digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The NEXT 35 Sexiest Designed Websites You've Forgotten

philrenaud.com — After being frontpaged three times with the last one, I figured it was about time for an update. Design Inspiration, especially for the upcoming CSS Reboot.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mfearby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24There's a reason why we've forgotten them. Most are bandwidth-hungry, flash-based, weirdo-wet-dreams that are simply puzzles that must be solved if you want to figure out what the hec the web site is on about. If I happen to be misfortunate enough to click on to a web site that starts showing me that flash loading crap, ALT-F4 is about all I'm capable of doing at that point. Some of the CSS designs are nice, if somewhat puzzling at times, but at least they're not flash. Flash has its place and as a replacement for good web design it is not welcome!
    • JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15i would add : flash is good only for video right now. all of those designs reminds me of spash pages in the last decade

      also this guy like non-standards website, where fonts are small, and links are not underlink.

      title should have been : the next 35 ART-iest websites
    • int19h, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3The flashblock extension and Ctrl+W, my friend
    • therage96, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I definately agree with flash's best use right now being video. I really don't know what the appeal of 100% flash sites is considering usually people always want a site to be quick quick quick, however sometimes, it feels as though a flash site was made to hinder my speed as much as possible. I don't care about special effects, I just want the damn information, and I want it now!

      You give me a nice intro page with a choice between HTML and Flash, and I'll choose HTML -every- time.
    • JParsons4, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4In my opinion, Flash is pretty much played out. It's like all flash (pun intended) and no dash. It's awesome for people who don't really know anything about coding and design/development and stuff - looks great, but in the end, Flash is a developer's nightmare. They take forever to be able to update and/or overhaul. I find that using Flash for a menu or a button or something like that is fine, as long as you provide an HTML alternative, because not everyone has the Flash plugin installed on their Firefox, ESPECIALLY when you consider that not everyone has an idea on how to actually grab & install a plugin in the first place. Someone will refer them to a website and say "hey, check this out - this looks awesome", to which the recipient visits the site and just sees an error message, asking them to install the latest Flash plugin. And of course, the obvious bandwidth concerns. I'll always prefer CSS/PHP to Flash, any day of the week.

      The one advantage of Flash I'd say is that it will be rendered the same on both of the big browsers, assuming each is capable of actually displaying the Flash, but that's one of the fun(?) challenges about being a developer, is screwing around with your coding and design so that it ends up looking how it's supposed to look, no matter what browser you're using. Now that I think about it, Flash seems to be the easy man's way out. Granted, pro-Flash developers have serious skills, but in the end, it's kinda useless when compared to CSS.
    • mfearby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@jparsons4: you mean CSS/[D]HTML and not CSS/PHP I hope...
    • Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Am I the only one that thinks that maybe, just maybe, Phil Renaud should stop submitting fundamentally the same article over and over?

      Also, I feel like the design of www.philrenaud.com is like staring at a translucent chalkboard in front of a really bright flashlight.. the white background combined with the gradients on the sides of each black box makes the site appear like it's got a 'holy', glare-ful white light shining in the background.
    • makis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3i totally disagree.flash is useful!a lot!you must handle it with care.but you can do complex web application in a tenth than using regular html dev tools.you can have components dinamically loaded.so your website will load very fast, faster than downloading 100k of html and than download css and javascript.flash is modular.flash is design friendly.what you see in the flash ide is what you get in the browser.html is not.designer often design their web pages on photoshop or something like that and then have to convert their mokup in html/css.and if you have to create an animation, [d]html is a real pain.with flash coders have only to code and designers don't need to double their work.
      and, frankly, flash is what ajax would like to be.but far more powerful.
      i agree than many "designers" don't know how to use it, but it's not the tool's fault, it's designers fault.
    • kevmann16, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"It's awesome for people who don't really know anything about coding and design/development and stuff - looks great, but in the end, Flash is a developer's nightmare" - This is rubbish I agree with the person who got "digged down". Some of the most innovative interfaces have been coded in flash, I've seen a flash based app that allows input from a hooked up snow globe in a promo exhibit in new york it was amazing.

      "They take forever to be able to update and/or overhaul" is also false flash website can have dynamic content using XML, php, soap as well as importing text files. It can be created like a blog so you can edit it while live, flash has all the functions that AJAX web 2.0 sites can have, the main draw back is the plugin needed and the bad rep that flash has got from annoying adverts and games.

      ActionScript is easy to make basic pages but "for people who don't really know coding" I don't think so, that sounds like a comment by someone who don't really know all the information about flash. ActionScript has a lot of very complex features and with actionscript 3.0 due out soon its likely to get better
    • JParsons4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@kevinmann16:

      I'm not gonna argue you at all - I know there are skilled people who use Flash, in reality, they're probably more skilled than your average developer (myself included). If you can do the same kinda stuff with Flash that can be done with other server-sided scripting languages, that's impressive. But for the average web/IT company/job, they're gonna want the traditional web programmer, because I guess it's a financial risk to go out on a limb using Flash for stuff like that. On the front-end, sure, it really can't be touched there in the hands of someone whose awesome at this stuff, but for the back-end, I think we're a nice ways off from Flash putting any kind of dent in php/asp/coldfusion/etc, especially with other technologies like .net and ajax coming around.
    • timberfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I think we're a nice ways off from Flash putting any kind of dent in php/asp/coldfusion/etc, especially with other technologies like .net and ajax coming around."

