The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Web 2.0 Design Tutorials
profitpapers.com — Here is a list of good tutorials and articles on learning the fundamental design elements for web 2.0. Mac style rounded corners, tabs, colors, drop shadows etc are all covered.
saintjames- 1597 diggs
- digg it
- milezteg, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5thanks for the submission.
- r2d7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Yes, it'd been at least several minutes since someone else labelled DESIGN TRENDS as Web 2.0. Thank god saintjames came along all ignorant and stuff. : )
- pwill, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3PRETTY COLORS IS _NOT_ WEB 2.0
Web 2.0 is AJAX and web applications. - willynilly, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Umm, no thanks. As if you didn't know:
THERE IS NO WEB 2.0.
WTF, let this ***** DIE ALREADY.
- drozofil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Come on ... Web 2.0 is the so-called "Social Web". Like here on digg. or Myspace. Or Blogs. RSS. That sort of things. Design concerns aren't anything but a matter of HTML, taste, and CSS. Which was already the thing for Web 1.0 five years ago. Don't go too nervous with two point oh thing. You might need some "buzzwords-tolerance" two point oh patch.
- mindcrusher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not totally true. The so called web2.0 technologies, make it possible to use some of this ways of designing. It's not really a web2.0 design, different from something else before, but rather some tweaks that you can use and which were made available through the web 2.0.
- tintub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Actually all this ***** people are calling Web 2.0 should be called Web 3.0 if anything!
Web 2.0 would be the move from static HTML to dynamic pages back in the 90s - drozofil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@mindcrushers
Sure thing, with Web 2.0 came along lots and lots of new kinds of eye candy. And I'm already seeing many new stuff going on (like dhteumeuleu.com). But I still think this is more HMI related that content related. To me Web 2.0 are advances regarding how we treat content. The very same content that we tried to separate from HTML a few years ago. The separation is more or less effective, depending on websites.
Calling such HMI goodness "Web 2.0" is treacherous. I believe that "Web 2.0" is about content. Isn't it ? (Note that believing is more like faith than common sense but whatever.)
- milezteg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not sure why people get so worked up over this. There is a very clear design trend that emerged this year and I think pointing it out and providing tutorials on how to make things 'look the way you want them' isn't such a bad thing. Some people call it the web 2.0 look, the MAC look, the gooey look.
It also has a lot to do with providing a css vs tabled layout. Anyone can make tabled tabs, corners, and gradients - but it's not quite so obvious to do completely in a stylesheet. To say people are designing the same way we did 5 years ago is just not accurate.- kalphegor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1the gay look
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"... the gooey look. "
Where the interface looks sticky and viscous.
;) - mrFREEZE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll give you sticky and viscous ;)
- thaslaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Eccchhh.... I always recoil at yet another 'creative' entry in the big bullsheeat BINGO (y'all!!!) merry-go-round and the happy-clappy Starbucks-fuelled Web 2.0 label (oooh, I didn't wash for 2 days, what a rebel), though it's actually quite old now, makes me want to retch just as much as its double-XY forebears did but there's no arguing with the trends developing over the last few years and anything that gets more web DUHvelopers learning and, more importantly, actually doing something useful about separating content from formatting, making things work better, look nicer with less code and graphics, etc., is A-OK in my hoofed-upside-the-head corner of the l'il ole corral, namsayin Verne?
aaaaand, exhale.....
But this IS a tasty burger. Sorry, I mean IS a tidy little collection of (wait for it...) relevant linkage. So it's a big Digg up from me.
And it's a big Digg up from me.- omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What are you on? Can I have some?
- thaslaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0What am I on? weird..... a few people have asked the same question....
if you really must know, it's a rather, hmmm, "interesting" combination of ASD, PTSD, OCD - high functioning, OBVIOUSLY. Or should that be obliviously? Ah well, ne'er to mind.
Can you have some? Try forceps birth.
