Odd that for whatever reason, I knew this was going to be a 2.0 style site from the moment I saw it in my RSS feeder. I didn’t expect the (need Mac OSX) button to be a direct download. It would have been nice to have more information on any differences as it doesn’t have a blatant “download now” button with it. Changing the verbiage would work fine also, saying simply “Need Mac OSX? Download here.) Also, that specific link is terribly hard to read. Lastly, the site is far from validated, 12 errors and a handful of warnings on just the front page.
I think the website looks really nice. Is it original? No, but that’s ok – not everything should be original or cutting edge.
It’s pleasurable to look at.
though, I wish the “header” navigation was actually in the header… and not in the footer (especially on the front page). Some of those elements, like “features”, “requirements”, etc. are important, and you shouldn’t make me find them all the way at the bottom.
@tdub – you didn’t think the link that said “Download” would be a download? Seems pretty straightforward to me. There are other things about the design I could suggest need improvement. How the icon is sitting both on a floor with the blue background, as well as on the lighter blue bar (with one shadow for both surfaces) is beyond my comprehension.
When viewed on a Mac, there is a red link under the Download button that says “Need Windows?” The red is completely unreadable on that blue, and I had to squint just to make out what it was.
I realize some people have a real distaste for what is commonly referred to as a “Web 2.0″ look. There is a great difference between using gradients and highlights haphazardly, and using them effectively to create a sense of depth. Aside from the icon issue mentioned above, I really think they use the look effectively. And, I don’t even see a noise texture used!
@Suede- I realize the site determines when you’re on OS X or Windows. My point was that the link it displays does not directly tell you that it’s a download link. I didn’t go into great detail over it because it is, for most people, not that big of a deal. However for me, the link implies that you will be sent to a page with more information on either the Windows or the Mac version of the software, whatever is contrary to what you’re currently viewing the site on. It was simply an unexpected start to a download.
The (need mac OSX?) link, but other text links aren’t. And the ‘subscribe’ button doesn’t have a hover state. It’s the little things like that that really stand out to me, it’s like they just forgot to put the finishing touches on it.
7 Comments
Odd that for whatever reason, I knew this was going to be a 2.0 style site from the moment I saw it in my RSS feeder. I didn’t expect the (need Mac OSX) button to be a direct download. It would have been nice to have more information on any differences as it doesn’t have a blatant “download now” button with it. Changing the verbiage would work fine also, saying simply “Need Mac OSX? Download here.) Also, that specific link is terribly hard to read. Lastly, the site is far from validated, 12 errors and a handful of warnings on just the front page.
I think the website looks really nice. Is it original? No, but that’s ok – not everything should be original or cutting edge.
It’s pleasurable to look at.
though, I wish the “header” navigation was actually in the header… and not in the footer (especially on the front page). Some of those elements, like “features”, “requirements”, etc. are important, and you shouldn’t make me find them all the way at the bottom.
but again, certainly looks nice.
@tdub – you didn’t think the link that said “Download” would be a download? Seems pretty straightforward to me. There are other things about the design I could suggest need improvement. How the icon is sitting both on a floor with the blue background, as well as on the lighter blue bar (with one shadow for both surfaces) is beyond my comprehension.
When viewed on a Mac, there is a red link under the Download button that says “Need Windows?” The red is completely unreadable on that blue, and I had to squint just to make out what it was.
I realize some people have a real distaste for what is commonly referred to as a “Web 2.0″ look. There is a great difference between using gradients and highlights haphazardly, and using them effectively to create a sense of depth. Aside from the icon issue mentioned above, I really think they use the look effectively. And, I don’t even see a noise texture used!
@Pat- The link doesn’t say download, it says “Need Mac OSX?”. The big download button is for the Windows version.
@tdub When you’re on a Mac, the “download” button directly lets you download the app for a Mac and the link below it changes to “Need Windows?”
Do you seriously think these guys are from way back the early 90s and they haven’t heard of OS sniffing?
Double-check your references before opening your big gay mouth.
@Suede- I realize the site determines when you’re on OS X or Windows. My point was that the link it displays does not directly tell you that it’s a download link. I didn’t go into great detail over it because it is, for most people, not that big of a deal. However for me, the link implies that you will be sent to a page with more information on either the Windows or the Mac version of the software, whatever is contrary to what you’re currently viewing the site on. It was simply an unexpected start to a download.
The (need mac OSX?) link, but other text links aren’t. And the ‘subscribe’ button doesn’t have a hover state.
It’s the little things like that that really stand out to me, it’s like they just forgot to put the finishing touches on it.
It’s quite a nice site.