Interesting layout.. I like it, but that’s because I’m running it on 1920×1200.
When I re-size to 1024×768 it is just way too cluttery , messed up margins, paddings, etc. makes it not look nearly as good as it does on a larger resolution
A nice site, in special way the colours of background, but I don’t like so much the gallery by the photos maybe is better use something different like lightbox?
I liked the use of colours for about 5 seconds until I began scrolling and now I think it’s too much…horrible infact, but it’s personal preference.
Layout isn’t too bad but as someone mentioned the site doesn’t work well in 1024 x768, the site is a bit wider than that so it forces scroll bars and CSS issues begin to appear.
Personally I don’t like it but I’m glad it appears in BWG as it’s something different looking and inspirational.
First-off, you’re all entitled to you opinions, but, that said, I thought it might be fun for me, the designer/developer, to share some stats and respond to opinion.
I don’t create web sites for the average user. I create them for my client’s user.
For those complaining about 1024 res (why is this still the *gold* standard, btw?), the site doesn’t actually break, it just requires horizontal scrolling. This is something the client and I felt was a worth compromise. So far, after thousands of visits, it is only affect about 7% of users. I’m ok with that for this project.
The color use on the site is definitely polarizing, but it was part of the client brief and considering where they wanted to see their site go, I think it’s a good solution.
What’s IE6? All kidding aside, this was a launch first, clean up second scenario. Sometimes it’s just better to get it out there. The only browsers having trouble are IE7 and lower. We’ll test and hack shit for IE7 soon (so far 5% of users). As for the 2% of visitors with IE6, we’ll make sure the site content is available, but we won’t worry about making things pretty for them. It’s just not worth it to this client’s primary audience.
As for auto-starting audio players? Yeah, I hate that too. Sometimes we don’t get a choice.
Anyway, just thought it might be fun to share some background, carry on.
Good on you for commenting on the auto-player. You’re right, some times (more often than not) we don’t get a choice in much of anything (creative license is rare these days). I’m glad you weren’t offended by my comment and realised it was not so much meant for the designer, but the client, who chose to do it.
Grant, when the horizontal scroll bar is needed the background image doesn’t fully fit the page – you end up with white down the right hand side, a min-width would solve that without affecting anything else.
I like the idea of dropping away from the norm and standards, sometimes good things can come from doing that.
It’s a shame a lot of people expect sites to be perfect to be put into BWG because for me, a site like this can probably teach us more than a perfect one.
Yes they are global, yes no stats pack is ever the same etc, but it is worth considering as your target audience is wider than you think.
A lot of users are still using older technology which ideally should be catered for making your sites accessible to the widest possible audience.
Bear in mind as well that your stats will be slightly corrupt if you have had this site featured on a lot of gallery sites, most users viewing those sites are designers using Firefox or the latest browser technology.
You may find this percentage for IE 6-7 and 1024 x 768 res goes up in your personal stats when the hit from the gallery sites start to go down.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the site so good job there, but those things mentioned above should ideally be things you should look to be fixing, and maybe not defending?
As you mentioned, you are looking into some IE6 fixes which is good, but maybe a max width of 980px – 990px will fix your content issue on smaller screens. You can obviously still have wider overflowing background images.
All in all though, good job and grats for getting the site featured
That is absolute nonsense. If I actually thought that it was impossible to make it work on 1024×768 without scroll-bars, you can bet you that I would do it.
All it would require here seems to be the changing of the widths of a few blocks of text and making some images every so slightly smaller.
If there was any reason for the website to be as wide as it is then what is the point?
It seems to me that you just didn’t check it properly when you were designing, and if you did, that’s even worse. This is a lack of planning. And 7% are affected when 0-1% could be? That’s ridiculous and lazy.
I have to agree with Edmund here – it does look like you’ve botched the design. It appears as though it was designed to fit 1024, but something’s gone wrong along the way – you’re only off by about 10-15 pixels – why not fix it and make a lot more people happy. There’s no point in annoying people when you’re trying to sell something?
PS: 1024 is the standard because last time I checked (a few months ago), it was the majority. If it’s not the majority now, it’s certainly in the top 3.
Love this design … the fact that so many people are discussing it is a good thing … if it was the same as every other site you’d all be complaining.
Praise the designer(and the client) for doing this.
As for ‘standard’ browser sizes? What’s a standard … maybe if you use a Windows and maximise your browser it may be a standard …
What about the people that don’t use Windows or maximise their browser?
What’s the standard then?
Also, he’s designing it for his client … and his client liked it … he’s also designing it for his clients users … I;’m guessing you wouldn’t have even gone on the site if it wasn’t on here.
So you’re not a typical user.
You don’t design a design blog to work on 800×600 and IE6 … the user base is just not going to be there.
I do agree with the comments about making it work for as many users as possible. 7% is a lot of people at 1 million users.
23 Comments
Interesting layout.. I like it, but that’s because I’m running it on 1920×1200.
When I re-size to 1024×768 it is just way too cluttery , messed up margins, paddings, etc. makes it not look nearly as good as it does on a larger resolution
The background idea is super nice, love it…
No support IE6
A nice site, in special way the colours of background, but I don’t like so much the gallery by the photos maybe is better use something different like lightbox?