- Cannon13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The reason people get so worked up about it is because the web 2.0 trend is long dead among designers and developers. Unfortunately, the general public is now catching on and everybody wants their site to look 'web 2.0", even though they couldn't begin to tell you what the term actually refers to.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the next fad will hit the public the year after it
yes there is a web 2.0 but its merely a phase with a cool name
and in it
ajax gains wide apeal (like a popstar of somesort)
design looks more like a mac then a webpage
the word beta is used or a beta sticker so to speak is placed on a title
someone upholds it and then becomes a good resource for it (techcrunch,ehub,ajaxian)
major news looks into it
and thats just about all i can think of in said phase
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2the next fad will hit the public the year after it
- machx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5wow thats actually a pretty good collection of Tutorials
I especially liked that it also had content on how to create good graphics for your site including how to do it in Photoshop - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4gaaah, there is no such thing as Web 2.0!
- one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2when do we get to web 2.0.1?
- omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1YA RLY
- omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1lol nice wrong thread there, gg me :(
- D4V1S, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2O RLY? hilarious cover
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2oreilly
- lazyrussian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I always found Web 2.0 style very cheesy...tutorials are always nice.
- omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2forget this, I'm waiting for Web 3.0 style
- kalphegor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i start planning the web 3.0 design, there will be included all the amazing stuff you cann't do today
- patbenatar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0As if we needed more Web 2.0 designers...
- slimc9999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ah yes, couldn't have found a better reason that people hate the term Web 2.0 if I tried. People, it has nothing, nothing to do with design.
- deframe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Web 2.0 is NOT pretty colours, rounded corners and big fonts - that's design.
It's not a label for user-driven, socially-networked site content. I'm sure Matt Wright of "Matt's Script Archive" fame wasn't thinking Web 2.0 when he placed a guestbook Perl script on his site in 1995 and same goes for all the forums / comments systems produced through the years. Hell even blogging sites pre-date the term.
It's not 'new' browser technology - AJAX / XMLHttpRequest have existed since Internet Explorer 5 (SIX YEARS OLD) and CSS based sites since the dawn of time.
So generally speaking what IS Web 2.0? The way I see it, there are two answers:
- A pretentious buzzword used by those in Web design/development to make themselves feel hip and modern. Generally speaking these people are pretty new to the industry and know no better.
- A corporate shill. Managers ALSO love sounding hip and modern, especially when presenting to clients and other managers. The term 'Web 2.0' is passed along the grapevine (usually via conferences) from company to company as a means of getting the edge over competitors. The more they hear about it the more they want to implement it, and the more their *clients* hear about it, they more *they* want it implemented. As with all corporate buzzwords people have been well and truely taken in by it.
Doubtless there are other explanations for the existence of this term. Anyone want to pipe up with some?- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Web 2.0 is NOT pretty colours, rounded corners and big fonts - that's design."
err... and the title says "Web 2.0 *Design* Tutorials" - deframe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe you should re-read my comment, see if you can get the jist of it.
- Gilberts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I posted this on the article, but this is a much more lively discussion to add it too...
What a wonderful example of how utterly unaware many 'web designers' are of what design actually is.
Design isn't about applying a veneer of style to a functional device. It isn't about learning Photoshop or Illustrator techniques, HTML or CSS. Design is not about gradients fills, rounded corners and big Web 2.0 text. And it certainly isn't just about making stuff look cool.
Design is about communication and interaction. It is about knowing what you're trying to communicate and how you are going to get those messages across. It is about what something does and how it's used. Don't confuse it with art. Design is about reason and justification albeit with regard to feelings, sensations and emotions in a cultural context.
We need to turn away from our computers sometimes and forget about software and code. They are just tools. We need to consider our visual ideas at a deeper level. Effective design lies at the heart of a project, not as an afterthought. - jimmyjimbo13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design is about communication and interaction. It is about knowing what you're trying to communicate and how you are going to get those messages across. It is about what something does and how it's used. Don't confuse it with art. Design is about reason and justification albeit with regard to feelings, sensations and emotions in a cultural context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. A lot of people seem to think that design is all about making something look attractive and cool. A lot of beautiful and artful websites boast about how well designed they are, but the truth is that they are just a bunch of art. True good design in a website will make a user feel at home and instantly know exactly where to go for information. What I feel designers should really strive for is a balance of art and design. A lot of very ugly sites are remarkably designed, and I feel that it is because of this is why they are so successful. It is true that generally, people like looking at something that looks good. That's where art comes in. If art and design are used well in a web site, then users will have a great, easy-to-navigate website that is visually appealing.
