What is Digg?118 Comments
- cosmicr, on 12/04/2007, -4/+60Why are people so critical of web 2.0 designs? Even Digg itself uses it.
It looks great, and so long as the content is equally good, then whats the problem? - Damian91, on 12/04/2007, -3/+39I can't believe they left off www.havenworks.com. That site is ***** incredible...
- asuraci, on 12/04/2007, -4/+39When the ***** did serif fonts and complimentary colors become "Web 2.0 *****"?
- sambapati87, on 12/04/2007, -39/+73torn paper? check
gradient? check
sunburst? check
complimentary colors? check
serif fonts? check
overlaps with drop shadows? check
web 2.0 ***** - KDAY12, on 12/04/2007, -5/+34Everyone is the greatest web designer when they are critiquing someone else's work...
- dezman2003, on 12/04/2007, -1/+26Shouldn't you be on xbox live yelling at other kids?
- RedClaw, on 12/04/2007, -16/+36If I see one more, glossy, alpha-blended button or "web 2.0" style site logo I'm going to puke and go back to using Linx.
- furto, on 12/04/2007, -2/+19DO NOT CLICK! WORSE THAN GOATSE!!!
- chrishavel, on 12/04/2007, -0/+16Uh, one of their "best CSS sites" is totally done in Flash. ... http://www.diabetes.ca/getserious/date/ ... sorta like saying the best car is a hot air balloon, yuh?
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+14Nice, now I am gonna mix them all and create a best page in the universe for myself. Hi5!
- zionKing, on 12/04/2007, -2/+14Sure smells like jealousy in here!
- quii, on 12/04/2007, -2/+13People moaning about content not being king here are missing the point of the majority of the sites, and that is they are advertising aids, not content providers.
This means they have to use rich, engaging graphics to entice people to view the site. You moan about content, but most of these sites have very little content anyway. - CrimsonBlur, on 12/04/2007, -1/+11I don't normally digg these types of submissions but I really like this list. I never realized that the site for Yellowstone, for instance, was so nice.
- thailand1972, on 12/04/2007, -2/+12These sites were chosen because of their eye candy appeal (it's obvious), which has a limited appeal to people looking for content (i.e. everyone except graphic designers). I don't want to see a fat header (that takes ages to load) with pretty images - I want the content and I don't want to scroll to simply see the headline of the page.
- thespace2, on 12/04/2007, -0/+9lol, same as 2006
- ednark, on 12/04/2007, -3/+12buried for being a thinly veiled attempt at advertising some crappy design firms
- aliguana, on 12/04/2007, -0/+8I absolutely HATE sites with a 300px to 600px pixel header pane.. with nothing inside it except a flourish and the name. That's like a third of my screen! Designers run 4000x3000 monitors; the rest of the world doesn't. Digg does this right - the top pane is small, has the relevant links, then we're into content. That is the model these 2.0 sites need to follow. Anyhow, most of the sites listed are a triumph of Photoshop design, not CSS (necessarily).
- error411, on 12/04/2007, -1/+9Those opposed seem to be saying that there is no place for these types of sites or styles. This isn't a list of "The Greatest Web Sites of 2007". Get over yourselves.
- thailand1972, on 12/04/2007, -1/+8Why the emphasis on CSS? These mainly use large background images (i.e. Photoshop) to make up the design.
- ruh2409, on 12/04/2007, -1/+8You people are whining, complaining, moody little bitches.
- Scheissen, on 12/04/2007, -8/+15Nothing there stood out. Buried as lame.
- IEatHamburgers, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6Well, graphic designers are kinda the intended audience here.
- jjb123, on 12/04/2007, -0/+6MY EYES! The goggles do nothing!
- Goobernutz, on 12/04/2007, -3/+8F the fold!
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/blasting-the-my ... - dheaddy, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5When I clicked on the link to the 'Best designed sites' I get a wordpress error. There's something deeply ironic about that
- zionKing, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5No but ... (Best-of list) - (Mentioning of my site) = Sour Grapes
- confusednazgul, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4You'd be surprised. Wasn't there a link on Digg recently trying to promote tabled layouts by showing how many big name sites still use them?
