I thought the same thing as WearyMax, really enjoy the design on the contact form but to have absolutely no validation on it when you are promoting your company’s software development skills seems odd.
I have to be honest, as much as I kind of agree with you, and this is also referring to your other comment on the ‘Made My Day’ site as well.
Why can illustrations, textures, CSS trickery, and some nice Javascript not denote a good design?
If these elements are used well surely a site doesn’t ‘need’ more?
Strength in brand, yes obviously important, but a brand is defined in so many ways, so surely it is about how the individual/company wish to portray their brand.
Style? Taste? These are of course sceptical elements and are to each persons point of view.
So, does a site really need to be different from everything else in order to feature here? Why do good, nicely designed sites, well built with good functionality and a nice amount of illustration get slated? Or put into that ‘common 10 a dozen’ category?
I am not saying this site is the most cutting edge build or most unique designed site I have ever seen, but does it really warrant an immediate negative response?
Does it have a place here, I think so. Should it be featured in the category ‘Software’ I think so, Should it be in the category ‘Best of’ I don’t think so.
Not a very exciting website, but well designed nonetheless. There are a couple of issues with spacing, eg. the space beneeath a header and it’s supporting text. Also some missing hover states, eg. the green links, and some little-too-subtle rollovers on some buttons.
Re: Made my day – That’s a slightly different story. That was a bad site, plain and simple. Yet it appeared on this gallery because it had illustrations and whatnot. Never mind that it was deeply flawed and that the designer was obviously schooled at The Smashing Magazine and Abduzeedo Colleges of Generic Fast Food Art (and he wasn’t even great at it!). None of that mattered because it had textures. Whee.
“Why can illustrations, textures, CSS trickery, and some nice Javascript not denote a good design?”
They can, when the one who executes puts some actual thought into them.
This site is a slightly different case though: I’m less offended by what it is (a safe site), than by it actually being showcased on a gallery that calls itself the “Best Web” gallery. It’s pretty, yes, and I didn’t say it wasn’t. I would classify it as pleasant, non-offensive. Does it do the job? Kinda. Can it be better? Very much so.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll repeat it for emphasis: remove the logo, remove the banner, and what are you left with?
A template.
And that’s the problem.
It goes without saying that the medium (web) is tremendously flexible. There are countless ways on how to execute a “hero” banner or something similar – why does it always have to be horizontal with some javascript-dependent slideshow? Likewise, There are countless ways to do layouts – why use the same “nav-hero-content in boxes” layout? Design is not fast food. Every client, company, problem, etc. is different. By that nature, you shouldn’t be able to use the same ideas/solutions over and over again – but why do people do so?
The reason is because fake designers don’t try. They don’t really put much thought about what they’re doing. “Just make it look pretty and collect the fee” was obviously the M.O. No imagination. No effort. This leads to boring, forgettable.
That’s why I rolled my eyes when I saw it here.
Your website is the face of your company, and as a company where your target market is very web-savvy, you need to be a bit fresh. Try something that people will remember. Something that you can call your own.
Is this pretty? Not in the least. But you’re not going to forget that site anytime soon.
But you see, this gallery doesn’t see things like that – good imagination, originality, fundamentals, etc.. It can only see textures, illustrations, and css/jquery. These are not actually examples of real design, but examples of “toolery” – http://artbackwash.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-be-tooler.html
Bluntly speaking: this is a gallery that prefers to showcase nice toolery, used in the exact same way, over and over again.
Here’s a fun little wake up challenge to everyone who just read my really long diatribe: remove the logos and black out the main (content) images from your site – if it looks like a hundred other sites, then you’re sitting on a template.
Re: Made my day – That’s a slightly different story. That was a bad site, plain and simple. Yet it appeared on this gallery because it had illustrations and whatnot. Never mind that it was deeply flawed and that the designer was obviously schooled at The Smashing Magazine and Abduzeedo Colleges of Generic Fast Food Art (and he wasn’t even great at it!). None of that mattered because it had textures. Whee.
“Why can illustrations, textures, CSS trickery, and some nice Javascript not denote a good design?”
They can, when the one who executes puts some actual thought into them.
This site is a slightly different case though: I’m less offended by what it is (a safe site), than by it actually being showcased on a gallery that calls itself the “Best Web” gallery. It’s pretty, yes, and I didn’t say it wasn’t. I would classify it as pleasant, non-offensive. Does it do the job? Kinda. Can it be better? Very much so.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll repeat it for emphasis: remove the logo, remove the banner, and what are you left with?
A template.
And that’s the problem.