The truth is, I am not a very good designer. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with my design. I design sites based off of what other sites look like, and I try to learn from the successful ones. But I still don't have a feel for what will work well for users. Even so, I know what I am striving for: good design.
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Web 2.0 is NOT pretty colours, rounded corners and big fonts - that's design."
- imack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Call it whatever you want. I call it a collection of links. Good enough for me.
- mudcreek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i found the submital helpful myself
- cbeach, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2WEB 2.0 is a marketing term thought up in a marketing brainstorming session. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2
It pisses me off to see it used in the techy / design community.
Story reported as "ok this is lame"- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm ok with it. The use of Web 2.0 usually seems to come from a lack of experience, makes it easier to determine who you're talking to.
- champagnetease, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Language & word usage, especially for 'technical' terms, evolves quickly - and at the end of the day, what matters in general usage is, well, the general usage of the term i.e. the average reader will understand immediately what is meant.
In this case, I see 'Web 2.0 Design Tutorial' and while I know that semantically it could be said to be incorrect, I still know what it's likely to show me - and is there any other way you could state what is that would be more 'correct' and yet also short & easy to read and understand for the majority? Answers on the back of a postcard or by replying here, your call ;-)
And back on-topic for a second, some of those links look very handy, I'm just getting back into web dev after an 8 year absence so having to learn lots of new & not-really-so-new tricks very fast!- milezteg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Finally someone sees it for what it is. A list of recent design tutorials and articles I found useful. I couldn't think of a better term to describe the list that would convey my point. Obviously none of the anti buzzword fanboys above actually read the article as it clearly says in paragraph 1:
"I am not talking about functionality here at all but merely design and layout - there are a million articles online for working with javascript and AJAX." - thaslaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You go girl. You forgot to finish with a flourish, vis a vis (so to speak, in a manner of speaking, as it were, in the fullness of time, be that as it may, as per) "Talk to the right hand cuz da other hand left!"
WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO!
Today on Ricky, "What is Art? is given a modren twist as online pundits DIGG it out over the question of what is design/Web 2.0/a worthy submission. Now we return to the spastic-autistic-agnostic channel's live coverage of the full-contact wheelchair spittle and food fight to determine if there really is a DIGG."
pieces of Audi, yo
- milezteg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Finally someone sees it for what it is. A list of recent design tutorials and articles I found useful. I couldn't think of a better term to describe the list that would convey my point. Obviously none of the anti buzzword fanboys above actually read the article as it clearly says in paragraph 1:
- gandubhalla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Web 2.0 is not the superficial design stuff. It's about Ajaxifying. No Digg.
- deframe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By that definition half of the so-called Web 2.0 sites aren't Web 2.0.
Just an observation... - drozofil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm repeating myself. AJAX isn't Web 2.0. AJAX is part of what came with it. Web 2.0 is about content. Not about the way you display it.
AJAX is just what the web should always have been : reactive.
- deframe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By that definition half of the so-called Web 2.0 sites aren't Web 2.0.
- Neilich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Web 2.0 - the 2 actually stands for 2nd, as in 2nd round of VC funding.
Web 3.0 will not appear for about 5 more years I guess. - Neilich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Web 2.0
2 as in 2nd
2nd as in second round of VC funding
Web 3.0 wont happen for a few years I guess. - Neilich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0goddam - hate making 2 posts by accident - sorry.....
- digitalhome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Web 2.0 Design competition now up and live and running.
http://www.veetro.com/Competition.aspx - loxi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.design-sites.net/seo-information/
What you think about it site promotion and web design& - crossers, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Thanks a lot for the list. It is great to have everything in one place. I can share these links as well - http://www.rsschannelwriter.com & http://www.sitemapwriter.com
- crossers, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0oh thanks! all day I'm searching this information about tutorials!
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - theadvinci, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1More graphics, less links and you should be fine.
- Skilaq, on 08/21/2008, -0/+0Nice post and a great resource. I have a few basic HTML and web design tutorials on my blog http://www.digistore.co.nz/blog/how-to-make-a-webs ... Again thanks for the info!
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is