Comments
On June 17, 2005 10:47 AM Matthew Pennell said:Unimpressed - don't really think much of that at all. Was it Todd Dominey again? Nowhere near the standard of last year's; it looks like it's missing a background image, unfinished somehow.
On June 17, 2005 11:26 AM Steven Tew said:I have to agree. Last years was damn near perfect!. Crisp and enviable. This years is a bit bluergh.
On June 17, 2005 1:58 PM Anatoly Papirovsky said:I think what you fail to realize is that from reader's point of view this version is much more perfect than the previous version. The previous version was a) damn hard to read, b) damn hard to concentrate on, and c) too contrasting resulting in problems with concentrating on content. This version may not be as shiny and stuff, but in terms of usability it is a huge improvement. Unlike with previous version I actually went through the site, read the articles etc. and enjoyed it.
On June 17, 2005 5:12 PM Emma said:I don't have a problem with the adjustments made to this one, but I did llike the previous version better. It all boils down to personal preference however. Still, it is a nice, clean site that is highly intuitive and attractive.
My main issue with this site, is the "splash" page. In regards to usability, splash pages are a contradiction in that they delay the user from instant access to information they are seeking. it is bad practice and an inconvenience. I understand it's use on this site, but it is not needed and should have been planned to avoid such a page.
Cheers.
On June 17, 2005 9:09 PM Preston said:I agree with Emma. Splash pages just divert the user from the necessary information that the user wants. The splash page is well done as for image and text rendering but splash pages are annoying and can aggravate the user, something the designer certainly does not want.
As for the actual home page, the designer should not use such a small text size for the text underneath "News Headlines." Usability is important especially for sites like these.
Very nice-looking site, though.
On June 18, 2005 2:17 PM sbluo said:Very nice-looking site!!
On June 18, 2005 6:34 PM miles said:I like the design and I agree that it's more scannable/readable than 2004's site but it has lost a little... I don't know what the right word is, not flair or polish, it's an intangible thing but I prefer 2004's design. This is still an excellent site though.
My only comment is that I find it annoying that you have to choose between teams and view content specifically directed at each team, it also necessitates the splash page. I suppose content isn't really the scope of CSS Beauty, and it has always been split like that, but it does effect the design.
On June 20, 2005 12:09 AM Andrew said:Clean...probably suits the desired market well.
Could use more contrast,
very slow to load...perhaps it's the server.I'd be interested to know wether this was produced on the mac or Windows. Due to differences in anti aliasing of text, the two OS's produce very different results (much easier to read on mac)
On June 29, 2005 10:07 AM Max Khokhlov said:I absolutely love the site. It's very subtle and yet very stylish IMO. Nice colors and layout.
The only thing that bothers me — accessibility-wise — is the usage of images for navigation. Of course, these images have alt-tags, but there're nice image replacement techniques out there that are much better in this aspect.
Other than that — lovely!
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.