What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
85 Comments
- gmurray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23steps to 2.0
-reflections
-glass
-round corners
-Helvetica Neue LT Std 35 Thin - that, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21That's not a very attractive website, sorry.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17This Site Best Viewed in Netscape Navigator 4 with 1024x768 resolution, and at least 256 colors!
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Care to explain how it's wildly inaccurate? Good whitespace, text and color contrast, and simple layouts are always good ideas for website design, and that's what the author is advocating.
- rusackas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Also, make sure everything is pastel and rounded... and with starburst badges. All sites must look as similar as possible, lest users forget they're on the web 2.0 internet, as opposed to one of the other internets.
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It kind of makes me smile, knowing that although there are thousands upon thousands of webdesign companies out there, most of their own sites look pretty crap.
mediajunk.com is one of them. - grapeape25, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@pannucci
Spam and that site is horrible... look at it on a higher resolution - OutcastJiob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Hey, bgramer! Instead of digging your spammed story, I've gone and reported it. Have a nice day!
- OSDAgent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'll take a stab at this one. It's inaccurate because it's a generalization... It would be more accurate if the article was titled 'How a Layman Can Build a Generic Web 2.0-Looking Website". I replace the word 'design' with 'build' because this is in no way design methodology. Yes these sites work, but they are on a very generic and bland level. They are simply designed to be utilitarian and forgettable in their implementation. Excellent design, and complex, creative visual communication is a more sophisticated task than following a few steps and being finished.
Let me make myself clear here.. I am explaining the merits of this article as related to remarkable professional design, and creative visual communication. In this case it has very little. As a tool for building generic and 'safe' websites that it's a good resource. The problem comes when people begin to confuse one for the other. - Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I want to go back to normal web, not "web 1.0 or web 2.0 or even web 3.0" websites should be their own and not copying some sort of template way of designing. Sites should be unique and one of a kind, thats what makes them memorable.
- themurph2099, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What are you guys talking about? This site doesn't look bad at all. It's clean, and easy to navigate. The article isn't great, but it's not bad either. There are some good tips in there for people trying to achieve a clean look that might be new at this.
- kilps, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9http://www.flos-freeware.ch/notepad2.html ....
edit: at least that is what I used when I was working with windows - dreamweaver is also nice to work with if you can get hold of it ... - jusuchinu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The cornerstone of Web 2.0 design is the gradient, and this guy didn't even do that right. Is that a green-to-brown horizontal gradient in the header graphic? Gross.
- MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ZaNkY linked to the wrong page by mistake, here's "How to Design Great Looking Web 2.0 Websites":
http://www.web20generator.com/index.aspx - v3xt0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6My only gripe w/ the whole 'web 2.0 design' style, is 6 years ago, this would have been considered 'immature' or 'kiddy-style', with huge buttons and text everywhere... it's like designs intended to target 92yo men w/ lasik-failed eyes. This is of coarse does not apply to all designs, but most blog lamors do it that way.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://www.heliosstudios.com (self-promotion, but you asked...)
Also, some other companies:
http://www.fortymedia.com/
http://www.netsuccess.com/
http://www.garrettdimon.com/ (not sure if he does freelance...)
http://www.snook.ca/
http://www.blueflavor.com/ - tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You forgot the gradients.
How can you get VC funding without gradients? - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OSDAgent, vaguelyrandom:
I agree that it's obvious stuff that web designers should know if they're professional, but it doesn't make it "wildly inaccurate". I agree with OSDAgent on the whole Web 2.0 deal...it's mostly just rehash of the same stuff. Go to http://www.mashable.com and take a look at the list of sites: a lot look the same, and most are just MySpace or Del.icio.us clones (in terms of functionality).
I posted this a while back (not from my site), and I think it's very relevant to the whole Web 2.0 lemming flock: http://digg.com/design/Fresh_Styles_for_Web_Designers - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"It's nothing but hack designers following tutorials and copying each other."
Every period of every fad in every design medium is this way. Fresh designs are few and far between, and then you have a million copies of random quality.
/yes, I'll get off your damn lawn now. - Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i agree, this article was very useful for me. not because i want to become a web designer, but when i need to make 1 website, 1 time, for a business venture or whatever it may be for. Regardless of what some of the uber tech savvy know-it-alls claim (trendy, ugly, whatever), the website is well presented and easy to read and does focus on the content - the main point of the article.
from this particular viewer's standpoint, i'd say he was dead on with this article. - newezra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I can't stand the "web 2.0" design style. When will it die? It's nothing but hack designers following tutorials and copying each other. Time to move on.
- chrisbasham, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3Use a little, strong color and lots of white-space. I totally agree. The boxed-in feel is just too much for many sites with lots of content. Want to see this style in action? Look no further than Digg (which you are).
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The author's not saying that it's how you should design, they're saying that's the current state of "Web 2.0" design.
I agree with what you're saying about design, but that's not what this article is about. - Splizxer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What does web 2.0 have to do with design?
I thought it was all about the ideology of the site, not how it looks. - rusty_g, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this i have to agree, i do agree that this looks clean, but i am sick and tired of looking at all the damn glass!!!!
