Comments
On August 19, 2005 9:59 AM Rafa Garcia said:Good one. Not another "blog-a-like".
On August 19, 2005 10:01 AM Tinus said:Not exactly semantically correct, but it's a good design anyway.
On August 19, 2005 10:23 AM Graham said:The body font looks like crap on my monitor in IE and Firefox. It's probably not a flaw in the site though, but something in my monitor configuration.
On August 19, 2005 11:13 AM Toby said:Not sure what Tinus means by "Not exactly semantically correct" as I've just taken a look at the site minus style sheet, and it's all good. I think this is a great design, because it looks good but allows the user flexibility on the font size. Too many designers used a fixed font size (i.e. 10px), but it takes a far cleverer designer to create a site that allows different font sizes and still looks good.
On August 19, 2005 6:35 PM Preston said:Functionality, yes.
Imagery, no.
They could put in a ton of imagery that would make the page much more aesthetic as well as functional and simple.
On August 20, 2005 5:25 AM Bart-Jan said:It's simple, easy on the eyes, and yet very easthetically pleasing imo. Great site.
On August 23, 2005 4:39 AM Nathan said:Nice design, though a little minimalistic for my personal taste (for this style of layout).
I have to agree with Preston, more images would lift the overall aesthetics, a splash of colour surly couldn't hurt.
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.