      That's because Flash is a front-end technology. It does not compete with .net or php. It uses them to grab dynamic content from a DB. It can also directly connect to a DB by using a server package install to make transactions faster.
    • philrenaud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Dradis:

      The last time I submitted anything from my site was 63 days ago, so get over it. Fundamentally the same article = a list of sites I like? This is, in fact, the first time I've submitted any such list - the last three times were all people I'd never met who happened to like it enough to submit it. I can't be held responsible for that.

      As for the design - maybe you've got something there. An equal number of people hate the philrenaud.com glow to those who really like it. A few design critiques and gallery reviews after I first launched it revealed that there really wasn't any grey area: either you love it or you hate it. Coincidentally, there is a sharp difference between viewing the site on a CRT monitor and an LCD/Laptop display. The white/black balance is pretty drastic.

      I don't mind negative criticism, but come on man: I'm not making money on this. I have no google ads. This isn't some kind of weird popularity contest, and none of the sites I'm promoting are designed/operated by anybody I know, or have ever met. The server hosting the site is sitting in various pieces on a shelf in the closet of a friend of mine. If this is considered spam, then I don't know what to think.
  • pfister_, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The next 35 websites? They'll be created in the future but I've already forgotten them? Um, please get someone who speaks english to write the headline next time.
  • Killah_xxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I didn't think these where that nicely designed. I have seen better. That might speak, because i only visited the CSS powered ones.
  • leitjaxon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Super slow.
  • Caius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5http://philrenaud.com.nyud.net:8090/156

    Cached.
  • mv36, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Poor boy got pwnd by digg effect.
  • litmus101, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1i got a t1 connection can't even open his site slooooowwwww, digger ree doo.......
    • gsvnet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1and i've got a 100mbit FE connection here. will smoke j00r T1 any day.
  • themuffinman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I didn't even bother looking at any of the sites he linked to because the gradient edges on his site actually hurt my eyes when I tried to read something.
  • atheken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2don't waste your time, by CSS, the guy meant flash - they're nice looking, but they don't give much CSS inspiration.
    • zone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4one day using flashblock and it really came in handy =)
    • ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are more CSS sites than flash sites on the list...
  • nailer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Anyone else notice the page is unviewable, with the regular text being white on a white background?
    Reporting.
    • philrenaud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the digg effect has caused the background in some places to load very slowly. There is a black background that appears after everything is loaded, it's just that... you know, 250 requests currently being processed and all that.
  • cakefart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6These have nothing to do with good design- most of them are unusable.Why is it so hard for 13 year olds to understand the difference between trendy and "good"?

    Look at it this way: Vanilla Ice, Boy George, and Pat Boone were "trendy", too- but that doesn't mean they were ever "good" composers. singers, or musicians.

    While the blogger might like the way they look, I'd never hire anyone who thought this was good work.

    Also, while Flash is a wonderful proprietary format from the bestest most wunnerful software company ever, it doesn't belong on Web pages. Authorware, er uh, Flash belongs in classrooms, not web pages.
    • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Neither Vanilla Ice nor Pat Boone were trendy
  • Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Weird, I was just looking at your old list of Sexiest Designed Websites last night, Phil. I am working on making my own design for my blog and I needed inspiration, awesome to see an update! Too bad I won't make the Reboot.
  • timberfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6So many people on here must have taken an intro to Flash course and decided it was clunky and "only for video" - you guys are ignorant, sorry.

    The last Flash only site I worked on was 100% driven by a database, php, and XML. The content was changable without ever opening the Flash application when we were finished. The site, per page, was lighter in file-size than anything we could do with CSS/HTML because we can re-use assets to create different elements. We used the technology available to allow deep-linking to every page in the site and indexing by search engines. We had sparse effects where needed to add to the overall effect that would have been impossible with any other technology.

    The bitching going on here is "only" about poorly designed Flash sites. It's the equivalent of blaming the gun maker for a murderous rampage with their gun. Flash is a development platform, nothing more. Here's my favorite quote...

    "It's awesome for people who don't really know anything about coding and design/development and stuff - looks great, but in the end, Flash is a developer's nightmare."

    I laughed out loud at this. ActionScript is an ECMAScript-based programming language. You use it in combination with a well-designed DB and php backend and you can create amazingly powerful applications. It may be your nightmare becuase you don't know how to develop in it, but I've made a living creating enterprise-level Flash applications for years. So please try and know something about what you say before you say it.
    • kjhatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with you on all counts, except where ActionScript stops and PHP keeps going. The redesign of AS to a more C-style grammar was very helpful, but it's still a far cry from a real language. Yeah, I know it's only a "script", but that's the problem. These days you can use PHP with a dB backend to drive an Ajax frontend that can provide the same functionality, and it's much easier to manage with any number of interfaces fronting the same content for different needs. Flash can't do all that yet, and not even the half without a great deal of additional up-front work.
    • mfearby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2My gripe isn't just with poorly designed flash-based web sites but web sites entirely designed using nothing but flash. Flash has it's uses in parts, perhaps for a gallery or to show off a really cool sub-section of your site, but as a replacement for HTML/CSS save for a body tag and an embed/object tag to load the actual page itself, flash is the wrong tool for the job.