It goes without saying that the medium (web) is tremendously flexible. There are countless ways on how to execute a “hero” banner or something similar – why does it always have to be horizontal with some javascript-dependent slideshow? Likewise, There are countless ways to do layouts – why use the same “nav-hero-content in boxes” layout? Design is not fast food. Every client, company, problem, etc. is different. By that nature, you shouldn’t be able to use the same ideas/solutions over and over again – but why do people do so?
The reason is because fake designers don’t try. They don’t really put much thought about what they’re doing. “Just make it look pretty and collect the fee” was obviously the M.O. No imagination. No effort. This leads to boring, forgettable.
That’s why I rolled my eyes when I saw it here.
Your website is the face of your company, and as a company where your target market is very web-savvy, you need to be a bit fresh. Try something that people will remember. Something that you can call your own.
Take this for example (different industry, but still):
see: malecopywriter.com/
Is this pretty? Not in the least. But you’re not going to forget that site anytime soon.
But you see, this gallery doesn’t see things like that – good imagination, originality, fundamentals, etc.. It can only see textures, illustrations, and css/jquery. These are not actually examples of real design, but examples of “toolery” see: artbackwash.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-be-tooler/
Bluntly speaking: this is a gallery that prefers to showcase nice toolery, used in the exact same way, over and over again.
Here’s a fun little wake up challenge to everyone who just read my really long diatribe: remove the logos and black out the main (content) images from your site – if it looks like a hundred other sites, then you’re sitting on a template.
Good points, and with the majority I agree with, my reference from the Made my day site, yes not a great site, but I thought your 2nd comment seemed quite generalized towards any site utilizing these design techniques, i.e. Not commenting on the site in hand but these design techniques in general.
My argument in a way, is why would you want to black out your logo, content images etc? Surely these items help to form part of the overall design?
Take Area 17 or X3 for example, great agencies, good sites, but remove their logo and content images, what you left with? white screen, grid layout and good use of typography. This is not at all bad, but surely the elements removed can help form a better overall design? In some instances sites can be built around these elements…?
Unless I am getting the wrong end of your stick
Anyway, I think your analysis of the ‘medium (web)’ definitely sums up a lot of the work on here, but if there was no medium web, we wouldn’t have a ‘best of’! i guess no one is trying to create a design which is classed as medium or average, but there is definitely a market for medium (average, well built, well structured sites).
I also think we are both completing for the longest ever comment on BWG (You win btw)
“My argument in a way, is why would you want to black out your logo, content images etc? Surely these items help to form part of the overall design?”
Definitely…
“Take Area 17 or X3 for example, great agencies, good sites, but remove their logo and content images, what you left with? white screen, grid layout and good use of typography. This is not at all bad, but surely the elements removed can help form a better overall design? In some instances sites can be built around these elements…?”
Yes, exactly, but at the very least, look at just the grid, layout, and typography – in Area 17′s case, along with the left-alignment, gray left border, and dark right background, those elements alone already add up to be unique enough in order for them to be associated with their site.
So without even relying on CSS, illustrations, textures, or whatnot, they’ve already “owned” their design in a sense, even though it doesn’t even have a logo or eye-popping graphics yet.
When you add the elements in (logo, images, etc.), it completes the package.
What I find undeserving of accolades are graphically-biased sites with weak / generic / unimaginative structure. IMHO, work built on good, imaginative structure lasts longer than the ones which are focused on graphics, which are largely fad-based.
Please show us a site you feel is worthy of being on your site, oh, i mean this site.
Linking to O&M doesn’t impress me. You could work in the mail room for all I know. Do you have a personal site that does not meet your checklist? Interested.
I’ve looked through a few pages on this site and see your comments often. For somebody so quick on the draw to leave comments akin to: “seen it” or “been there, done that”, you don’t back yourself up with even showing a site you have created or even using your real name.
Wuss.
19 Comments
awesome software UI
WOW! (Contact page) Postcard great idea! ^_^
opps! have bug
Click “Send enquiry” button – empty mail is SEND! “Thank you!” page redirected
))
No validator? Fix it
Would you like to buy a vowel?
I thought the same thing as WearyMax, really enjoy the design on the contact form but to have absolutely no validation on it when you are promoting your company’s software development skills seems odd.
Hero banner? Check!
Illustrations? Check!
Textures? Check!
Gloss and shine? Check!
Some Javscript? Check!
Bonus idea? Cute contact form! Check!
Without a doubt, this site was destined to appear on this gallery.
…and next week, we will all have forgotten about it. Just like every other site exactly like it before.
Mhm, is this worth showing it here? Simple, clean, but what else? Yeah, cute envelope, I forgot
.
