Bright Creative

(16) Feb 27, 2005


GravatarOn February 27, 2005 11:27 AM Raven said:

I wonder if Dave is featured just because it's him. I think this one is not very good. The font is too small, I can barely read it and well, I don't even wear glasses. The colors chosen don't look too good either. Overally it looks too chaotic.

GravatarOn February 27, 2005 11:30 AM Mark said:

I agree the font looks bad, I however dissagree with your view of the colors... I think they work great, nice warm look. Overall I like it, the design is great, just the content presentation isn't perfect...

GravatarOn February 27, 2005 1:15 PM Aratramba said:

I really liked the previous version of Bright Creative far. Not like this one is real bad of course, but I think (know) he can do better. The colors are allright, a nice warm look indeed.

GravatarOn February 27, 2005 5:32 PM Arman Choobineh said:

I also liked Bright's old site better, but you have to repsect Dave for using Times New Roman, not a lot of well designed, standards-based sites (any?) use it these days, and it's nice to see something different.

GravatarOn February 27, 2005 7:48 PM Bryan said:

Whats up with his table having "cellpadding" ????

That was suprising to see.

GravatarOn February 28, 2005 4:44 AM Leonard said:

Overall the design is lack lustre. What happened Dave?

The fonts are too tiny to read. And why cover the about area with background image.

My question is why is this site even considered on this gallery.

What I do like is that the site validate for XHTML1 .0 Strict

GravatarOn February 28, 2005 7:30 AM Tazz said:

OMG! Terribly disappointing. I came here seeking inspiration from the best.

GravatarOn February 28, 2005 8:10 AM Thomas said:

I'm not sure why everyone is complaining, I like the design (very creative) and colors give a nice warm feeling - but I do agree with everyone regarding the font, but at the same time not everyone is going to love every design or site that a developer puts out, but to say "Terribly disappointing" is a bit harsh.

GravatarOn February 28, 2005 12:38 PM Brady J. Frey said:

Is there any real benefit to serve up xml, but have it text/html content-type? Might as well use PHP (or another) to serve up alternating versions to the proper browser, otherwise I would think they cancel each other out.

? I thought we moved on from hr's?

I agree that while I think the color and look was made to be elegant - it may not be the best marketing. Visually, it grabs little attention to the content, and the design is the content, creating a bit of confusion here. I like where it's going, it just doesn't seem polished is all.

I have to agree with Raven on one issue -- is it just posted because it's mezzo? Fantastic and well received designer, but that doesn't make everything they produce gold, and I think a lot of these sites host these examples for reasons we can guess.

GravatarOn February 28, 2005 5:22 PM Tazz said:

Thomas mate maybe i was harsh. Why you find everyone complaining is coze that design is by none but Dave! No one would be talking so much if it was done by some newbie.

GravatarOn March 1, 2005 7:58 AM Thomas said:

Tazz, I guess I see your point, when your expect a standard from a certain developer and then they have an off site there is an up roar, but my point was that you can't expect everyone to love every design that you put out it's just not going to happen.

GravatarOn March 1, 2005 11:08 AM Tazz said:

Yes indeed, I agree with u Thomas. I have this funny feeling that Dave has done it on purpose to see people's reaction. I won't be surprised if he is actually enjoying it. :)

GravatarOn March 1, 2005 10:51 PM Preston said:

Wow, what a fray going on here. I completely agree with all the complainers...the colors are too warm for my liking, and the font is so tiny I cannot read some of the text. The typography is horrible, navigation is very hard to find, and the menu towards the bottom of the page is very complicated and has no need for such complexity. Certainly not one of the better sites featured on CSS Beauty.

GravatarOn March 2, 2005 4:57 AM kaminski said:

alot of critics is already posted.
the font is too small. the color is not realy "bright". the color looks for me like a scotch or whisky site.

GravatarOn March 3, 2005 12:27 PM Mario said:

Kudos on dumping the Flash. Typography strikes me as an interesting experiment that is still in the works. A risky design which I think needs more work (all comments above are 100% correct I think, except about HRs which I think are useful). Previous site looked better but I think this one presents an interesting everything-you-need-to-know appeal.

GravatarOn March 8, 2005 12:35 PM Mike Purvis said:

I really like this design; colours, text, everything. I'm no designer, but lets not criticise just because it's not a pastel-coloured, fixed-width, centered page on a tiled background.

I applaud Dave for trying something different and creating a unique, tasteful portfolio site.

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.

Remember Me?
(you may use HTML tags for style)

Resources Worth Checking

Recent Forum Discussions

About CSS Beauty

CSSBEAUTY™ is a project focused on providing its audience with a database of well designed CSS based websites from around the world.

Its purpose is to showcase designers' work and to act as a portal to the CSS design community.