More LLC

(38) May 24, 2005


GravatarOn May 24, 2005 8:28 AM Tom Woolley said:

Innovative use of navigation but it confused me at first and all the moving content is a bit distacting.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 8:35 AM Skipp said:

I love the simplicity of this site, color scheme is great.

The navigation thru me off at first like in Tom's case, but once you get it, you can appreciate it.

Nice job!

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 8:59 AM neal kernohan said:

it's sweet, very tidy too. the moving content works much better at a low res when you cannot see the neighbouring section(s). at first, i thought it was nice how the bar edges matched the section height so neatly, but then when i got to services i realised this was simply a coincidence, shame, but still a nice touch. depth (top and bottom) work well with a convincing fade on scrolling. colour scheme is simple and professional as is the choice of font and subtle bold in the titles. form is cute. overall a great, simplistic, tidy site and a great choice, i think, to make it a single page.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 9:00 AM leveille said:

I like the site. The navigation is very unique. The body text seems too tiny to me though. Good work.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 9:21 AM Neko said:

I hate when they forgot to set the body background colour. This is another case: lack of attention.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 9:44 AM GaBuBu said:

It looks like jinabolton for me.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 10:20 AM Brian said:

They look NOTHING alike.

Are two designers not allowed to use remotely similar colors anymore? I guess we all better just stop, I think a shade of all 256 colors has been used and if we do anything now it'll just be copying.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 11:53 AM MT said:

Smashing, Ms. Jensen!

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 12:15 PM Peter Flaschner said:

I'm going to be the dissenting voice I guess.

This site is weird. On my browser, which according to firefox has a viewable area of 938px by 842px, I see the first bit and most of the second. The huge white gap in the middle looks like a mistake. Not a good first impression.

The section titles use images instead of something like sIFR, and don't include alt tags describing the content. This renders that info (which is pretty important) lost to a surprisingly large number of viewers.

I understand the desire to keep the site clean and minimalist, but not including work samples seems just odd.

The type is VERY hard to read. I'm viewing the site on my work PC (ugh), with an older viewsonic monitor. My eyes are very good, but it's still pretty tough to make out those tiny little words on my slightly fuzzy screen.

There are lots of nice touches to the site: the fading drop shadows around the text, the send button on the contact form. The single page concept is ok, but the script seems gimmicky to me. I'd want to do something about the huge white space between the topics: either tighten them up so its a 'normal' page, or space them out more so the second topic is off screen at most common resolutions.

My two cents...

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 12:36 PM joel mitchell said:

I have to say I side with Peter; the typography is odd - almost unreadable and the headings being sans-serif block capitals are also, to my mind, tricky to take in.
Without meaning to sound like an old, dry turd, text is there for the reading.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 1:09 PM alpha said:

The animation doesn´t work in Opera 8.0 - other than that quite unique for a CSS site, looks like Flash at first. I would change the background, it doesn´t look good to repeat like that. Great work in any case...!

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 1:39 PM jason said:

Aesthetically the best site I've seen on CSS Beauty. Period.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 4:06 PM Peter G. said:

I think it looks very clean and orderly and though the navigation is strange at first, it is really unique and sets the site apart from a host of others.

I also like the horizontal green bars with their gently darkened edges. My favorite part has to be the white gradient at the bottom which sadly doesn’t work in IE. But, nonetheless, is a great, though subtle, touch. The only negative point I see is the text which I think is much too small.

With this site, less really is more (pun intended).

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 4:43 PM Christopher said:

This I did not know—until now, that is:

This site was designed by Shaun Inman.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 6:55 PM Khalil said:

Great SITE!!

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 7:00 PM c said:

I love this site. A single page but quite inventive. Clean, neat and tidy.

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 8:50 PM jayson said:

How can a design firm not show its work??

GravatarOn May 24, 2005 11:15 PM Shaun Inman said:

How come a baby's smile has no teeth? :) Give it time.

GravatarOn May 25, 2005 12:58 AM Khalil said:

"This I did not know—until now, that is:

This site was designed by Shaun Inman."

It look like the style from the page for first time he posted the flash replacement script

GravatarOn May 25, 2005 9:42 AM Peter G. said:

Text size is much better now.

GravatarOn May 25, 2005 2:35 PM Oded said:


GravatarOn May 25, 2005 2:51 PM Jesse J. Anderson said:

I don't see anything wrong with the background and the text is very readable to me... maybe these are things that have since been fixed.

The navigation threw me off at first but, the thing I don't like is being able to see the second session when the page loads. I agree, it looks like an error.

Maybe if you added a lot more space between sections so that they wouldn't show up like that but you would still get the cool scrolling effect?

