What is Digg?116 Comments
- Oatmeal, on 12/28/2007, -2/+108Here's a better title for this article: How to substitute creativity with design clichés from 2 years ago:
http://www.modernlifeisrubbish.co.uk/article/8-web ... - scrumpy, on 12/28/2007, -1/+50I haven't read the article but I'm guessing gradient and reflection; with, a small beta logo in a star shape and drop shadow.
- scrumpy, on 12/28/2007, -1/+40Why not try some web 3.0 techniques that we haven't seen 1000 times before.
I'm thinking web 3.0 should have a crumpled paper bag look - something akin to Derelique.
It may take your site from boring to boring and typical. - altgeeky1, on 12/28/2007, -0/+26Web 2.0 means a lot of things, but they all basically revolve around user interactivity NOT "glass effects".
Note to her boss: She's making fun of you by deliberately misusing terminology.
For starters, Web 2.0 means user-driven site interactivity, like digg, youtube etc. What she means to say is "glassy effects I saw on a Mac" AKA "Aqua", but when no suitable buzzword exists, show creativity by confusing one that already exists! - josho, on 12/28/2007, -2/+25http://*****.com
all i gots to say. - darnit, on 12/28/2007, -0/+15For all their animosity about the web 2.0 aesthetic, that site sure has a lot of the design features he supposedly loaths.
- LoveYouSomeEric, on 12/28/2007, -0/+13Why are you people digging this? Have all 110 of you never seen a gradient before? Buried for being ***** lame.
- slib, on 12/28/2007, -4/+15This article is useful if you want your website to look like a Mac application from eight years ago. Otherwise, this article is a waste of space, and its author a pedophile/serial killer.
- fluffyturtle, on 12/28/2007, -4/+15Web 2.0 doesn't exist, it's a idiotic term someone who knows nothing about websites pulled from their ass.
"Our site is NEW and improved with Web 2.0 goodness!"
When webpages started having flash, that was web version X, when we started seeing pictures appear more commonly that was web version X, when those awesome websites started hijacking your cursor with something annoying, that was web version X (thankfully that version died).
I am | | close from digging down any articles that even mention web 2.0. - goldenratiophi, on 12/28/2007, -0/+10thankfully I've got the Web 3.0b and trust me, it has NONE of these overused effects!
- Frostman3D, on 12/28/2007, -3/+13Web 2.0 really looks like a candy ass internet if you ask me. I'd rather have animated gifs of dripping blood than this *****.
- aussieNickuss, on 12/28/2007, -0/+7Basically just a rectangle with a gradient.
- chsonNU, on 12/28/2007, -0/+7Can't wait for part 2. "Rounded corners"
- inactive, on 12/28/2007, -1/+8Web 2.0 is the animated GIF and embedded MIDI of the new century. In a few years you will look back at your ***** page design, and you will regret every pixels of it.
- saisumimen, on 12/28/2007, -0/+7"Web 2.0" is the metrosexualization of the Internet.
- Takuro, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6Digg doesn't have gradients. Oh noes it's not duh 2.0ness.
Nice tutorial, but it's ridiculously simplistic. You'll learn more advanced Photoshop tricks just by playing around with the program for 15 minutes. On your own, you could probably figure out how to make gradients (and all the billions of possible "effects" you can make with them) in about 3 minutes. - fLUx1337, on 12/28/2007, -2/+8The "Web 2.0" was only good when we were in the Web 1.5 era, and people were using overly simple css for the styling, and not taking much care of the letter-spacing and so on.....
As soon as we started to get very simple designs, like Digg, it was crap. Does anyone even like reflective stuff used everywhere? I can see how it looks good when you have a DVD case on a black marble texture and its reflecting down, but for logos, I don't think it looks good at all.
I just hope "Web 3.0" becomes a phrase for describing accessibility and simplifying design to create a site which works naturally. But I guess we already have that now with sites like Digg.
I'm not a web designer, I'm crap at design, I just know what I like, and glossy in most cases is just an excuse for your poor design skills and the lack of ability to get help. - GunnerMcGrath, on 12/28/2007, -0/+6Web 2.0? More like Photoshop 2.0. This just shows how many digg users are completely out of touch with a) the most basic graphic design and b) slightly less basic (but still pretty basic) terminology like Web 2.0.
The (stupid) term was coined to describe sites that thrive primarily off of user submitted content (like digg, youtube, myspace, etc.) and not a small collection of set authors. It has absolutely nothing to do with any graphical style and you should be quick to note that few, if any, of the major web 2.0 sites actually make use of these styles.