- ZeroVector, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are great things about web 2.0 design, unfortunately looks are definitely not one of them. Let's face it, most 2.0 sites look like kids books or worse.
- Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Erm i disagree completely with this article :( I don't they look very "Web 2.0", just not my cup of tea :)
The crazy idea is that design now has to be all minimalistic glossy and full of ajax, its simply not true. Ill be writing an article about this soon ^^ Design should be art. - wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh *****.. cut this Web 2.0 graphics crap already. Graphics and the looks have no relation to Web 2.0 whatsoever.. they never had nor ever will. Let alone the fact that Web 2.0 is a ***** term to begin with. Why no relation? Because bloody trends define how things look today and not some made up geek term. Apple had glossy ***** allover before things as Web 2.0 and AJAX. Next year it will be different and the year after it will be something else again.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9I agree, Web 2.0 is ***** design, and that's exactly why the majority of its creators are 16. Few, if any designers do web 2.0 for a living, none that I have met (I'm a fulltime interactive designer,) because it's a trend, a fad, and it'll pass.
- SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How is this article spam?!?!?!
- tblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like Armbar's list of sites better than the article's list. We are in the process of changing my company's website as well so I have been evaluating other sites recently to see what I like best. When I go to a site as a consumer, I want to know exactly what they provide asap. That is why I don't understand clutter or wasted space. For example, look at the article's sample, emaginacion. The top half of their site is practically blank. The first 2 seconds of the "8 second pitch" is wasted. I think multiple links are bad too. I believe just focusing on a couple and marketing hard on those.
- PlancksCnst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WTF is up with that Save Longstone Edge page? It doesn't look anything like the others. The only thing it has in common is the center alligned. It's cluttered, has so many different sized fonts and colors that it's disorienting, has hard edges, no gradients...
- moyness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2what apple website are you looking at ?
- buggiemks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Since we're talking about bad web designers, can anybody here recommend a GOOD one? (either freelancer or company).
- tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Another vote for Notepad++
If only there was a Linux port... - SkiBumm4Life, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I happen to dislike Web 2.0 sites, as common and as "designerly correct" they happen to be. Those damn reflections (the idea clearly stolen from Apple) are overused and need to be passed on.
- Beaver6813, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hes gone for the "Windows Vista Site" look :p
- notastat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1White space in web design is definitely a major factor. And using colors which are actually easy to read for text you want to people to focus on and/or click.
Sarah
http://www.designvitality.com/irvine-web-design-anaheim/ - MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Windows? Mac? Linux? BeOS? AmigaOS?
For Windows: http://www.weaverslave.ws/ - toshipaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As one who makes a living designing/developing websites I found this article had some informative concepts. Unfortunately my biggest gripe is the "Design the content, not the page" section. I can tell you from experience we designers don't always have the luxury of getting content from the client before the design phase. Fact of the matter is 90% this stuff happens after the client is staring at a template design attachment in their email. When presented with this kind of challenge the only viable solution is templates and hope the client's content will fit into that design smoothly. This problem can also be acerbated when the client has access to a CMS that gives them the ability to make their page titles fuchsia. The point I'm making is design the content when you have content, otherwise rely on past experience to carry you forward.
- toshipaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Precisely. Unfortunately clients aren't designers (or else they would do it themselves). As such they are swayed by the stuff they see online, and usually they become adamant about their design mimicking another site's "reflections" and "gradients."
The worse is when you have to deal with a company's CEO. Everything in their world is all about PIZZAZZ! Big gaudy texts, star bursts, flash text, rotating zooming ... you get the point. - clinko, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I know this is a goofy question, but what should I use to edit the html these days?
I've used notepad since 1994, and the html view of frontpage for the code highlighting. Now that i'm working in CSS, FP won't work.
What's a good free text/html editor with just code highlighting? - dogred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1would look better if it were centered. I'm on a 24" CRT @ 1600x1200....I have to keep my head angled left.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@armbar
How about the "state-of-the-art in graphic design" comment - i mean honestly, it is nearly all meaningless cod *****. Obvious comments that have applied to magazine/newspaper layouts for decades and websites for years. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hate elitists. Not all web sites and publications are designed by people with innate talent, design degrees, and 25 years experience. Nobody suggests that you can create stunning design by reading a few pointers, but they might help you improve your skills. Why the animosity?
- jwxa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The site layout and design isn't noteworthy and probably wasn't meant to be eye catching.
BUT, a strict doctype () is included while using deprecated HTML 4.0 attributes.
ick* - arester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seriously -- if I see one more reflection/gradient combination I'm gonna puke. "Great design" does not mean doing exactly the same thing as everybody else for no design-related reason.
- Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I can't stand the "web 2.0" design style. When will it die? It's nothing but hack designers following tutorials and copying each other."
Thats funny. Id say my site looks web2.0 . No i dont follow tutorials, no i dont copy other site designs, no i dont claim to be professional or even a great designer. I just started making a design and tweaked it untill I thought it looked good. So its not all "hack designers" copying eachother like you claim it is. - godsdead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I see web 2.0 as grately coded.. hmmm
pass.. i like good lookign detailed well made layouts aswell :) - C4RL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.crimsoneditor.com/
Trust me. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 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