What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
59 Comments
- grahamcase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25note to people at work, the Suicide Girls website is one of the picks, so this is possibly NSFW...
- bdickason, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13He mentions this in the article, "Why choose a site that wasn’t even designed in 2006 as a fresh design for 2006? In a year where we saw a return of the one-page layout, I still find that Cuban Council’s timeless design outdoes all-newcomers in not only providing a rewarding experience, but also a helpful one."
- n3r0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10thankfully my uber micro kicked in and i minimized the window quickly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I bet most people are digging this only because this is one of the few design websites that have the balls to come out and say that the so-called "Web 2.0" designs are stale and *****.
- TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7 Then people could subtext their logos with 'pi' instead of 'beta', which would be hella fresh, almost as fresh as saying 'hella'.
- resplence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, in fact, when it comes to design everything is just one man's opinion. The real problem is that the article doesn't deliver what the title promises.
On his comments about the layouts he just goes on saying general design-related stuff. Like how one website is 'all about content', or offers a good 'user experience', other has 'great attention to details', another is from 'one of the greatest webdesigners around' and so on.
The reader is left wondering what, exactly, makes any of those "fresh" designs against what we saw on 2006. No digg because I already knew all sites and his comments are far from insightful. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6...
- shosterman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Impressive? I would have used the term.."ugly"
- pezholio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The Cuban Council site also has a lot of text in images, which is not a good look. I could understand if what they were doing was difficult to replicate on the web, but it's not. It looks lovely though, but you'd think they'd shy away from schoolboy errors such as this...
- digitalme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://duggmirror.com/
- timtastic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Is anyone else getting that... not-so-fresh feeling?
Only one or two on that list are worthy. - crawfishsoul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5First Digg article I read today is a WordPress error. Gonna be a great day, I can smell it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's nice Shaun is expirementing with something that i'd say is very impressive.
But putting that aside, the design is just plain ugly, and I would definately not put it near the top seven of this list. - justinvt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That shouldn't really be the point of design...some high brow concept that requires a page long explanation.
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Morning News site is cool. Check out the photos, there's one called "Death by Oreos" that is now my background. I would also recommend checking out their top 10 best albums of '06 list.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@craive
I have no idea why everyone assumes someone is trying to get blog traffic simply because they post their own blog site in a comment.
I have no adwords or adsense on my site. Having more traffic come to my site doesn't do ***** for me. My site is just that. MY site. Its for me to help retain info I have learned by writing about it which educates people who read it (that actually care about technology).
So please refrain from comments that make you look like a moron. - Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Poor Poor article, 2 of those designs are from 2005 BEFORE the whole web 2.0 design movement, hardly 'fresh', a further 2 look utterly generic, and only 3 of the designs stand upto anything at all, all of which have some rather heavy web 2.0 design features in them.
Poorly Written article. - Asvetic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5There are a lot of problems with the title of this article. The most being that this is an opinion from one designer that just happened to write an article and titled it Top 7 Freshest Designs of 2006.
I can't disagree that the sites he picked aren't well designs or constructed, I wouldn't regard them as the "Top" sites or the "Freshest" designs.
This is one man's opinion against another. - Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These sites were developed for graphic designers not end users. Oh, they made it to the top seven list, but will never end up in my fav list.
- craive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I always thought that Digg was the epitome of "Web 2.0" in usage and design.
- skrapek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Morning News site is the best of these. It's gorgeous in its simplicity and in its attention to typography.
Veerle's site is absolutely awful. I'll never understand why people think it's so amazing. It's just such a mess of random ideas. - Rob1n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i dont really think that we should have a new web every year, it get's boring after a while ;)
- Zoshchenko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The fact of the matter is that the Internet is now ruled by RETAIL and the vast majority of Internet uses are much more interested in function than form. The sites with the most traffic - and the ones that get the most eyeballs - sell something. Most web designers design for other designers, not for people who actually want to use the site.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the month/year is like that by default but I haven't had the site up for a year yet. I think I can change the format of that if I poke around a bit.
Thx for the suggestions! - livejamie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that blog at the end is pretty impressive
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The UX Magazine is actually a terrible design; the grid pattern makes it hard for your eyes to focus on any one particular spot as you glance at the page. It's hip and trendy, yes, but difficult to visually navigate.
