I agree with Jack. It’s an okay site and all, but there is nothing interesting or special about this. Sans a few (and I stress few) elements, this site could easily be passed off as something from the mid 90′s.
@tdub: I was around during the mid 90′s, trust me, this would’ve made site of the year among designers.
In that light, it also goes to show how quickly web design moved forward. I won’t call this a bad site (and I quite like the logo), but yeah, I’d have to agree that the layout lacks that element of surprise. I was hoping to see something, maybe a footer design or something, but the site sort of ended with a “that’s it?” feeling.
@dudeydueydude I was around in the mid 90′s also, not that this is any sort of pissing contest. Anyway, your points are more elaborated but spot on, it’s a lackluster site, sans the already mentioned few key elements, such as the logo.
@Matt Not really. I guess I’d be more shocked if it was showcased as anything but, however it’s being showcased as clean CSS.. cool story bro.. every site should have that.
Personally, seeing that sort of stuff puts “CSS” sites into perspective. If you’re not going to try to push the envelope (e.g. try something new) like the airwalk site, the design needs to be exceptional. The Build one wasn’t. It’s just “okay.”
Site’s typograpy, grid usage and lightness is good. So if we can say ‘very good’ for a site when we entered it this is enought for serve it and visit it. Please don’t wait every day for a miracle and deeply unique site designs.
10 Comments
So.. what’s so good about this?
Pretty boring and uninteresting. The logo is quite nifty I guess.
Also, if I read “hand-crafted” one more time I’m going to cry. Seriously, enough already.
I agree with Jack. It’s an okay site and all, but there is nothing interesting or special about this. Sans a few (and I stress few) elements, this site could easily be passed off as something from the mid 90′s.
I like it. What you may call boring & uninteresting, I call minimal & clean.
I like the use of “gray” space, and the colors contrast well.
I also like the logo.
@tdub: I was around during the mid 90′s, trust me, this would’ve made site of the year among designers.
In that light, it also goes to show how quickly web design moved forward. I won’t call this a bad site (and I quite like the logo), but yeah, I’d have to agree that the layout lacks that element of surprise. I was hoping to see something, maybe a footer design or something, but the site sort of ended with a “that’s it?” feeling.
This is showcased in CSS category. Does that make a difference?
@dudeydueydude I was around in the mid 90′s also, not that this is any sort of pissing contest. Anyway, your points are more elaborated but spot on, it’s a lackluster site, sans the already mentioned few key elements, such as the logo.
@Matt Not really. I guess I’d be more shocked if it was showcased as anything but, however it’s being showcased as clean CSS.. cool story bro.. every site should have that.
@Matt
I’m in agreement with tdub. For example, this is a CSS site: http://airwalk.com/home/
Personally, seeing that sort of stuff puts “CSS” sites into perspective. If you’re not going to try to push the envelope (e.g. try something new) like the airwalk site, the design needs to be exceptional. The Build one wasn’t. It’s just “okay.”
@Jack
.
Site’s typograpy, grid usage and lightness is good. So if we can say ‘very good’ for a site when we entered it this is enought for serve it and visit it. Please don’t wait every day for a miracle and deeply unique site designs.
i like the color and feel of this website. It simple and nice. great design.
i don’t know what exactly it is, but it lacks something. it feels that way, it could be great, but it is not.
this does not mean it’s a bad one though.