What is Digg?84 Comments
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good idea, poor execution.
Well done analyzing some of the trends, but spare us the reasons why we should round our corners. Obviously most of these trends are simply in place because they are reactions to the previous trends, which in turn were a reaction to previous trends which were etc. It has nothing to do with soft shapes being more psychologically pleasing.
The danger in mimicking a style as a designer is getting lost in the pack and looking overly dated when the style falls out. A good design takes a few cues from current trends but throws a curveball in some other areas. Please don't encourage people to make cookie cutter designs, it'll burn out this trend faster than you can click publish. - rodball, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's saying what we're all thinking.
Some of these pastels, though... (Skype for example) ...just too much! However, I'm glad to see minimalism in websites become "cool" again. I think it has a lot to do with 1) the Google approach and 2) focusing on the code behind the site. - wbrendel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the "Web 2.0 Look" is a fad that won't last beyond the end of this year. As previous posters said, at some point all the sites will look the same, with rounded corners, gradients, ultra-clean minimalist designs, etc. I still dugg this story though, because it does a good job covering the basic Web 2.0 look.
- Panagiotis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dear epicsa,
if this article was indeed written in a humorous fashion and most people don't get it, then yes, it does harm the internet community and that's why we should make it clear in the comments: kids, don't try this at blog - err, home! - CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOL. Web 2.0 design is the equivalent of being the bellbottoms of design schools. Enjoy the 5 minutes every 20 years.
I can't believe anyone would want to look like this... - master_of_fm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3is it me or all these "2.0" references starting to get really annoying. what next Pants 2.0? How about Couch 2.0, or even better Sidewalks 2.0?
- mittermayr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now updated, so that it actually implements the guidelines itself.
- igloo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, sites featuing large black type on a white background with 1px borders around everything. This is just what the internet needs more of.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think the web used to look a whole lot better before the whole 2.0Revolution? You know, before everyone demonised table-based layout while gleefully writing css that they'd have to hack up so bad it'd a) ***** up the markup more than tables would have anyway, b) pass as presentable on the browser used by 90% of the world, written by people who have no interest at all in complying with the "standards" and c) still not be able to do basic stuff like vertically centering content without ***** up?
Maybe it's just me. - EpicSA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Spadin,
Rudy on Rails is actually a very good language and very easy to use. It improves productivity 10x in some cases. It has just picked up this web 2.0 stigma but that will eventually go away. - Panagiotis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There may be a design-trend that combines some of the features mentioned in the article, yet I don't see a solid connection between this design "style" and the so called Web 2.0 sites. Changes in what people consider "trendy" web pages is not something new.
I think the writter misses the (maybe more subtle) fact that most sites of this kind do use larger type because they're designed in a CSS content-presentation-seperation fashion, resulting in clean design overall, and much better usage of the screen real estate.
Designing well is something quite subtle; either you can do it, or you can't. There's no 101 nor a simple checklist of simple things to do. Let the average blogger think he's trendy if he does 5 specific things, and there it is: a blog-o-sphere of uninteresting content, wrapped in a boring environment.
I think the term "Web 2.0" has already been abused. Please, let's not abuse the process of design as well. Let the designers do their job (and design); and the bloggers do what they know (write). - dgrinb01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Web 2.0 concept is pretty dump. I’ve been building websites ever since you had to dial my phone number so I can serve you pages. AJAX is dump all together. Instead of trying to offer better way to build pages, somebody came up with the idea of putting all the hacks and patches together in a form of tens and hundreds of kilobytes of somewhat working JavaScipt. All you kinds need to learn from old-schoolers (and our mistakes), not try to reinvent the wheel. Say NO to JavaScript, and offer start working on a better language (or just use Java, C#, Xpath or whatever else works). In reality, everything should be already built on the server, and there shouldn’t be any need for scripting language, or even css.
- zalealb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dgrinb01, i agree with you on almost everything. i could care less about web 2.0 since personally you can compare it to the corporatization of everything. but i see/ and take advantage ajax. but like most other web technologies you have to learn when and how to use it properly. i remember when people were scoffing at flash and saying nobody would ever take the time to install another piece of software just to see a website.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I appreciate the information in the linked article, but I have to agree with some of the others here - this "web 2.0 look" seems to be the going fad. I think minimalist designs are good no matter what, since they tend fo focus more on content and less on form. Just the same, there is some lattitude with respect to how this can be implemented.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.design-sites.net/news-seo/registration-in-catalogues-as-a-component-of-search-optimization/
What you think? - dgrinb01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What’s funny is that one of the startups that I helped build 6 years ago was identical to Skype (actually had a lot more to offer) and was all AJAX (it was not called AJAX back then, it was just DHTML). Not sure why some of the yesterday’s technologies are just catching up now.
- james.britt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Um, none of you seem to know what Web 2.0 is..."
Sure. This site tells you. - Coreguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dugg
I think it's a good reference. - james.britt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Um, none of you seem to know what Web 2.0 is..."
Sure. This site tells you.
http://web2.0validator.com/ - ech0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Arial isn't a bad font, what exactly do you mean? Arial is being used on this page as we speak err type.
- rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pants 2.0
- heinous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some of the examples are really horrible looking. Consider the legibility of the title bar at http://instantdomainsearch.com for example. Ugh. I think this "design trend" is more of a revelation that back-end developer people are moving in on designer's turf than it is a conceptually sound new movement. If you want to see some solid design, check out http://www.csszengarden.com
- arnchalooo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rules?