Other than that I really like the cleanness and simplicity of this. nice colors too.

GravatarOn May 26, 2005 7:47 PM Ed Buffey said:

Now it seems to look and work identical on FireFox 1.0 and IE 6.0! I guess I missed how it looked when people were complaining.

The only thing I don't like is the color. That color of green gives me a headache... way too bright.

GravatarOn May 26, 2005 7:58 PM tom said:

i like the new way of navigation in a single page. However, it kind of bothers me to see other contents while I have my windows maximized in a huge monitor.

Of course, By looking at the form-styles and buttons, we can easily notice that it is Shaun Inman's work :P Good job.

GravatarOn May 26, 2005 11:25 PM Nat said:

Very interesting take on navigation here. Not 100% convinced that i would ever use a system like this in my own design, but it's good to see someone finally pushing CSS based design out of the rut it dug itself into.

GravatarOn May 27, 2005 11:18 AM Jason said:

Simple. Gorgeous. Nice site.

GravatarOn May 28, 2005 5:48 AM sam said:

Its quite nice - nothing more. I am a little confused - if you go to you see truly interesting and beautiful design, whereas standards compliant work is often vastly duller but with a clique of designers who have made a name for themselves; there seems to be an air of slightly uncomfortable sycophancy displayed by their fanbase. Compared with a world of brilliant flash work, this navigation is mildly interesting/mildly interactive, and compared with a world of lovely typography, this is quite bad.

GravatarOn May 29, 2005 12:53 AM Marc said:

Navigation turned me off a bit.

GravatarOn May 29, 2005 2:48 AM josh said:


Please somebody help me out to find this site.

I saw this site, sometime between april05-may05. I don't know if I've seen it in cssbeaty, stylegala, or cssvault. But it was a black color bg site and whatz interesting was:showing and hiding div's. smooth movement of div's in order of menu click.

pls help me

GravatarOn May 29, 2005 2:49 AM josh said:


Please somebody help me out to find this site.

I saw this site, sometime between april05-may05. I don't know if I've seen it in cssbeaty, stylegala, or cssvault. But it was a black color bg site and whatz interesting was:showing and hiding div's. smooth movement of div's in order of menu click.

pls help me

GravatarOn May 29, 2005 2:51 PM Anthony Yeung said:

A very innovative use of displaying pages, however, I doubt that it degrades gracefully into older broswers.

GravatarOn May 30, 2005 8:02 AM David said:

Who cares about older browsers? I sure as hell dont. If youre using something more than 3 years old that is your problem and you shouldnt be allowed to surf the web anyways. If we keep catering to these people who refuse to get new browsers we're only hurting ourselves and limiting our design.

GravatarOn May 30, 2005 6:56 PM Anthony Yeung said:

True, but those who still use old browsers still make a large percentage of the viewing audience, so it's important to get a good compatible website.

GravatarOn May 30, 2005 11:01 PM David said:

Those who use old browsers do not make up a large % of the viewing audience. Im not sure of exact numbers and the w3c's numbers are wrong but it's about 3%. Im not going to cater to those people. Of course I want my pages to look decent and in logical order when style sheets are turned off but 3% is not enough for me to spend extra countless hours making sure a site works for them.
Quit worrying about ie5 for mac and pc and youre work and life willbe much easier.

GravatarOn June 1, 2005 10:38 AM tricia said:

Love the green/grey colour scheme and simple layout.

Some good graphical ideas going on with the various sized Os - O0o.

The whole navigation thing falls down for me tho. Sorry. This is not how the web page was meant to be used IMVHO.

Also, the whole thing is very, very light on content and proof of capabilities (no portfolio!).

Contact form is fuggly.

Innovative though.


GravatarOn June 2, 2005 11:54 AM Kev Charlton said:

Very good use of the javascript trick on the squidfingers site!

GravatarOn June 9, 2005 12:45 PM Tom Wallace said:

What do you define as "older browsers"? I tested the site in IE 5.0 Win and IE 5.2 Mac and it looks and functions fine (with the obvious exception of the .png image on the bottom, but that doesn't work in any IE). Hardly anyone caters to NN4 anymore and I don't see the point of doing so.

I like the site a lot. The green is bold and different. The scrolling navigation seems kind of silly to me (especially on higher resolution monitors), but doesn't bother me much. I really like the gradient background image that makes the content fade in when you scroll. Shame that IE can't handle it.

GravatarOn November 22, 2005 5:14 AM Paul Masson said:

Beautifull site..very simple yet there any one that could tell me more about the technique used to design this site..i can tell there is a bit of js going on but cant put my finger on where..anywhere so far is great site i've ever crossed here! well done Shawn

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.