What is Digg?52 Comments
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17crappy?
- judgeFire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Article emphasis on graphic, not interaction design, however.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Thanks for your uselessly redundant comment. Next time, please RTFA.
- jotux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Article has pictures, digg.
- fubes2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think what he means by "distinctive" as a con is that from the viewpoint of someone trying to design their own website using the style of a "distinctive" site [ie. Apple] people are going to recognize the style and either bother you about ripping it off, or think you're Apple.
- preved, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You're right. To completely cover this subject one needs to write a book or serious multi-page article.
Besides distinctive look-and-feel elements, there are lots of workflow, usability, performance, composition, culture context issues, which all together are important for the design. - fubes2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Did you read the entire article? In the paragraph at the bottom he says, and I quote
"This is not even an attempt to come up with a complete description of current web design styles; I’ve just put things (which I personally like) together and explained distinctive features of them."
If you want to complain about something maybe you should actually have an idea what you're complaining about. - floppyparty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the information was delivered spot on. I hate having to hunt thru articles (more likely the ad's it contains) to find what I want or what PICTURES are used as examples. Concise.
- Trotterologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3why the heck did he keep putting 'distinctive' in the cons section? if i were trying to market something on a website or create a company impression i would want something as unique as possible, without losing any ease of browsing
- tingham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@judgeFire
Good point, I hadn't really thought about the possible directions you could take this subject matter in until long after I read the article. The Yahoo stuff while definitely looking good is rife with negative points and the article doesn't really discuss works vs. don't work. Would be nice to see something a little more academic in this regard. - BenDuffy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What am I missing? Why would ppl bury this comment?
- cdman98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3***with a HEAVY LISP***
Ok guys, You Tube, is so not a style. Ok???
Google too. - Henley24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3*too* -my apologies
- Henley24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've seen the "magazine style" described as attractive/simple/condensed else where, discussing other sites that have had makeovers (like webshots, newest incarnation of yahoo, espn etc) but does anyone really find them easy to navigate or read? IMHO they seem to complex and busy.
- mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3afftar jjot. ;-)
I would consider it as a good first take on the subject that needs much more systematic approach. - Wuss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4WOW. what a lame article. "apple" style. All this guy/gal did was reference big sites and add "style" at the end. Obviously knows nothing about anything.
Let's take a look at the latest in car design, acura-style, ford-style, and let's not forget, hyundai-style.
Apparently he doesn't know that the "style" of Mozilla and Digg are similar because they're the same freakin web firm. Doesn't really qualify as a trend if it was done by the same person(s).
LOL. Just noticed that my 5 letter code to post a comment reads qLame. qLame indeed.
By the way, this post is in the hot new rant-style. - tingham, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nice profile of the industry.
- SkiBumm4Life, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Worst article on web design I have ever read.
- Vindstille, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The WOW site design is a example of what webdesigners did five years ago.
Modern sites look clean and simple, have rounded corners and gradient effects and doesn't have a lot of pictures. With other words, just like the Digg design. - ABBondo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I found this link to be pretty interesting. being a student, I have had my share of "technology" classes. Currently, however I am in a class that references sites such as this everyday. it is a nice feeling to actually see new and evolving web design and information being brought to the classroom before it becomes obsolete.
- casemac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think this is a great article but doesnt talk about what coding is being used. Is this HTML or XML, both or something completely different?
- Takteek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought it was a nice article, but it wasn't exactly the categories I would have picked... Some of those styles overlap, some could be grouped together, and some need to be split. Good article to look over if you are just starting a new website design though.
- floppyparty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Great article, very well laid out. I would like to note that web 2.0 is probably more of a philosophy then a design. Most of the 2.0 designs examples here look like blog designs to me.I also doubt that Target is going to be pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
I would say that the only real design characteristic that I've seen in correlation with 2.0 designs is the use of white space, and lots of white space. Like www.monsanto.com for example. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quite an interesting found. "Design Patterns: Badges, Tag Clouds, Huge Fonts" (http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2006/09/03/webdesign-trends-badges-tag-clouds-enormous-fonts/) describes the same trends.
- fuxjoey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interesting. So no more Big Fonts...?