I liked the use of colours for about 5 seconds until I began scrolling and now I think it’s too much…horrible infact, but it’s personal preference.
Layout isn’t too bad but as someone mentioned the site doesn’t work well in 1024 x768, the site is a bit wider than that so it forces scroll bars and CSS issues begin to appear.
Personally I don’t like it but I’m glad it appears in BWG as it’s something different looking and inspirational.
It’s a nice site. It’s a shame it isn’t designed for the average user.
Definately a welcome addition to BWG.
interesting, looks awful on 1024 res though
People need to stop using auto-play music players.
@kmk – What’s IE6 again?
Nice functionality, but it wasn’t very beautiful :/
Hey, thanks for all the feedback.
First-off, you’re all entitled to you opinions, but, that said, I thought it might be fun for me, the designer/developer, to share some stats and respond to opinion.
I don’t create web sites for the average user. I create them for my client’s user.
For those complaining about 1024 res (why is this still the *gold* standard, btw?), the site doesn’t actually break, it just requires horizontal scrolling. This is something the client and I felt was a worth compromise. So far, after thousands of visits, it is only affect about 7% of users. I’m ok with that for this project.
The color use on the site is definitely polarizing, but it was part of the client brief and considering where they wanted to see their site go, I think it’s a good solution.
What’s IE6? All kidding aside, this was a launch first, clean up second scenario. Sometimes it’s just better to get it out there. The only browsers having trouble are IE7 and lower. We’ll test and hack shit for IE7 soon (so far 5% of users). As for the 2% of visitors with IE6, we’ll make sure the site content is available, but we won’t worry about making things pretty for them. It’s just not worth it to this client’s primary audience.
As for auto-starting audio players? Yeah, I hate that too. Sometimes we don’t get a choice.
Anyway, just thought it might be fun to share some background, carry on.
@Grant
Good on you for commenting on the auto-player. You’re right, some times (more often than not) we don’t get a choice in much of anything (creative license is rare these days). I’m glad you weren’t offended by my comment and realised it was not so much meant for the designer, but the client, who chose to do it.
Grant, when the horizontal scroll bar is needed the background image doesn’t fully fit the page – you end up with white down the right hand side, a min-width would solve that without affecting anything else.
I like the idea of dropping away from the norm and standards, sometimes good things can come from doing that.
It’s a shame a lot of people expect sites to be perfect to be put into BWG because for me, a site like this can probably teach us more than a perfect one.
So defensive…!
awesomess design, especially the background
I think this is a great design. I love the way you used the theme of boxes.
I also love the user of colors, its a great scheme and you should be proud of it.
@ Grant – Regarding the browser usage and resolutions. I think you may want to take a peek at these.
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Yes they are global, yes no stats pack is ever the same etc, but it is worth considering as your target audience is wider than you think.
A lot of users are still using older technology which ideally should be catered for making your sites accessible to the widest possible audience.
Bear in mind as well that your stats will be slightly corrupt if you have had this site featured on a lot of gallery sites, most users viewing those sites are designers using Firefox or the latest browser technology.
You may find this percentage for IE 6-7 and 1024 x 768 res goes up in your personal stats when the hit from the gallery sites start to go down.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the site so good job there, but those things mentioned above should ideally be things you should look to be fixing, and maybe not defending?
As you mentioned, you are looking into some IE6 fixes which is good, but maybe a max width of 980px – 990px will fix your content issue on smaller screens. You can obviously still have wider overflowing background images.
All in all though, good job and grats for getting the site featured
Grant,
That is absolute nonsense. If I actually thought that it was impossible to make it work on 1024×768 without scroll-bars, you can bet you that I would do it.
All it would require here seems to be the changing of the widths of a few blocks of text and making some images every so slightly smaller.
If there was any reason for the website to be as wide as it is then what is the point?
It seems to me that you just didn’t check it properly when you were designing, and if you did, that’s even worse. This is a lack of planning. And 7% are affected when 0-1% could be? That’s ridiculous and lazy.
Edmund.
I have to agree with Edmund here – it does look like you’ve botched the design. It appears as though it was designed to fit 1024, but something’s gone wrong along the way – you’re only off by about 10-15 pixels – why not fix it and make a lot more people happy. There’s no point in annoying people when you’re trying to sell something?
PS: 1024 is the standard because last time I checked (a few months ago), it was the majority. If it’s not the majority now, it’s certainly in the top 3.
Love this design … the fact that so many people are discussing it is a good thing … if it was the same as every other site you’d all be complaining.
Praise the designer(and the client) for doing this.
As for ‘standard’ browser sizes? What’s a standard … maybe if you use a Windows and maximise your browser it may be a standard …
What about the people that don’t use Windows or maximise their browser?
What’s the standard then?
Also, he’s designing it for his client … and his client liked it … he’s also designing it for his clients users … I;’m guessing you wouldn’t have even gone on the site if it wasn’t on here.
So you’re not a typical user.
You don’t design a design blog to work on 800×600 and IE6 … the user base is just not going to be there.
I do agree with the comments about making it work for as many users as possible. 7% is a lot of people at 1 million users.