- bejayel, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4I am glad i am not the only one here who thought that was less than great.
- kurrent, on 12/04/2007, -3/+6What to expect from a CSS gallery these days? artsy fartsy, web 2.0, photoshop/illustrator, color intense webpages with little to ***** no emphasis on CSS.
- victorycig, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3Hand throw me that ball? I'm so stealing that.
- theMcPatriot, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3CSS is not design. It's a means to an end.
- Llanowar, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3*watches 2girls1cup over and over to get the havenworks image out of his head*
It isn't working!!!!!!! - YogiWanKenobi, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4The old days? The days of http://www.geocities.com/atlantis/~RedClaw/myHomeP ...
- hijinks, on 12/04/2007, -4/+7its lynx
- Frost9999, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3Web 2 is less about the design, more about the technology and functionality.
- jnosanov, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4All that graphic design power and the links don't open in a new tab/window. It's a list, people. Lame.
- h4ppydotcom, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3The article you link seems to be reminding designers that people know how to scroll. However, the fold is still important because, when someone comes to your site for the first time, you really only have a few seconds to make a good first impression.
I still believe that the header, branding and basic information about what's on the page should always be clearly displayed above the 800x600 fold and really big headers are a waste of space on all but the most design-oriented sites (like the pixelmator one). - sekala, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3There isn't any variety, but that's part of the point. Like art, design goes through phases of popularity. Target, Urban Outfitters(someone mentioned this above), other stores and public places capitalize on what is "new" "innovative" and "attractive." It's really not that they are any of those things, but it's something the public is currently responding to. It has very little to do with what is individual design and something really unique. Unique looks strange, odd, and wrong in the eyes of the everyday person. What they want right this moment is to walk into a store, look at a website, or view an add with a lot of little vines and a bird silhouette in pretty shades of teal and brown. At the end of the day it's that impression of things being the way they should be, even if that happens to be the obnoxious trend of the season.
Like with music, design can't be completely underground. As much as people moan about indie/punk bands selling out, the fact that they make it onto the radio etc. is one of the goals of the industry. It's the same way with design, it's just that the only way to really pinpoint it is to see what trend you are sick and tired of. - quii, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3There are still loads of hacks out there still using unsemantic markup.
So no, I think "the message" should be spread as much as possible really. - sambapati87, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3haha no i mean the obnoxiously big and bold typefaces with huge ass serifs. look through those you will see them often. im not saying any of these are neccesarily bad -- they just look like they were all done by the same designer.
- awesomeface, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2It was an article about how many big names still use tables...when they shouldn't. It then begged the question as to whether or not tables are inherently evil.
- Haecceity, on 12/04/2007, -2/+4I'm underwhelmed.
- thailand1972, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Web design is one part art, and 5 parts a discipline of rules that include usability and accessibility. This kind of attitude that web design is "art" is so 1998 when Flash sites were considered cutting edge.
- Shiftgood, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3I haven't heard so many crybabies on digg since they found out a 12 yr old could beat them at halo (remember that kid?).
get some puffs, wipe your nose and stop hating. - napsterthug, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2You're right.. Designing websites has nothing to do with Technology.. thanks for proving my previous point.
- selrahc, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I like elinks better.
- thailand1972, on 12/04/2007, -1/+3***** the fold = ***** usability
- IEatHamburgers, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I'm merely whelmed.
- benjony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Dam server is down!
Anyhow I appreciate all the comments even though most are negative and a lot are ignorant (Looks like Photoshop to me). If you've never designed a site without CSS then you would have no idea what it's like to do so with CSS. It's called credibility.
But as users of the web I can take a lot of the feedback and use it towards my next creation so it's all appreciated, thanks! - puerrom, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2UAAAH, my eyes....
no more i can see now... -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is