      "You use it in combination with a well-designed DB and php back-end and you can create amazingly powerful applications."

      What is it with you PHP people that makes you use the term "PHP" in lieu of "server-side script" or whatever term you prefer for server-side programming? PHP is NOT the only language one can use on the server, and jabbering on as if it was the only thing you've ever heard of or used for server-side programming really shows your ignorance. It's as if the old journalistic-habit of referring to CD-ROMs as if they were the the only way of viewing multimedia content has come back to life, in a different form. CD-ROM is NOT multimedia. PHP is NOT server-side programming. The former are merely tools for delivering the latter!
    • timberfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Re: quantumwraith - I wouldn't compare AS with PHP, but I would compare it with what Javascript/AJAX can do and it's incorrect that Flash can't be managed in much the same way. I've built interfaces that are managed entirely via database updates and it reflects on a dynamically generated Flash front-end. I agree that you can accomplish 98% of the same things using AJAX, but what you can't get is animations or specialized effects. If you don't want/need those for your purposes, then yeah, use AJAX or whatever suits you, but don't say Flash "isn't" capable, it's just not often used to this end, but I use it that way in a lot of jobs and it's very managable.
    • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you for that! I'm so tired of people who don't know flash pretending to be experts.
  • captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's got to be one of the most pretentious, over-designed sites I've ever seen.
  • jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Can someone explain to this teenager who never leaves his bedroom that web sites are NOT sexy, only women are.
  • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Agree with jdonner. People are sexy - not things.

    That said, how much crap is on that guys web page? It still won't load. I caught something about last.fm and saw some big ass fonts with a sidebar (maybe two). I know he may still be feeling a digg effect but you need some self control. It's hard work not to add to much crap but if you want a "sexy" website, that's key.
  • kjhatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some of them were good, most of them were bad. For someone promoting CSS Reboot (good idea) it's a shame you're wasting everyone's time on Flash-driven sites (bad idea). Were the links selected at random?? If you're looking for form+function without the Flash garbage, try sites like http://www.webstandardsawards.com/ or http://cssvault.com/ or any of the dozens of other standards-focused lists.

  • wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some are nice, like Xenao for example, but not all of them.
  • timberfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Re: mfearby - First off, you don't have to use the double-cooked embed method for Flash - it can be compliant with XHTML. Second, it most certainly can be used in lieu of CSS/HTML. Look, I'm a fan of both and use both. I just want to let people know that these limitations in Flash are only from a misconception about what it can/can't do. You're just misinformed.

    You have a sore spot for PHP? You're arguing points I never made. I never said it was the only choice, I never said it was server-side programming. Where did all this come from? Don't call me a PHP person, just because I mentioned it. Are you really so picky that you want me to say "server-side-scripting" ? Relax. I use .NET, JSP, Perl and others too. I just said PHP because I recently used it on a project. I wasn't preaching PHP. You might want to talk about these issues in therapy.
  • pronto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Holy ***** philrenaud.com is one of the ulgyest site I have ever been to, the white and black gradient thing hurts my eyes...
  • viciousnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i agree.. flash is a mess to develop for but i must admit going through that list and seeing dave weners okaydave.com made me appreciate just what flash has brought to the table..
  • ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Flash is not a "mess" to develop for, if anything it's more of a mess trying to create a CSS/HTML site that will actually work as intended in all browsers. Flash can be used to create user *experiences* whereas html sites are simply good for information and that's about it... The internet isn't all about just data and information... Maybe for most digg users, but luckily digg doesn't represent most of the internet population.
  • gerkin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1not sure what's so "sexy" about some of these sites. I have seen (and done) better. I can't believe that an entirely flash based site, with NO accessibility at all was #2. That ruined it for me, 3 more contenders along and I was gone, no digg. It's amazing what you can get on digg.com these days, any armchair expert says it's true and lo and behold, there it is taken as the word of gospel with nary a second glance. This particular guy wouldn't know sexy if it bit his ass.
  • alceria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow, color me not impressed. I didn't see anything really innovative or visually exciting. I went to one of the sites and thought I had found their 404 page because it just looked too worthless to be a *real* page. But no, it was the splash page to their site. Ouch.

    And as for the flash.......no thanks.
  • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I couldnt wait for the crappy site to load....it was so slow...even this long after appearing on digg... my 3MB connection was waiting a good 10 sec for the page to load...never got to the pages it listed as sexy...as for flash... the flash block extention for firefox is a wonderful thing...
  • kbarrett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for this list. I enjoyed looking through it. And anyone who designs (period) and doesn't think that good design is sexy...is bonkers and possibly in the wrong business.

    I thought breakerdesign was pretty hot.
    yeah baby.
  • theadvinci, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Not Found
    The URL you requested could not be found.

    Well isn't this nice.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.