I like it, it looks a bit dull but i really like it. nice, simple design. envelope in the contact form is cute but i think it’s overrated.
@ddd,
I have to be honest, as much as I kind of agree with you, and this is also referring to your other comment on the ‘Made My Day’ site as well.
Why can illustrations, textures, CSS trickery, and some nice Javascript not denote a good design?
If these elements are used well surely a site doesn’t ‘need’ more?
Strength in brand, yes obviously important, but a brand is defined in so many ways, so surely it is about how the individual/company wish to portray their brand.
Style? Taste? These are of course sceptical elements and are to each persons point of view.
So, does a site really need to be different from everything else in order to feature here? Why do good, nicely designed sites, well built with good functionality and a nice amount of illustration get slated? Or put into that ‘common 10 a dozen’ category?
I am not saying this site is the most cutting edge build or most unique designed site I have ever seen, but does it really warrant an immediate negative response?
Does it have a place here, I think so. Should it be featured in the category ‘Software’ I think so, Should it be in the category ‘Best of’ I don’t think so.
It looks pretty heavily inspired by some of Mozilla’s recent sites.
That said, I like it.
Not a very exciting website, but well designed nonetheless. There are a couple of issues with spacing, eg. the space beneeath a header and it’s supporting text. Also some missing hover states, eg. the green links, and some little-too-subtle rollovers on some buttons.
Apart from that, a nice useable website.
@Rob:
Re: Made my day – That’s a slightly different story. That was a bad site, plain and simple. Yet it appeared on this gallery because it had illustrations and whatnot. Never mind that it was deeply flawed and that the designer was obviously schooled at The Smashing Magazine and Abduzeedo Colleges of Generic Fast Food Art (and he wasn’t even great at it!). None of that mattered because it had textures. Whee.
“Why can illustrations, textures, CSS trickery, and some nice Javascript not denote a good design?”
They can, when the one who executes puts some actual thought into them.
This site is a slightly different case though: I’m less offended by what it is (a safe site), than by it actually being showcased on a gallery that calls itself the “Best Web” gallery. It’s pretty, yes, and I didn’t say it wasn’t. I would classify it as pleasant, non-offensive. Does it do the job? Kinda. Can it be better? Very much so.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll repeat it for emphasis: remove the logo, remove the banner, and what are you left with?
A template.
And that’s the problem.
It goes without saying that the medium (web) is tremendously flexible. There are countless ways on how to execute a “hero” banner or something similar – why does it always have to be horizontal with some javascript-dependent slideshow? Likewise, There are countless ways to do layouts – why use the same “nav-hero-content in boxes” layout? Design is not fast food. Every client, company, problem, etc. is different. By that nature, you shouldn’t be able to use the same ideas/solutions over and over again – but why do people do so?
The reason is because fake designers don’t try. They don’t really put much thought about what they’re doing. “Just make it look pretty and collect the fee” was obviously the M.O. No imagination. No effort. This leads to boring, forgettable.
That’s why I rolled my eyes when I saw it here.
Your website is the face of your company, and as a company where your target market is very web-savvy, you need to be a bit fresh. Try something that people will remember. Something that you can call your own.
Take this for example (different industry, but still):
http://malecopywriter.com/
Is this pretty? Not in the least. But you’re not going to forget that site anytime soon.
But you see, this gallery doesn’t see things like that – good imagination, originality, fundamentals, etc.. It can only see textures, illustrations, and css/jquery. These are not actually examples of real design, but examples of “toolery” – http://artbackwash.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-be-tooler.html
Bluntly speaking: this is a gallery that prefers to showcase nice toolery, used in the exact same way, over and over again.
Here’s a fun little wake up challenge to everyone who just read my really long diatribe: remove the logos and black out the main (content) images from your site – if it looks like a hundred other sites, then you’re sitting on a template.
@Rob:
Re: Made my day – That’s a slightly different story. That was a bad site, plain and simple. Yet it appeared on this gallery because it had illustrations and whatnot. Never mind that it was deeply flawed and that the designer was obviously schooled at The Smashing Magazine and Abduzeedo Colleges of Generic Fast Food Art (and he wasn’t even great at it!). None of that mattered because it had textures. Whee.
“Why can illustrations, textures, CSS trickery, and some nice Javascript not denote a good design?”
They can, when the one who executes puts some actual thought into them.
This site is a slightly different case though: I’m less offended by what it is (a safe site), than by it actually being showcased on a gallery that calls itself the “Best Web” gallery. It’s pretty, yes, and I didn’t say it wasn’t. I would classify it as pleasant, non-offensive. Does it do the job? Kinda. Can it be better? Very much so.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll repeat it for emphasis: remove the logo, remove the banner, and what are you left with?