- neladua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Analysis is good but I'm not convinced that the author really brings any particular expertise or insight to the subject. As an exercise in self-education I imagine it was valuable, but I doubt it's that useful for others. That's not a complaint with the article so much as it is frustration with the person who posted it on digg. I mean, where did it 'explain' current web design trends? As far as I can see it identified and described a small subselection of them - often such a narrow selection that they design style was associated specifically with a single company, rather than being a trend - but any deep analysis or justification for his pros and cons is completely lacking.
- aCiD2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This article is, in my opinion, very poor. It's just a bunch of websites with "web-site-name style" - they aren't categories and it's nothing you could work out yourself. Not to mention that neither the Apple site nor MS are Web 2.0 in the least...
- preved, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have to address "expensive" term...
Well... there is a clear difference between "expensive" and "it looks expensive". Almost nobody wants to buy a car for *a lot of tens* thousand dollars, but almost everybody want their car to look more expensive than it really is.
So, when you develop a web site (or hire somebody to design / build it), you may want it to be as cheap as possible in terms of development cost and look as expensive as possible in terms of perception. Not opposite.
So, when web design costs a lot (hundreds of hours $120/hour designer's work), "expensive" is a clear "con". So, it may or may not look expensive after all, but it will cost _a lot_ for sure.
I think the best web sites have pretty good balance between real cost of production and their look, specifically young start-ups like digg or other web 2.0 wave. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, wrong link.
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2006/09/03/webdesign-trends-badges-tag-clouds-enormous-fonts/ - kizio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sounds interesting... Seems to be vain for me...
- shendigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree, the 'Apple Style', the 'Microsoft Style'... blah
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Look this site for web design http://www.design-sites.net design how are you?
- Imprint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1they're called 'modules' not 'blocks'.
Its like it was written by someone who comments on stuff because they know a few industry words. 'gradients', 'blocks'
Nothing written at all about how accessability plays a huge factor in the design of each of those sites. e.g. Youtube, looks plain and boring yet will work on even the most outdated and basic browsers. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1fixed width is a con? rofl. marked as LAME.
- slickcorp, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0Alternative Business Solutions Located In Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands Are a team of professional web designers and graphic designers. They offer great competitive prices and well as great customer support
visit them at www.alternativebusinesssolutions.biz - mjjack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nothing really new or interesting IMO. It really just looks at a few large, marginally innovative, well established sites and marks them as style models. Lame. I prefer Ben Hunt's article here:
http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/current-style.cfm
Or Design Melt Down (http://www.designmeltdown.com/) - kickarse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They do this every couple of years. I remember one way back on angles and the obligatory arrows and count 01,02,03 ... Its all the same. It'll wear itself out if we just let it and stop writing stupid articles about it.
- kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is not a great article. The author isn't a designer and is not great at the writing doesn't show much insight into actual design trends.They're really highly superficial observations made by an amateur observer. There's nothing wrong withthat, but it doesn't warrant being dugg.
I mean, he actually lists 'boxes' and 'buttons' as design trends!! - autok2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Insanely retarded. What a f-ing waste of time. Author = clueless.
- surfpark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Target audience for Magazine Style is magazines reading people. Not engineers, not web designers, not even experienced web users."
I'm sorry, but this is far too redundant to be educational. I also don't think that the author really understands design. As far as I'm concerned the "Web 2.0 style" and the "Apple Style" are the same thing, excpet one uses color and the other doesn't. - FishPoisonCon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"There is irony in this story insofar as the author has a nasty, unoriginal, failure of a design for his blog/site."
was thinking the same thing... using a serif font while trying to talk about trendy site design?
from the front page: http://www.macshrine.com/2006/09/13/ipod-phone-evidence-in-itunes-7/
does everyone just use the same exact template??? - montagg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I wonder where http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ can fit...
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7marked as f*ing lame. not comprehensive, and not targeted. see J. Niel for some real tips or maybe J. Veen. Church of Usability comes to mind.
Yawn - jamauss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2word. teh lam3.
- f00xx0riz3r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2This was one of the most ***** articles ive read today. More quality please?
- AW4L, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1this was a stupid article. i can post a link to my own blog with links to websites and be like.. theyre popular so uhm it must be trendy
- adjustafresh, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1reflections
ripping off other sites' functionality
muted hues - i440, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0"Thanks for your uselessly redundant comment. Next time, please RTFA."
People on Digg actually read the articles?
Sorry, I did not know that. I will do that next time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4There is irony in this story insofar as the author has a nasty, unoriginal, failure of a design for his blog/site.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 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