42 XHTML errors on just the main page. Just because it’s Mac software, doesn’t mean you need to make the overall feel of the site like apple.com. Also, inconsistency with no footer on the blog.
It is a nice implementation of this design style which as many have stated is beginning to lose it’s ‘snazziness’. How many of these ‘invoicing’ services do we have now? It’s at least a dozen.
@northpole: Ballpark is actually not mac software, it is an online invoicing app. From the people I know who use it, it’s incredibly built and beautifully designed. I don’t see at all where you get apple.com in this site.
@david: It looks a bit like Campaign Monitor, I will give you that.
@Josh: Are you against capitalism and competition? If one invoice app doesn’t provide the experience that someone needs, what’s wrong with having multiple alternatives? Plus, who is to say that of the dozen or so apps that are available now, how many will remain in 2-3 years. The internet does have a way of weeding out the products that don’t stack up.
All of this said, I think the site looks pretty good, but not outstanding. I do really like the design of the app’s interface.
Fair enough. I noticed their screen shot using Safari and made an assumption. I didn’t go in depth with what the software does, simply the design of the site. A couple things stand out to me that make it Apple-esque, and I realize those elements were certainly not first used by Apple, simply that they seemed to make it more mainstream given their corporate standing and overall theme of both their web and software development. Specifically the gray to white gradient text, mirrored images, and the little logo/snippets of info such as “Work With a Team” feel very Mac inspired as a whole. I never said that was a bad thing, just that it left me with a “blah” feeling. The site itself is put together well and flows fine, and MetaLab does good work.
Take a look at their blog section and see the right side bar… can anyone say Grooveshark?
I am sorry that I am flaming this site as I believe that in general there is nothing wrong with it. It’s just there seems to be something too familiar about it.
What I do like a lot is the UI design of their app/product. Nice one
The internet is a big place. There are bound to be similarities in designs, especially when a site falls neatly into a category such as “web 2.0″. That however does not mean they ripped any other site off. Sometimes a design that could fit into the “web 2.0″ category is perfectly suitable for the project.
We should not avoid a particular style if it in fact makes sense for the project.
I see some comments such as using icons beside paragraph text to describe benefits of the product as being “Mac inspired”.
Seriously? Using icons beside a paragraph is Mac inspired? I think that is going a little too far. Maybe white background is a little too mac inspired as well?
Although this particular design certainly does seem to be inspired from many “web 2.0″ sites, it is also unique in it’s overall execution. It is very clean, polished and I don’t see many loose ends that look incomplete.
BWG does not claim to feature sites that look completely different. I would argue that would be impossible given the shear number of nicely designed websites out there and the ever growing number of galleries to showcase them.
While the Ballpark site might not be different than anything you have ever seen before, it is a well executed design and I believe it is appropriate for the product it is selling.
And if you cared to check out the app’s screenshots, you would notice the website design fits perfectly with it.
Nice looking site, however, what is with the massive amount of errors on the page? They have empty depreciated tags floating around willy nilly such as a rogue “b” tag. Empty spans etc (probably for presentation). Images without alt tags, br tags that aren’t self closed etc etc
I mean, what hack actually made and released this build?
My 2 cents … it’s a nice site yes … but their seems to be a tendency for inserting lots of content in the first page. Yes i understand the “in your face” information and the use cases for not making the user click and nav away from the page … loosing focus and loosing the message …
But we have to be certain that we don’t put too much information in one page… or we kind of get lost.
As for the errors … it happens; but when it does… we must correct the errors, not let them laying arrow for eternity
I’m the guy who designed this site. Thanks for all the feedback, critical and kind alike.
Re: XHTML errors: Yes, guilty as charged! I didn’t realize there were so many, but they are largely presentational. Apart from you standards nuts though, this in no way affects the usability of the site or the execution of the UI. We used to worry validation a lot more, but frankly, it’s something that 99.9% of people don’t care about.
Not totally clear on how our site is similar to the ones you guys mentioned. Like, the “wet floor” reflection effect is insanely popular. Yes, Apple introduced this style, but I don’t see how we’re ripping them off by using it.
Anyway, appreciate the feedback. Give Ballpark a spin – I think you’ll be presently surprised.
11 Comments
It’s pretty for a site with 42 XHTML errors on just the main page. Just because it’s Mac software, doesn’t mean you need to make the overall feel of the site like apple.com. Also, inconsistency with no footer on the blog.
