Comments
On March 16, 2005 8:51 AM Mülli said:Don't like it at all. Navigation look poor, colors are boring and the sketches in the upper right corner don't really fit in the layout concept.
On March 16, 2005 9:07 AM Mario said:I disagree. I think the design is quite nice and gives it a great feel that is appropriate to its historical purpose. I can't comment on colors much since I'm color blind (what kind of designer doesn;t see colors???). The content is confusing though, far too intellectual an unfriendly to the uneducated such as myself.
On March 16, 2005 9:24 AM Colly said:Thanks for featuring the site. And thanks to "Mario" for quickly countering "Mulli's" comments. The colours are based directly on the Gillies archive folders - original material has influenced the palette, and everything is there for a reason.
Mario, it's a shame you found the navigation confusing. We did a lot of usability testing on this, and the consensus was that we'd found a good way of making sense of what I agree is an overwhelming subject.
Problem with this site is that we had to find a way of reflecting three major facets of the project into one interface - biosciences, WW1 surgery and ephemera, and textile sculpture - and yes, the subject matter is challenging. Dig around a bit more, I think you'll find it as interesting as many users have.
- On March 16, 2005 9:52 AM Mülli said:
@Colly
I didn't want to depreciate your efforts for this site. The reason i only rated the site _layout_ is the fact, that my english is quite poor and the content seems to aquire good english comprehension. So the layout factor is the only possiblity for me to vote for. And i only said that the design is not my taste. that's all :) by the way, this site is according to its title a design showcase, so contents should not influence the poster's impression...
- On March 16, 2005 10:13 AM Colly said:
No worries, Mulli. Even an Englishman struggles to understand a lot of the terminology on the Project Facade website! It being an art/science site, there is a lot of difficult text, but there is a Glossary in the About section.
I'd love the time to refine the menu and graphics, but time was against me. Big thanks for the feedback...
On March 16, 2005 1:47 PM Dave said:Speaking of detailed content Colly, I had a difficult time trying to find out exactly what it was this site was about.
I got the general idea but couldn't shake the feeling that I just didn't grasp it.
Love the design/look and feel though. Good Job!
- On March 16, 2005 2:25 PM Mario said:
To clarity, I wasn't commenting on navigation. I think navigation is fine. I was commenting on the language used, which as has been pointed out is not a design matter. So in terms of all things design, great job.
- On March 16, 2005 2:38 PM Colly said:
Imagine how I felt when first getting to grips with the project! One things for sure, I've learned a lot whilst building it.
On March 16, 2005 5:35 PM Marco said:Very nice and different. I like it a lot! Definitely well done.
On March 16, 2005 6:44 PM clint said:man.. looks like a john zorn playground..
On March 17, 2005 11:37 PM Preston said:This is an excellent site...the navigation is clever and the text rendering and graphics are very intuitive and well-made. The only problem i have (in Firefox) is the top links above the masthead. Those become very annoying. And what's with the search box that has no styling and distracts from the flow of the page?
On March 18, 2005 10:18 AM Alex said:Different smifferent. This guy checked out Template Monster, to be sure. I'm not discounting his Photoshop skills, but who can't make a 'paper' website. Been there, done...
- On March 18, 2005 1:35 PM Colly said:
I checked out what? "Template Monster"? Never heard of it. I checked out the source images and material provided by the client, that's for sure, but I think you'll find I'm perfectly capable of coming up with my own ideas.
As for making a "paper website", if it fits the job, that'll be the approach.
Sure are some sour folks commenting on this site...
On March 19, 2005 8:40 AM Tobie Langel said:Nice job!
The iCal icon should - IMO - link to a published iCal calendar one could stream in iCal. If not, I would suggest using another icon.
Don't you think?
Best regards,
Tobie
On April 13, 2005 3:37 AM Lisa said:I loved it. Although it wasn't immediately clear what the site was about, the beautiful interface drew me in and I was intrigued enough to keep reading. Your clients must be delighted.
Lisa
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.