- EpicSA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I funny it hilarious that none of you picked up the obvious mocking tone of this article.
- zschendi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL, great.
- freewebhowto, on 02/13/2009, -0/+0http://freewebhowto.com
- HoagieKat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I understood it's mocking tone, the problem is when people believe a Web 2.0 enabled site should look like a web 2.0 site, you'll end up with a lot of sites that all look the same (or pretty similar!). I like the 2.0 look, but Web 2.0 is more about how sites interact with the users to create a more intelligent user experience, it's not the look of a site. So, what's coming in Web 2.5 ? ;-)
- spadin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think this is great. I was beginning to think I was the only person noticing this trend. Also to the person that thinks this is a fad, the great thing about this type of design is that it's so flexible. Since everything is usually just simple paragraphs, headings, lists, etc.. All you have to do to change the entire look is just switch out the CSS file. This is in fact more versatile than using tables for complex images.
- Prez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ahahahaha Web 2.0.. let me go grab my Emo wig, makeup, Thrice CD, razor blade, box of tissues, ipod, and meet you in 5 minutes for the Web 2.0 design meeting for myspace users.
Those designs ARE "kindergardeny". Anyone with design talent won't produce crap like that. Web 2.0 is for tredny bitches who can't design and need an excuse / trendy name for their ***** work. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Screw this, I'm waiting for Web 3.0
(I've been using rounded corners and Arial font since the 90s and no one called my sites Web 2.0.......) - bipto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sarcasm or not, it's still a great summary...
- ech0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0no digg. design is all about communication, a good designers doesn't need some sub-par guideline to designing an application interface. it's not about immtation its about communication. all these web 2.0 lookalikes are getting annoying.
- mittermayr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Woho! You guys rock. Great some of your enjoy reading it. I quite like that some of you see it as a sarcastic approach while others take it totally serious. It's actually both. I find it funny to make a web design job into a set of rules. This is not going to work :-) But for some of you that have wondered on how to create that "shiny" new look - it might work.
Keep digging.
Also don't miss out wikisearch.mittermayr.com
or blog.mittermayr.com - redguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Incidentally, Digg is a "Web 2.0" application. Beside all those idiots venture capitalists it promotes good practices among users like usability, standards, CSS and let's face it, it makes the web less boring.
What really should concern us, are, again, that venture capitalists that can produce a Bubble 2.0 by creating a hype from everything. - Paul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The reason why I like this kinda design is because it was a creative (at least for a few months) way to build minimalistic front ends for web applications.
I absolutely cannot stand FLASH
I absolutely cannot stand TABLES
I absolutely cannot stand CSS 3+ column layouts with crowed disorganized links and adds down both sides!
That only leaves "2.0 Culture" for me to surf...
Do I like pastels? No.
Do I need rounded corners? Not really.
Do I like simple clean recallable interfaces? Absolutely! - snowthrower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Excellent article +digg
- shreky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well here is my take on the web2.0 thing. It's a work in progress but it goes beyond all those sites that copy each other. Mine actually interfaces well with the database. Check out the tutorial block and the rss feed...
http://www.westernstudios.net/web/index.html - exilio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I enjoyed the article..but most of those sites concern me. Some asking for my Gmail account information, another wanting me to type in my email, a friends email and then they will facilitate up to a 1GB file transfer? Be cautious here guys.
These sites seems to be about collecting a lot of personal data. Be warned.
As regards its design points, like some have already said, it is purely subjective and is just one other opinion on the wonderful world of web design. - sysmon247, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who made this guy the guardian of good taste in web design? That's the thing about DESIGN, there is no right or wrong formula. It's more art than science.
- Paul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ shreky
um, thanks for the link i guess...
I can't read your over shaded, over shadowed, over small, under quality, jpg headings
ie http://www.westernstudios.net/web/images/lpost.jpg
i do like your grays. - pigdart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.parm.net/web2.0/
- nlogax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Arial? I think Lucida Grande (Lucida Sans Unicode for windows people), Helvetica (like here on digg), Verdana, and even Trebuchet MS are far more popular with these sites.
- digitalhome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Web 2.0 design competition is now live at:
http://www.veetro.com/Competition.aspx - dnial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0somebody had to say it - you forgot ornaments / pattern-backgrounds, btw.
anyway, congrats for showing how web 0.2 codename "mob" works: 1000 diggs for your fist blog entry, not bad =) - KoZo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah csszengarden is teh bomb
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who wants to follow when you can lead?
Don't make the Internet full of white, gradiented, Arial websites. There's so much more creativitiy to be had while keeping all of your lovely web 2.0 crap in it too. - bhaugh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good analysis. Whether or not you implement them depends on your goal: do you WANT to look like the other Web 2.0 apps out there? You might if your goal is high-visibility, please-god-let-Yahoo!-buy-me "flip" strategies. You might not if you hate the term "Web 2.0" and want to be recognized as a killer app that stands alone.
- mike_p, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oh would you haters stop whining about the "Web 2.0" phrase... You sound like children whining about not getting McDonald's. Get over it already. I'd rather call it Web 2.0 than "next-generation web development" or any other phrase not involving revision numbers.
I didn't know people could dislike a phrase so much. It's not annoying like "Did I do that?" (Steve Urkle) or "You're in big trouble, mister!" (Olsen twins)... ugh, TGIF memories =/ - mittermayr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I updated the links and you can find the article now in my blog at:
http://mittermayr.wordpress.com -
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 