It’s nice and all, just a little blah.
CampaignMonitor called and said it wants its design back.
It is a nice implementation of this design style which as many have stated is beginning to lose it’s ‘snazziness’. How many of these ‘invoicing’ services do we have now? It’s at least a dozen.
@northpole: Ballpark is actually not mac software, it is an online invoicing app. From the people I know who use it, it’s incredibly built and beautifully designed. I don’t see at all where you get apple.com in this site.
@david: It looks a bit like Campaign Monitor, I will give you that.
@Josh: Are you against capitalism and competition? If one invoice app doesn’t provide the experience that someone needs, what’s wrong with having multiple alternatives? Plus, who is to say that of the dozen or so apps that are available now, how many will remain in 2-3 years. The internet does have a way of weeding out the products that don’t stack up.
All of this said, I think the site looks pretty good, but not outstanding. I do really like the design of the app’s interface.
@Pat
Fair enough. I noticed their screen shot using Safari and made an assumption. I didn’t go in depth with what the software does, simply the design of the site. A couple things stand out to me that make it Apple-esque, and I realize those elements were certainly not first used by Apple, simply that they seemed to make it more mainstream given their corporate standing and overall theme of both their web and software development. Specifically the gray to white gradient text, mirrored images, and the little logo/snippets of info such as “Work With a Team” feel very Mac inspired as a whole. I never said that was a bad thing, just that it left me with a “blah” feeling. The site itself is put together well and flows fine, and MetaLab does good work.
Take a look at their blog section and see the right side bar… can anyone say Grooveshark?
I am sorry that I am flaming this site as I believe that in general there is nothing wrong with it. It’s just there seems to be something too familiar about it.
What I do like a lot is the UI design of their app/product. Nice one
The internet is a big place. There are bound to be similarities in designs, especially when a site falls neatly into a category such as “web 2.0″. That however does not mean they ripped any other site off. Sometimes a design that could fit into the “web 2.0″ category is perfectly suitable for the project.
We should not avoid a particular style if it in fact makes sense for the project.
I see some comments such as using icons beside paragraph text to describe benefits of the product as being “Mac inspired”.
Seriously? Using icons beside a paragraph is Mac inspired? I think that is going a little too far. Maybe white background is a little too mac inspired as well?
Although this particular design certainly does seem to be inspired from many “web 2.0″ sites, it is also unique in it’s overall execution. It is very clean, polished and I don’t see many loose ends that look incomplete.
BWG does not claim to feature sites that look completely different. I would argue that would be impossible given the shear number of nicely designed websites out there and the ever growing number of galleries to showcase them.
While the Ballpark site might not be different than anything you have ever seen before, it is a well executed design and I believe it is appropriate for the product it is selling.
And if you cared to check out the app’s screenshots, you would notice the website design fits perfectly with it.
Nice looking site, however, what is with the massive amount of errors on the page? They have empty depreciated tags floating around willy nilly such as a rogue “b” tag. Empty spans etc (probably for presentation). Images without alt tags, br tags that aren’t self closed etc etc
I mean, what hack actually made and released this build?
My 2 cents … it’s a nice site yes … but their seems to be a tendency for inserting lots of content in the first page. Yes i understand the “in your face” information and the use cases for not making the user click and nav away from the page … loosing focus and loosing the message …
But we have to be certain that we don’t put too much information in one page… or we kind of get lost.
As for the errors … it happens; but when it does… we must correct the errors, not let them laying arrow for eternity
Hey guys,
I’m the guy who designed this site. Thanks for all the feedback, critical and kind alike.
Re: XHTML errors: Yes, guilty as charged! I didn’t realize there were so many, but they are largely presentational. Apart from you standards nuts though, this in no way affects the usability of the site or the execution of the UI. We used to worry validation a lot more, but frankly, it’s something that 99.9% of people don’t care about.
Not totally clear on how our site is similar to the ones you guys mentioned. Like, the “wet floor” reflection effect is insanely popular. Yes, Apple introduced this style, but I don’t see how we’re ripping them off by using it.
Anyway, appreciate the feedback. Give Ballpark a spin – I think you’ll be presently surprised.
-Andrew
The web may be big place but its not big enough for Campaign Monitor and this site.