So if you're 14 years old and looking to play with your illegally downloaded copy of photoshop for the very first time... no this article is still useless, sorry. - LightSpeed4, on 12/28/2007, -0/+5how to create web 2.0 effects with photoshop: type in BETA in everything, put gradients, add reflections, ***** text, and delete vowels from all words
- riomx, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4Understanding that "Web 2.0" actually refers to community-driven websites, services, applications, etc., if there is still anyone out there that wants to "keep up with the Joneses" in design trends, there is a better tutorial here: http://photoshoplab.com/web20-design-kit.html.
The one in this story sucked so much balls that I can't believe this girl somehow has a design book out. - crackintosh, on 12/28/2007, -0/+4not even that much.
- webtroy, on 12/28/2007, -0/+35 STEPS, 30 SECONDS TOPS, minus the *****...
TYPE TEXT ---> CTRL-SHIFT drag text to baseline ----> right-click-FLIP-VERTICAL ----> ADD VECTOR MASK ----> gradient tool -50% to baseline...... voila! - theodenking, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Here's a better body for this article:
"Use the gradient tool" - asurroca, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3This is one of the worst thing ever submitted to Digg... but hopefully it gets Dugg up enough for the Digg effect to make the site's server explode...
- crackintosh, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3I almost want to digg this to see the site go down.
- Rammsteined, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3Your mum?
Oh god... please shoot me. - falafelkiosken, on 12/28/2007, -0/+3what is "***** page design"?
- kiiwii, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I think Web 3.0 should be retro and involve lots of animated gifs and frames.
Maybe like so: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbsite/ - inactive, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Terrible article. If anything, it should have been titled, "Basic Photoshop Tips for Web Site Graphics." There isn't even a completed "project" at the end. Just a few examples of mind-numbingly easy ***** to do in Photoshop.
- MWeather, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Step 1: Draw rectangle
Step 2: Apply layer style
But then I couldn't get 3 pages of ad impressions. - colonelbuckshot, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Buried as lame. She has no idea what "Web 2.0" means. She has no idea what creativity means either.
- Swarms, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I always love when these design tutorial sites have the ugliest design.
- jonshipman, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2hooray ripping .WAD files!
- CrushThemTorg, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2I'm glad we caught this Web 2.0 candy-design thing at the very peak of its popularity.
- gothicform, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Pity they can't create a how to not time out website that displays its graphics properly.
- hhiroyuki, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2this sucks totally!!!!!!!!!!!
she cant design for ***** either, all she does is template rubbish!!! WEB2.0 IS NOT REFLECTIONS AND GRADIENTS DAMMIT!!!!
you are one of those responsible for killing the Web2.0 name and you should be thrown in jail - amerz, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2I absolutely detest cliche 2.0 effects like this and hope that clients stop demanding them soon...
- falafelkiosken, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Exactly my thoughts, people talking about a "2.0-look" have given web 2.0 a bad reputation as a buzzword that doesn't mean anything
- spectre_25gt, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3Those examples look a little more web 1998 than web 2.0.
- smek2, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2"Web 2.0 Effects"??? Wtf? Is this what webdesign has come to? A "How to use the Photopshop gradient tool" tutorial? This is ridiculous, this article does nothing more than describe the basic "how to make a shiny button" tutorial i have seen many years ago
- rusty_g, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Thank you... i'm glad someone can clarify this, the poor bastard doesn't even know...
- saisumimen, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3Not even close. You haven't been using this "Internet" thing for very long, have you?
- Heidenreich12, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2how can this have so many diggs? This is ridiculous
- DjArcadian, on 12/28/2007, -0/+2Am I the only one who noticed that there was no finished product on her webpage?
- TheWorm, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Web 2.0 is tired. I would digg this if it was something we haven't al seen done a million times. The web needs some new design trends; It's a good time for creative tech people to lead the pack.
- Subiejon, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2I'm sick of the web 2.0 logos. Be creative and make something new!
- TofuMatt, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1There is a gradient tool. You click it, drag it, and let go of your primary mouse buttom. I just owned the first page of that article in eighteen words.
- Tippis, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1For instance, read the definition given by the guy who invented the Web 2.0 moniker:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2 ... - D3a1i0, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Corrie Haffly and interg12 you fail! Learn about what your subject first next time. Corrie is a lead designer?!? GTFO!
- TofuMatt, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1That's actually a really great article/site, and the article links to some pretty cool pages, a couple which I hadn't seen 'til I read it forever ago. There's a 2007 out too, though it's not as scathing, more just observation of some trends.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is