What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
67 Comments
- whymanwhy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51^ Nope, thats it. Worst comment on digg.
- fresh27, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37none of those sites are impressive at all, i've seen tons of better sites. what a ***** list.
- kmartshopper, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Actually, I'm pretty sure thebestpageintheuniverse.com had the best interface design in the world... until it stopped being updated anyway...
- ohthehumanity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Clearly the submitter has never taken any web design and use ability classes because almost all these sites suck. if you think nifty floaty flashy crap is "great design" then you truly have no business making websites. A well designed website will allow the user to do accomplish the task in mind as quickly and efficiently as possible.
//buried - surfpark, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Another annoying list. Everything listed has nothing innovative going on. They're all very "Web 2.0" but are not outstanding examples of design or functionality. Someone digg this down, please.
- Cirrius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Hey guys, look at this ***** list I made in 5 minutes!
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"google has one of the worst interfaces in the history of the world ever."
How do you measure that? Are you trolling? - IbnDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Although I don't find it annoying, your right, I don't see where anything here is ground breaking. But I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder
- spacebar14, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Nothing quite compared to www.Zombo.com
- Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not even #1-#3 were very great. I was expecting something unique and awe-inspiring.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Failure to include a doctype CAN lead to problems. Doesn't mean that it DOES lead to problems.
(Same thing goes for table based design.)
Web standards are there to make the web better- they aren't an end in themselves. The extra few bytes to add a doctype to somepointlessblogthatnobodyreads.com makes it easier to make CSS design that works consistently across browsers and easier for browsers to render, sure. But the extra few bytes to add a doctype to google.com would add up to a huge cost in bandwidth with no real benefit to anyone. - mikehill33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow. a thinly veiled spam blog.
buried as lame. - thailand1972, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The number one site on the list:- http://www.akamai.com/
Are they joking?
Flash navigation, graphical text, tiny fonts....ahh, OK, I give up - let's just keep pretending web design is about 'eye candy' and aesthetics to the cost of everything else. It's 1999 all over again.
One day......one small day, people will start to think about usability, accessibility, semantic content etc.....all those design-for-print people will be working in factories and driving taxis. - Kob9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All sites have different purposes and goals..... This should have been titled "The Web's Trendiest Web2.0 Designs." Interface design isn't even the correct terminology and the explanations focus solely on the service and graphics.
buried for inaccuracy and ignorance. - SeanEB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The #1 was one of the most boring corporate websites I've seen in ages. Surely the author doesn't REALLY believe this is the pinnacle of interface design? Standard (and tired) 770px layout with lots of clutter. Sponsored post maybe?
- trylleklovn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"also, check out the source code. no doctype, still tabular, font tags, very little (if any) CSS, fails validation. those rules are laid down for a reason and it's google's responsibility as one of the most 'hit' websites in the world to actually set a decent standard, but do they?"
This is because the page takes longer to load, and uses up more of google's bandwith the more unnecessary code it has. - justinhambleton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is a strange list, mixed with application interfaces and mar-com sites. Not a very useful or objective list.
- Subcide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google finance's timeline control is a way better piece of web interface than any of these.
- mobilitatis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2cssremix.com Rocks and I say once again Black is the new White in the next generation Web Design... Web 2.5?
- aftk2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Joyent is a nice looking site, but as a comment on the source blog said, the current iteration wasn't designed by Cameron Moll (the article said it was); furthermore, the eye-catching illustrations weren't done by either Moll or the new designer (Bell.)
- whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2those sites were mostly terrible.
- Pichold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Threadless links to joyent
- shoook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay this is clearly payed blogging. It makes me sick to see spam passed as news.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1#10 starts off with Wayfaring.
that's where I stop. //burried. - snowwrestler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The sticking point for people (including me) is that the list is called "interface design" and not "graphic design" or just "design." There's a difference. These sites look cool, but their interface--how you interact with the information or services--is for the most part nothing special. If you're really talking about interface the only one that scores points IMO is Wayfarer.
Most of the best interface designs on the Web today are applications like Gmail, Yahoo Maps, Shutterfly, etc. Corporate brochure sites rarely push the envelope or innovate meaningfully. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@flyosity >> "The Web's Best Interface Design" ?????
