What is Digg?132 Comments
- samuraisam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+110So now anyone who uses semantic markup and CSS is taking the "web 2.0" plunge?
- Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+84It's Internet Movie Database. Just letting you know.
- neoform, on 10/12/2007, -6/+65It's about ***** time too, that site looked like something out of the 90s web..
- willemmulder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+57something has changed?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56Where's the web 2.0 in this redesign? Also, who still uses #0000FF link colors?
- aalaap, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42Just a few background images and header changes don't count as a facelift. They're still using tables for the layout, which is another thing that's wrong. IMDB needs tabs. IMDB needs DIVs that hide/show when clicked. IMDB needs RSS. I don't want to sound like a new suit, but the site really needs to turn to Web 2.0.
- nightwave, on 10/12/2007, -11/+46Wow, one of the most aesthetically pleasing updates I have seen, mainly because it preserves the original theme so well.
Looks great! - oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37The info is all stored in a DB (hence the name), so it isnt that hard changing the front end when all the pages are filled dynamically.
The ads are still annoying. - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36"The ads are still annoying."
What ads? Oh... you're still using Internet Explorer. *laughs* - theotherme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27pffft, its more like a nose job
still, it does look better - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Ugh. Title should read "IMDB (barely) Gets a Face Lift".
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24"Also, who still uses #0000FF link colors?"
Yes, random colors that may or may not be links are preferable. For bonus points remove the underline from links and/or underline things that aren't hyperlinks. /sarcasm - pplante, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I am not really impressed by their update. The site is still poorly organized, and looks like crap still.
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17If it weren't for Digg, I'm sure I never would have noticed.
- wingnut21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I appreciate the xhtml/css, but the two column layout isn't working for a site that has so much information.
- timxpx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14i don't care what it looks like. i'm happy with the content.
- campbe79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Web 2.0? Because CSS vs. Tables? No. Try again. I'm not saying it's a bad update, but don't say that it's worth anything at all only because it was updated to CSS instead of tables. Focus on usability. CSS / Tables doesn't have anything to do with usability for my mother looking up a movie or an actor.
- Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Yeah true, it's not like it has the name of site in large text right on the front page or anything.
Could be anything!
EDIT: Sorry, it's a large IMAGE not text. I can see where someone could miss that. - waveman216, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Hey look at that! A gradient-fade applied to menus and san-serif type! Who would've thought!!
- Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ha! Yeah, and the other article got the name right and everything!
- ucbrave92, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10damn you beat me to it, nothing drives me more nuts than people calling things wrong names. obviously this article was submitted by someone who isn't too familiar with the imdb.
- Roger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"web 2.0" and "table-less" are also inaccurate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I still love IMDB.
- squeevey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The site STILL uses tables.
- squeevey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7And by tableless you mean it uses tables?
You need to look at the source code. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah, they defiantly still use tables.
Here's a little trick if you have firefox (or any Mozilla based browser) on a PC. Hold down control and click on what you think is a table. If a blue box appears around the content, that content is in a table. The blue box outlines the cell that contains the content. - Misanthrope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7At least it doesn't say "AMAZING face lift on International Movie Database; One of the top 13 face lifts this week...ADDICTING!"
- frant1c, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The most important part of the site, the movie information page, is basically the same. Not a bad update, though.
- grogerto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wrong. Right click -> view source. I still see LOTS of tables in there. Just check out the 'content' pages for a show (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0813715/). It is a minor facelift. They appear to be stuck in the year 2000 with the web design.
On the other hand, the site is still very useful, regardless of their HTML prowess. - Zoshchenko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I like the site and use it a lot. It wasn't much to look at before and I'm not really impressed with the update. Still, it's the best place to quickly find information on movies and actors so I'm not going to complain. Function trumps form.
- dylanparry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The summary is very inaccurate. Has anyone actually looked at the source code? It still uses tables, liberally scattered all over the place, plenty of div-soup (which is no better than using tables for layout), it doesn't come close to validating and contains such beauties as having "bgcolor" specified in the body element!
How anyone can say this is a good thing, I will never know. It's as badly coded today as it was yesterday. - fenris6644, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6*stops*
*sees more Web 2.0 buzzword nonsense*
*keeps walking* - nullchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5But it wasn't. It is still using tables for non-tabulated data, unfortunately.
- HitLines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@theotherme
and the IMDB should not have stopped at the nose -- but redesigned the entire face. It's hard for a site to be considered web 2.0 without a DOCTYPE. It surly will never validate without one. The navigation coded in an unordered list IS a nice touch.
Tables are still used for some parts of the layout -- could be a legacy issue.
Not all element tags are lowercase -- not valid XHTML.
Not all visual elements have moved into the CSS -- align="center" is everywhere.
Not bad for a site as big as IMDB but it has a long way to go before you can stamp the crappy Web 2.0 badge on it. - top5design, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I have to agree with you, dylanparry. I was thinking the same thing and when I ran it through the W3C validator...86 errors, most glaring on page 1? No DOCTYPE declaration, which is one of the most obvious and easiest preached by the original purveyor of standards, Mr. Zeldman.
I was expecting more of a redesign...the site still looks like crap. The rectangle in the middle column is the one that always got me. I guess it's nice because it's easy to see, but it still sucks.
No imagination on typography, no validation, not at all table-less. I would barely call this a "face lift". - sherwinn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Umm, the rest of the site looks the same. And I like its classic "information overload" design. I felt like I was literally browsing a database.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Still using Times New Roman XD
- dontera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I counted 11 open table tags.
While a bit slicker looking (mostly in the header area), this is not a table-less design as the author suggests. - ngmcs8203, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@jammer
It looks fine if I resize it down. If you want to break any css/table layout you can. Resizing down to a window that is smaller than an average window size is one way. Why don't you try sizing up the font also. Or manually removing certain tags.
One step towards standards is better than they were last week. I applaud IMDB for taking the plunge. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Then you should learn how to code proper XHTML and CSS. When done right, a well-designed, standards-compliant site will be much quicker to load than a WYSIWYG *****.
- coit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Exactly, the main page is full of table tags...
- Stiverton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't call that a face lift, more like a touch-up.
- saleem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4not a 2.0 update, but its smooth and isnt overwhelming
- tdskate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another thing they need to do is make a better API. That way Digg could develop some kind of movie digging feature that's based on the iMDb, how awesome would that be!
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It looks nice, but I don't like that they moved the search bar to the top. It has been on the left side forever, and now it's not there when I look for it
Oh well, I suppose I'll get over it. I use Firefox to search it anyway.
Keep up the good work, IMDB - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Misanthrope:
"Backed up by a Table-less design with power of CSS, IMDB has finally taken the web 2.0 plunge"
Not to mention the description of this story is inaccurate. But I suppose CSS is a buzzword nowadays. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I like the search engine. If I search for Sandra Buttocks, Sandra Bullock popped up as the top spot in a second.
- panic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Am I seeing the same redesign as everyone else? The only difference I see is the location of the search box. And there's nothing table-less about this design. When I saw "IMDB Redesign" I was like "wow, that hideous page finally got updated??"... it looks just as hideous as it ever did. I do kinda like the blue bar on the NowPlaying page, but their normal homepage doesnt look special at all. Every page I've looked at has tables in it too...
- yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Buried for the web 2.0 remark in the description.
- glacius99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3exactly, the site still uses tables.. A quick search of the source from the home page yields 16 separate tables..
I hate Web 2.0 as a term, and this isn't even that revolutionary an update.. They're still using an image to show numbers for the box office leaders.. -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 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