What is Digg?77 Comments
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32yeah because nothing says "i'm on the cutting edge of technology" when your site looks like everyone elses.
- adidax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23if by awesome, you mean stupid. (start sarcasm) I mean, how can you call it a Web2.0 tutorial without rounded corners??? (end sarcasm)
How many more tutorials on making gradients and reflections are going to get pushed to the front page? - Aurarch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19MAKE IT STOP PLEASE MAKE IT STOP
- dave_colorado, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16so web 2.0 effects are basically two-toned menus, a logo with a reflection, and a bright star that says "New!".
the VC's are going to get seriously burned over this. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16No... I want it to be easier! Can't someone just create a Web 2.0 web site creator so I can just click a button and make my website all AJAXed and pretty? With lots of curved corners!!!
- dime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14The Vietcong are designing these days? Persistent little buggers...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10uh...wow... reflective text... i'll wait for Web 3.0 effects
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Oreilly and Associates just called. They want their trademark back. ;-)
- aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So, basically all I need to create a web 2.0 site is common sense and a copy of photoshop? Wow!
- rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Same post in 1992:
How to Make Drop Shadows Like the Pros - M4v3R, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You forgot the "beta" in right corner of logo of every web 2.0 site.
- jokerr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7For the love of all that you consider holy please stop with the "Web 2.0" tutorials. This is getting rediculous! "Look at my site everyone, I've got rounded corners." "Hey everyone we've got Web 2.0(TM) here." "Here it is everyone, the world's best Web 2.0 site out there." PLEASE STOP!!!!
- flap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think you need to know how to spell AJAX as well, but thats about it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Going forward I am ignoring all Web 2.0 tutorials because I don't want to be sued for copyright infringement.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"content management systems --> wikis".... how are they even the same things?
O'Reilly is so hung up on changing everything to make some money from it. What do they say, "the only way to make money from the future is invent it" - Cynoclast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The term "Web 2.0" should be banned from digg. It's just a new buzzword for a collection of old technologies.
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Umm I thought the Web 2.0 thing was more about functional interactivity and less about graphic design. Any graphic designer can make something LOOK all Internet trendy, but it's a whole other thing to create a great web application. This is LAME.
- oskob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Eeeeww! What is it with you diggers? Coding geeks and design just doesn't make a good match. How could someone even bother to make a tutorial for this? The author just picked the worst shades ever of two very beautiful colors. No feeling whatsoever. This guy is to the designing world what those terrible singers on pop idol are for the music world. How can you say that this is good design?!
"Oh my god! Gradients, reflections and a lime star! I just covered it all! And the star says 'NEW!' for no good reason. It's bullet proof!"
There's more to it than that! If you just can't tell what makes this design effort suck, maybe you should just leave it to the professionals. Now beat it! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7How does this relate to the web 2.0'ness that is AdSense, BitTorrent, WikiPedia, cpc, syndication or web services?
Until you've read what web 2.0 is don't write about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with design trends.
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html - flap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I can't stand the wy this site / tutorial is layed out...and how is this web 2.0 and dear god why are we stil using the term web 2.0!
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great idea! Off to the patent office I go.
- aplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8AXAJ?
edit:
***** - tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's about to be a TRADEMARKED buzzword, too - if O'Reily has anything to say about it.
- brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This isn't Web 2.0 at ALL. These are the trends that came around the same time as the term "Web 2.0"...the design does NOT make the website. I really wish people would stop calling their website new and innovative because they added a shiny gradient to it.... in this case, a really ugly shiny gradient.
- transeunte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll buy it for $15 million. Deal?
*venture capitalist grin* - sovok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There you go: http://www.web20generator.com/index.aspx
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For any kid reading this thinking who seriously want to be a web designer do yourself a favor and ignore this. Part of being a designer is being original. Following a tutorial on overkilled effects is anything but.
