Comments
On November 23, 2004 11:58 PM Dan said:I like certain aspects of the site, but the primary navigation needs to be fixed. The hover contrast is one of the worst I've ever seen.
On November 24, 2004 4:06 AM Allen said:The hover contrast actually isn't meant to be that colour. Unfortunately we had a small accident with combining a previous verion of the stylesheet. Same story with the horrible visited link colour for the footer and featured product elements. I'll fix the bugs as soon as I can.
Thank you CSS Beauty for mentioning our site :)
On November 24, 2004 6:14 AM Rob said:I really dig the design - but I think that your main intro image (top right) should be text? Just me probably...
On November 24, 2004 2:35 PM Dave P said:Wow, they actually have the guts (stupidity?) to advertise 24 support availability... I guess if you can do it, all the power to ya!
Good site, I like it.
On November 24, 2004 2:52 PM Fernando Dunn II said:Perhaps they have the resources to be available 24 hours.
Anyway, I love the site. The combination of sleek glares and clean color scheme makes this one remind me of one of those gadgets that you always want but can never afford.
On November 24, 2004 4:26 PM Dave @ DaveMania said:I agree about the gagets. I'm liking the glass effect, i have a thing with glass *looks shifty* however the main title and menu backgrouns don't show so i can only view the whole thing by looking at the preview aswell.
Nice site though
On November 24, 2004 5:49 PM paul haine said:I love the look of this site, particularly the glass effect (and I preferred the burgundy background colour they had recently).
My only qualm is the intro text. I don't object to it being an image, but the justification on it is causing very noticable wide spaces between some of the words, and smaller spaces between others. It's particularly noticable on the 2nd line.
On November 24, 2004 10:32 PM carbon said:average looking site.
i agree that the menu should be fixed as it is one of the worst i have ever seen.
why show projects which goes to a blank page and a logo? are you advertising your logo? if there are nothing to show don't link it. this is not very usable.
- On November 24, 2004 10:35 PM carbon said:
checked it for w3c:
it is not valid xhtml 1.1.
error in line 39:
- On November 25, 2004 1:57 AM Allen said:
We've taken everyone's feedback seriously and have made the appropriate changes. The link contrast problem has been fixed. The intro text is now plain text instead of an image. The menu has been slightly revamped to suit the site a little better. We have also fixed the validation problem on line 39 which was an improperly closed paragraph tag. Thanks everyone for giving us valuable feedback. If there are any more suggestions, we'd love to hear about it -- be it a complain or praise. Thank you.
On November 25, 2004 12:05 PM Nathan Pitman said:Kinda reminds me of http://www.mirashade.com ...?
On November 26, 2004 2:59 PM Peter said:Yes it looks similar :)
On November 26, 2004 6:24 PM Alistair said:Hi guys, thanks for comments. Yes, it is similar. I can assure you tho, we had never seen Mirashade.com until the link was posted here. Total coincidence that they look similar. :)
Thanks again cssbeauty for listing us.
- On November 27, 2004 9:24 PM carbon said:
yeah right....
alistair don't tell me you did not look at cssvault and cssbeauty while designing the site :)
On November 29, 2004 6:09 AM Nathan Pitman said:Alistair, I would agree it's just coincidence. It's a layout which works well and mirashade certainly didn't 'invent' it. It's not surprising to see another agency execute a similar layout, and you have done it with such flair and polish it makes me wish I had a nicer 'sheen' to the header graphic on mirashade.com. Hello from the other side of the globe and congratulations from all at Mirashade for featuring on CSS Beauty. :)
- On December 1, 2004 6:10 PM carbon said:
possibly a copy of this noteworthy site:
http://www.styletype.jp/
On December 2, 2004 9:49 AM Ryan Brill said:You guys have to be kidding me...
To those who think this site is a rip of either of the other two posted above, read this: http://www.ryanbrill.com/archives/stealing-design/. Whether inspired by either of the two sites listed above, I do not know, but either way, it's only inspiration, folks...
- On December 3, 2004 7:20 AM Nathan Pitman said:
Ryan, as designer of 'one of the sites' I totally agree, I only posted a link to our site out of incidence, I never iexpected others to jump on the 'they stole your design' bandwagon. :!
On December 13, 2004 11:44 PM Preston said:Looking at the two sites that you guys said it was copied from, I seriously don't know where you got that assumption. I could probably think of up to five sites similar to twenty-one within ten seconds. The site is excellent, but the title of the page doesn't stand out enough.
On December 27, 2004 12:23 PM Yer Mommy said:I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this... but maybe it is just me. It doesn't display properly.
The background behind the logo doesn't show up... actually it did once. WTF?
CSS is not valid... but only one error which ain't bad.
Other than that I dig it!
Post a comment
Note: The author reserves the right to delete inappropriate comments.
- Foul and offensive language will be edited or deleted.
- Personal attacks will be deleted.
- Advertising or spam will not be tolerated.
Formatting: Linebreaks will be converted automatically. Basic HTML tags allowed: a href, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, code, acronym title, abbr title.
Gravatars are enabled.