What?
Are you blind, or you have rally old CRT monitor? - FBMGriever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Im actually a big fan of DeviantArt's layout. I find it to be very clean.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I laughed.
- mobilitatis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3your sites sucks!!!
Edited: design stuff, I mean... - AntoineDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why would people DIGG this story, the guy has no idea what the best web interfaces look like today, the 10 he gives are average at best. Please digg the content not the topic only.
Cheers! - NoLeafClover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm really not trying to flaunt my e-penis, I swear...but if you are going to say that someone is clearly ignorant about a specific topic, it would be wise to make sure you know the topic yourself. Usability...Use ability isn't a field...at least I'm pretty sure it isn't the field you are referring to.
Sorry man, really not trying to be a dick here but...you all know the Internet gives us 42% bigger balls then in the real world.
And speaking of accomplishing the task most efficiently. An old school Insert Task Here Click Here to do Said Task 1995 web page really is the most efficient. It just looks horrible. There is a balance in form and function, aesthetic and usability. But hey, I'm just another ***** with another opinion. - JRMillion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny to see people hate on Flash. I do both web standards based development, as well as a lot of flash development.
They can co-exist, just because you like one doesn't mean you have to hate the other.
Having flash navigation is ok, as long as there is a secondary "normal" version on the page. Its not as simple as saying these "problems" are caused by print designers run amuck. Many designers give preference to having things look and function the way they want, it is just the way it is. I have learned if you want to jump on any designer who isn't a xhtml/css code jockey, you're going to have a painful career. - lasse85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a typical digg top 10 list. Sometimes I think people just make these list to get on digg, because the general population on digg are crazy about top lists.
This time, however, I was really expecting something new and original but I really don't follow him on his choices. Most of the sites were pretty "meh" designed... I usually go to cssremix.com to check out web 2.0 layouts. /rant - bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1while drinking beer and playing poker
- naisanza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1these sites are horrible. i've seen much better
- mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah right. I just scrolled through their list and clicked on Plaxo. All images. The whole ***** page. How is that good web design??
- LebenOjanen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm so tired of your stupid comments. Welcome to my blocklist, and I'm pretty sure that goes for about every other digg user here.
- tuaregorama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Splendid! I was waiting for this for a very long time...
- Jo9100, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1no amazing? ah come on...
- picto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It seems to me that there is a new direction to make site designs based on what looks good versus what works well in the usability sense. It really is all about three things: usability, usability, usability. What good is the most badass or beautiful site design ever if your users can't do some mundane task. Creating a decent website is all about achieving a peaceful harmony between aesthetics and usability.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, http://www.animarecordings.com/ has one of the most unique and usable interfaces I have seen. I couldn't use some of the ones on this list, which isn't a good sign
- visionmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gay
- moltar2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0#1 is all Flash.. what a bs list undugg
- sameagain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you can believe what you want to believe, but adhering to standards in web design and development is just as important as a decent layout. i don't care how much extra it's going to cost google to sort it out (even though they won't), the point is that it's bad technical design to not include that stuff. it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact stated by the people who govern web languages.
- nutzngum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Good or bad, I always enjoy looking at other people's work - they give me ideas for my own sites. I wouldn't say ANY of these were truly inspired, but at least they were easy to navigate, clear, and mostly concise.
There's nothing worse than going to a website and getting lost - many's the time I've had a small embolism trying to find the simplest information... - z00k, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Woah woah woah!
What the hell? 2Advanced was NOT featured in this list? Their work is amazing!
http://www.2advanced.com
===================
http://v4.2a-archive.com/
http://v3.2a-archive.com/
http://v2.2a-archive.com/ - MasterXen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm a big fan of IgoUgo's design, seems slick and polished:
http://www.igougo.com - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0psh I can make better interfaces with my hands behind my back....In a Day!
- chewy5000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2And wahts that supposed to mean openscourceasshole?
- sameagain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1but it isn't unnecessary code! it's very necessary. what's the point in having web standards to further the development of web technology if well-respected websites aren't going to adhere to them?! if google don't produce standards-compliant websites, why should anyone? after all, it reduces server load to produce crap code.
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is