A template.
And that’s the problem.
It goes without saying that the medium (web) is tremendously flexible. There are countless ways on how to execute a “hero” banner or something similar – why does it always have to be horizontal with some javascript-dependent slideshow? Likewise, There are countless ways to do layouts – why use the same “nav-hero-content in boxes” layout? Design is not fast food. Every client, company, problem, etc. is different. By that nature, you shouldn’t be able to use the same ideas/solutions over and over again – but why do people do so?
The reason is because fake designers don’t try. They don’t really put much thought about what they’re doing. “Just make it look pretty and collect the fee” was obviously the M.O. No imagination. No effort. This leads to boring, forgettable.
That’s why I rolled my eyes when I saw it here.
Your website is the face of your company, and as a company where your target market is very web-savvy, you need to be a bit fresh. Try something that people will remember. Something that you can call your own.
Take this for example (different industry, but still):
see: malecopywriter.com/
Is this pretty? Not in the least. But you’re not going to forget that site anytime soon.
But you see, this gallery doesn’t see things like that – good imagination, originality, fundamentals, etc.. It can only see textures, illustrations, and css/jquery. These are not actually examples of real design, but examples of “toolery” see: artbackwash.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-be-tooler/
Bluntly speaking: this is a gallery that prefers to showcase nice toolery, used in the exact same way, over and over again.
Here’s a fun little wake up challenge to everyone who just read my really long diatribe: remove the logos and black out the main (content) images from your site – if it looks like a hundred other sites, then you’re sitting on a template.
@ddd,
Good points, and with the majority I agree with, my reference from the Made my day site, yes not a great site, but I thought your 2nd comment seemed quite generalized towards any site utilizing these design techniques, i.e. Not commenting on the site in hand but these design techniques in general.
My argument in a way, is why would you want to black out your logo, content images etc? Surely these items help to form part of the overall design?
Take Area 17 or X3 for example, great agencies, good sites, but remove their logo and content images, what you left with? white screen, grid layout and good use of typography. This is not at all bad, but surely the elements removed can help form a better overall design? In some instances sites can be built around these elements…?
Unless I am getting the wrong end of your stick
Anyway, I think your analysis of the ‘medium (web)’ definitely sums up a lot of the work on here, but if there was no medium web, we wouldn’t have a ‘best of’! i guess no one is trying to create a design which is classed as medium or average, but there is definitely a market for medium (average, well built, well structured sites).
I also think we are both completing for the longest ever comment on BWG (You win btw)
@Rob:
Just a quick-ish response to your comments:
“My argument in a way, is why would you want to black out your logo, content images etc? Surely these items help to form part of the overall design?”
Definitely…
“Take Area 17 or X3 for example, great agencies, good sites, but remove their logo and content images, what you left with? white screen, grid layout and good use of typography. This is not at all bad, but surely the elements removed can help form a better overall design? In some instances sites can be built around these elements…?”
Yes, exactly, but at the very least, look at just the grid, layout, and typography – in Area 17′s case, along with the left-alignment, gray left border, and dark right background, those elements alone already add up to be unique enough in order for them to be associated with their site.
So without even relying on CSS, illustrations, textures, or whatnot, they’ve already “owned” their design in a sense, even though it doesn’t even have a logo or eye-popping graphics yet.
When you add the elements in (logo, images, etc.), it completes the package.
What I find undeserving of accolades are graphically-biased sites with weak / generic / unimaginative structure. IMHO, work built on good, imaginative structure lasts longer than the ones which are focused on graphics, which are largely fad-based.
thanks for posting this here
@ dudeydudeydude:
Please show us a site you feel is worthy of being on your site, oh, i mean this site.
Linking to O&M doesn’t impress me. You could work in the mail room for all I know. Do you have a personal site that does not meet your checklist? Interested.
I’ve looked through a few pages on this site and see your comments often. For somebody so quick on the draw to leave comments akin to: “seen it” or “been there, done that”, you don’t back yourself up with even showing a site you have created or even using your real name.
Wuss.
hes just a troll. And since you require no registration here, it could (and is most likely) more than one idiot.
Hi everybody,
My name is Tony Mobily @ Applicom. We developed this web site, and thought we ought to answer.
@everybody We agree that the contact page is a little weak.
@dudeydudeydude I can assure you we didn’t create this web site so that we could appear in this gallery. I am glad we did everything right though!
@jack: we didn’t mean to make it exciting… it was more meant to be serious. So, I guess we got that one right!
Other than that, it was great to see a discussion about our site. We put a lot of efforts into it.
Thank you,
Merc.