What is Digg?42 Comments
- ephemerae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13i think the point is that the examples are illustrating particular layout methods with no particular design in mind or shown. i found it useful, because i don't care about other people's designs, i already have my own, i just want to see how to do particular things. digg++ for the constant-height three-column layout.
- ojk007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13If your not a webdesigner dont bag this site, sure it doesnt look awesome but its content is top notch. This site has helped me immensley.
- maximinus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Powerdrift: if you read either the description in this Digg posting or the info at the top of the actual page (which is where the former came from) you would find that there is a perfectly good reason why they don't all look 100% professional. The author has not had time to put up the site properly; it is essentially a dumping ground for experiments which he thought other people might find useful. Your attitude says to me that you are probably not a web designer or developer - in which case I wonder why you even looked at this Digg posting. Any decent web designer or developer would say "Hey, that's cool - he's managed to work out how to do this" - and realise that if they want to use it, they'd have to modify it to suit their needs, no matter how "professional" it is. In fact, the simpler it is, the better - it means you don't have to go wading through code which may be there simply to make it look more "professional" - which may not be the end goal of whoever wants to do the specific thing the example is of. The idea of the site is not to look "professional" - it is simply to show people how to do some neat things.
- TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13God, please say something constructive, something other than dupe. The dupe police need to get real lives. The first three comments are quite appreciative, but your is just stupid and unecessary.
BTW, good resource, it has earned a bookmark from me. - maximinus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The idea of the site is function; not form.
- jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@Powerdrft
You will notice there is no style information specifying fonts or colors with the actual page listing.
So you complaint about Times New Roman and the colors is your own fault for not telling your browser to default to something else.
Not everything needs to be critiqued for design "style".
The site is useful. That's all that really matters. Making it "pretty" would not make it any more useful. In fact it could make it less useful.
The fact that individual effects and tasks are broken up and not combined in a whole design makes it easy to look 1 thing up as needed. - wnathans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's a valid point ephemerae. I also realize that the designer hasn't had time to pretty things up around the place, but I still think it is a fair criticism. CSS + hideous graphic design just doesn't appeal to me., however I can see the value of well written code and some good old fashioned experimentation.
- mrtrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I would recommend putting this in wiki form, then people could help you compile the list easier.
- fahrvergnuugen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@JonGretar
And this is the first time I've seen it. Had it not been duped, I wouldn't have seen it at all. I'm sure I'm not the only one... - maximinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Even if the content is available elsewhere, it's good to have one central place to go to find a list of all of these useful techniques. Sure, some of them might be a bit naff, but there's some good stuff in there too.
- bdmbdm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Neat tricks I never knew before!
Although, I wouldnt be surprised if those examples were cross browsers. ;) - jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Powerdrift
1) There is no CSS associated with http://www.pmob.co.uk/ index page listing (view the source)
2) That does not detract from the usefulness of the content.
3) Your link to one of his pictures proves what?
4) Just because most people don't change the default font in their browser doesn't make it his fault that you hate looking at Times. If someone hated times that much they would figure out how to change the default in their browser, if not maybe they didn't hate it that much after all.
Be happy someone is providing a resource for free. Petty griping doesn't help anyone.
Quit complaining. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Regardless of how pretty they look, if the information is valid and usable, it wouldn't take very long for a good designer to pretty these up in a new design. That alone makes this a very cool resource to bookmark.
- JonGretar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Umm.. These are CSS techniques. For learning how to do your own stuff. It's not some open source templates for all to use.
- amoeba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This site is a good example of content over presentation. It's the content that makes it valuable.
Sure, nice presentation would enhance the site but at the end of the day, we're there to discover some CSS tecniques not massage our retinas with eye-candy. - jdwl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An excellent resource - some of those tricks are really quite revolutionary (look towards the bottom).
As for the designs being ugly - its looks to me as if the colours are chosen to define each block level element clearly - saves having to use outline in the FF web dev extension. - Ogremindes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bah, the 'how to centre multiple divs' examples didn't work.
- WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, and I'd like to add.... that I'd rather just see the code that creates the look... not have to search through someone else's coding style to figure out what part is required, versus what is just there because of the programmer's personal style. These are quick little samples of code that can easily be cut&paste&modified into our own web projects.
Major Digg++ for the 3-column-layouts & Tab-effects. - Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But I wasn't complaining. I was just stating my impression.
(yes, the comments do allow such things) - JonGretar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@TheEditor1.
I agree that too many people complain about little dupes. But this link was on the front page like 2 days ago or so. You have to agree that it's kinda too much. - Atimport, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes in fact it's working in IE but not in FF for example... this is why it gives this amateurish impression.
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Awesome...
- jevons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As a web designer, this just became one of my top 5 tools for designing CSS based web sites. I have been wanting to switch from using tables for so long, but never understood the finer details of CSS, and Paul has just saved my life and my money! Thank you.
- simeyj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Paul O'B (as he is also known) has been a HUGE help on SitePoint forums with all his CSS techniques so this is getting a proper Digg from me!
Great work Paul. Keep it up. (Nice logo design too!) - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's you
- hankroth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0These are basic but never-the-less they are good examples which anybody starting out with css should become familiar with and the best way to do it is not to be told but to try them out. It is worth the time it takes to pull up these examples.
Hank Roth
http://pnews.org/
(on the InterNUT since 1982) - slumbuzzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, who cares if it's functional as long as it looks good. ;) It could have the applicability of a brick as long as it's pretty, right? Wouldn't be digg if people didn't whine about ***** that doesn't really matter.
- imyayo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great find, thanks.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's alright, but perhaps the colors in the demos could have been a bit less... painful to look at?
It's been on digg like 20 times already, but a great CSS demo site:
http://www.cssplay.co.uk/ - Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I do infact make websites/design stuff, etc.
And I do appreciate the time and effort that went into these examples (there's no way in the world I'd ever compile a list like this).
It's just that #ff00ff #0ff0ff Times New Roman = die.
I will admit I would have loved this list when I was learning CSS - Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1jzimmerman:
Are you kidding?
http://www.pmob.co.uk/temp/images/pmoblogo7.jpg
color:red;
background:#039;
background:#F8E7EC url(images/right.jpg) repeat-y right top;
background:url(images/line.gif) repeat left top
background:#9b99ff url(images/gradient-top.gif) repeat-x left top;
Most people don't edit the font settings on their browsers, and in most cases it will default to Times New Roman (or Times in Mac OS X). - cronot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Nobody_cares
- kalphegor, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Can I say lame? Can I?
How do you think they learn to do those examples, that are on Digg front page every single day?
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1/
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
PS: Those are rhetorical questions, please don't answer me. - andrethegiant, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Although i consider myself to be pleased easily, i think that those demos were ugly as hell. First of all, the homepage doesn't even have styles, which is pretty ridiculous for someone whose main focus is CSS. Second, as Powerdrift put it, the demos were very amateurish. I've seen better... a lot better.
- ReadMeTXT, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1lame and ugly
- jzimmerman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1--moved
- kasted, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3is it me, or does someone need to teach the author is this how to design?
- wnathans, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6I got the same impression Powerdrift.
- Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9These seem kinda amateurish
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4Yeah .. just like the last 500 similar sites. It's amazing how something so generic can be considered so awesome by people so stupid.
- nathanmock, on 10/12/2007, -32/+3Dupe no digg
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 