Now sure you can use this as a stepping stone and get more creative with it but please. There are too many sites like this already. - dime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
I actually just threw up in my mouth a little bit. - brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they follow anything in this tutorial I guarantee their website won't be anywhere close to great looking.
- hijinks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2why are people flagging his mirror as negative.. sure its images but its a mirror
- raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd second that.
Since web 2.0 is partially about budget. - neondiet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
@particlewave
"And I think that we all agree that the inter-web as a whole could use a facelift"
Hahahahaha, so I guess by noobs you're talking about yourself then! Here's what Wikipedia has to say about people who use the term "inter-web":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb
" Interweb thus implies ignorance of the most basic terminology" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's not web 2.0, but kids who think web 2.0 = design trends will say so anyway.
- AquaCurve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If only you knew what Web 2.0 was..
- particlewave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oooo, burn!
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yeah, awesome, because according to this story, "the glass effect" was popularized by Apple.
This "article" is a joke. "How to Design a Header and Sound like a Moron While Doing it" would be more appropriate.
By the way, legbend has been trying to spam his site for a while. Nothing useful, thus far. - SuperGhost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This is sad, it is in no way related to "Web 2.0" *cough* AJAX *cough* - AJAX could care less about how your images look or are created in Photoshop. Bad post *thumbs down*
- tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is this for real?
Excluding all the discussion about about web 2.0 etc. etc., this tutorial is basically showing you how to make a gradient and star in Photoshop? Seriously? Who, that has paid $100's for Photoshop, doesn't know how to do this?
This is below beginner level. - dvdjon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Mirrors : http://www2.shrani.si/files/a593273.png | http://upitfree.com/v2/out.php/i1175_a.png
Already digg *****/sloooooowwwwed - scinju, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aren't all of these just a _little_ to overused? I've found them a little cliche now. And do we really need another tutorial for it? Most of it seems pretty intuitive. I don't use Photoshop much, I've only played around with it a little, but I've made nearly the exact same thing on my own without a tutorial.
And also, as r2d7 said, does this really help anyone with making a new, unique, and creative Web 2.0 site? If you've got the idea, it can't be that hard to get a high schooler to make such a simple logo/banner for $20. - mathew_bug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, this really sucks. And it's lame.
- particlewave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are new people on this site every day, hell every hour. Stop being so self-righteous just because you sit at you computer all day and know "everything there is to know" about web design and all the new catch phrases. This tutorial might actually inspire someone who is new to this whole thing and cause them to create the next great looking/working website. And I think that we all agree that the inter-web as a whole could use a facelift, even if it is just making look "web 2.0". In other words, stop all the elitest b.s. and make room for the noobs. geez!
- neondiet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
You forgot that first you need a Lobotomy 2.0, followed by a new chip implant Model 2.0 and a firmware upgrade to Marketing ***** 2.0, before you can properly Design for Web 2.0
- av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ban "AJAX" too. If a site uses it well, say it is nicely scripted. If it's mediocre or it sucks and you need to slap the AJAX label on it to make it sound better, it doesn't deserve to be around.
Similar situation with the Web 2.0 label. If it's a good site, it's a good site. It shouldn't need special buzzwords to inflate its value. - hanscats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mirrored it at http://student.umb.no/~hansm/web20-design-kit.html
- sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope Web 2.0 is about graphic design as much as about "functionality," because it doesn't matter how functional something is if it looks like *****.
- sblowes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, photoshop tutorial... cool with me. Learning to mimic what's currently hot is a step towards innovating new design techniques. And like it or not, Web 2.0 has been defined by this graphic style by the masses.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://emptybottle.org/*****/
http://what.was.the.question.whyblog.org/buzz/ - pedrovalente, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think you're being unfair and didn't get the underlying sarcasm. That tutorial is obviously a joke. ;)
- Cine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please say this is a joke. Because you've got to be colorblind to actually think that the limegreen star and the dark blue header goes together.
And, wow, uber talent! He did gradients and reflection. GASP. :O -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