Ideally, a design should draw your eyes to focus on one spot that logically leads you on a path through the rest of the page. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It would be better if you increased your body text font size a bit. It's also kind of annoying that when I click on "archives" it doesn't bring me to a month/year list--I think that functionality is included in Wordpress by default, right?
Your site is clean other than that. - jamble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cuban Council?!
Come off it, it's a nice site but I don't care how timeless the design is, to include it in a 2006 listing (even when you acknowledge its age) is lame.
There have been hundreds of inspiring sites built and developed this year that could easily be included above a 2 year old website. - andreliem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like nDesign and Veerle's.
Still, design to me is something reserved for trained designers to really comment on and not something average joes can do (I definitely don't have the training). It's almost as bad as a non programmer commenting on how brilliant microsoft word and all the office products are (as my roommate does non stop). I'm not saying microsoft products are bad either, I just think it's funny to see comments about design when I would say only a very select few in this digg article actually know design principles. For example, did anyone bother looking at the css sizing for proper ratios and all that golden mean stuff? otherwise it's just one person's taste over another... - lament, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yeah I mentioned that in my first comment and got dugged down for it.
if you're going to say "Freshest Designs of 2006," then 1) it should be fresh (not old) and 2) designed in 2006.
but, that's just me. - vblvbl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Most of those aren't very good. They might be unique, but the fact that several of the sites can't withstand a simple bump or two in text size without breaking the layout or losing content behind other elements is a big issue.
There are multiple instances of poor text readability because of low contrast between the text color and background color, and key text in images is just amateur.
The N.Design studio site is the best of the lot. The headlines and sections are distinct, it degrades well when text size is raised, text color contrasts well with the background, and the site still maintains a unique visual design and style. The colored links along the top on the black background are wonky, the tab type could be larger, and the 60/40 layout in the context space could use a stronger distinction between primary content and navigation. Still, It's the best example of good design practices, though it's barely Web 2.0 - if at all. - theadvinci, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It's probably my own problem, but I can't stand these kind of sites. They're just hard to read and follow. This sort of web design makes it harder to follow the most important part of the website... its content.
- smee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"one of the best female designers around"? someone needs to meet more girls. Most of these suck. By freshest does he mean blogs? Because otherwise I'm pretty disappointed.
- originoutside2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://tinyurl.com/36pwt9
- thekak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why would you digg him down... that's the first thing I thought, how can you make a list like this and not have a clue what you're talking about...
- blingfinger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have a hard time reading the Cuban Council site, it's pretty, but if you resize the text it breaks in spots and doesn't resize in others.
- tikistyle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not sure that I agree with all the choices, but the cookie cutter "web 2.0" is getting tired. Not that all the elements in the design are done yet, but we need more thought, more creativity. Not JUST rounded corners and a glossy logo. I will say that even THAT is better than the late 90's homepages.
Death to Frontpage, once and for all. - topicnation, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unbelievable! I've never thought it is for real.
- junk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I liked Death by Cotton candy the best:
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/drop_dead_gorgeous/06ddg.php
I don't like how they have the Previous and Next buttons for the slideshow in the upper left though. Very counter-intuitive. - speedyop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very good selection.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I look at web pages for entertainment and information and not for the purpose of choosing the best art and design of web pages. If a site has too much text on it or is otherwise too busy and it I don't have to read it, I won't. I found almost all of those sites immediately off-putting. And they looked like a lot of templates I see for sale on the www.
- seobuilder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like the design of ux magazine. By the way, is it just me or anyone having trouble using wsidump's title bar?
- Rob1n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The N-Design website is just beautifull, thats all i can say.
Really a list of "Fresh" designs. - livejamie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1did you read anything about how the site works?
http://shauninman.com/post/about/the_heap
he's a CSS genius, it's fresh, forward and very very light, there's hardly any text on the site - lament, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2using a wordpress theme called Water 1.0 does not make you web 2.0. sorry.
http://themes.wordpress.net/columns/2-columns/715/water-10/ - weprin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Will 2007 be the year of Web 3.14159?
- lament, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You missed my point.
What I'm saying is using a blog theme that has valid and proper CSS and XHTML and is clean doesn't make your site web 2.0. - tylerjames, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2suicide girls = hotness
- waynelyp90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0These designs are cool but I'm sure there are more out there better than these but I think it's still a good thing to carve all those great web designs out!
- Ninjab3ar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1A bit unrelated, but check out the BETA tag on the podcasts section. :) Now Digg is OFFICIALLY Web 2.0
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 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