(29) Sep 23, 2005


GravatarOn September 23, 2005 8:16 AM neal kernohan said:

Yeah, I liked this site the first time I saw it and I still like it. It's simple and clear. The text is massive though, one of the only sites I've been to in a long time where I felt I had to downsize the text! The testimonials are funny, there was only one site that came up that didn't have an already 'visited' link.

GravatarOn September 23, 2005 9:26 AM Kev said:

Visually excellent. The logo device is fantastic and the IA is spot on.

I do have a few quibbles though. I was expecting much more feedback on the hover state of the side menu, the text colour change is very subtle (too subtle?) and I was surprised that I was made to roll over the text rather than just the sectioned off box.

And for a company I'd expect more than a mailto link for the contact page. A form I think wouldn't go amiss.

Great work all round but just a bit disappointing in those two minor areas.

GravatarOn September 23, 2005 10:18 AM Jason said:

I love the clarity and simplicity of the site. The large font size works well, and I love the logo. I do agree with Kev's side menu thoughts.

GravatarOn September 23, 2005 12:55 PM Ed said:

And what's with the navigation falling below the fold on 800x600? That's a major faux pas.

GravatarOn September 23, 2005 2:06 PM Khalil Waldropt said:

Nice, yeah the text can be a little big I like it that green is just so smooth with the white thumbs up

GravatarOn September 23, 2005 3:38 PM kevadamson said:

Nice Logo.
Intelligent typog. and composition.
Structure-wise - sound - as you would expect.
I think the fact that I, too, felt I needed to downsize the text a couple of times for it to 'sit nicely' (for me) speaks volumes that accessibilty is high up on clear:left's priorities and selling points.
Other than that, the design doesn't overly 'please' me, but nor does it in anyway 'offend' me - maybe that kind of reaction is what was set out to be achieved, or maybe it's just me wanting to see some 'controversial-edgy-we don't give a ****' style design to spruce up my boring Friday night in! (probably the latter) ...

GravatarOn September 24, 2005 1:02 AM Andrew said:

i love it...I just wish there was a portfolio page

GravatarOn September 24, 2005 5:16 AM fabien. said:

I think it is great, simple & clear, using em instead of pixel, making this layout more flexible.
Type is big, but very nice I think. That changes from all other pixel-fonts sites.

GravatarOn September 24, 2005 1:52 PM Ken said:

Well it's clean and clear and I like the logo. But I'm just not too mad about the design. Far too bland and back-to-basics. Uneccessarily so.

GravatarOn September 24, 2005 10:39 PM clint said:

I like it, I'm a fan of big type, and I like the use of whitespace.

I would probably do a bit more (or less) with the header border as Its just a bit dead to me up there.

but once I get down to critiquing things at this level I think that its a good strong site, and really just a matter of design preferences.

GravatarOn September 25, 2005 1:25 PM Andrew Christensen said:

Now, I mean no offense by this, but personally, I do not think that this web site should be showcased here. This is not just me being an a*hole, I just think that if a site is going to be showcased on such a popular CSS showcasing site that it should have a little more to it than just a nice logo and some text. I mean, sure, I love Whitespace just as much as the next guy, but when is TOO much whitespace just a waste? This web site just does not appeal to me, and it is obvious that they have the skill to produce something better than that, but being simple and minimalistic is always nice. I just think they went a bit too overboard with making it empty.

Just my 2 cents. Love the colors though, and the logo, like everyone else said, is quite stylish and clean.

GravatarOn September 25, 2005 7:00 PM Kipp Brady said:

I like the large text in this context. If it had been any smaller line lengths would have become an issue.

GravatarOn September 25, 2005 7:36 PM Yoko said:

Who tipped off clear:left about the grammatical errors (i.e., "clear:left are")? Oh, how that irked me. Thanks for fixing them :)

GravatarOn September 26, 2005 9:54 AM da dawg said:

it's a little too 37signals-ish for my taste.

but the logo is top drawer. :)

GravatarOn September 26, 2005 10:41 AM said:

Nice like the pixel art feeling of the logo and the transparent look.

GravatarOn September 26, 2005 1:28 PM Tim said:

Well... another site that you love or hate.

I think it goes to the objective of his creation.

But, if they are so good as they say, i think they must do something more creative - the logo isn't everything in a site!
Ok ok, i'm not expecting something like monkeys flying, or big pink lights flashing :-D


GravatarOn September 27, 2005 6:13 AM bp said:

i kind of like it - logo is very nice, but one thing that constantly surprises me is that companies seem to undersell themselves and the whole'standards-compliant' design by having sites that are essentially text-only.

people like images and most clients want/need images on their page whether or not thy are absolutely necessary.

most of the comments above seem to refer to the logo being nice, but as far as i can tell, it's the only image on the site.

i think portfolios are highly valuable, especially when pitching as a compliant, standards-based, accessible type of company.

GravatarOn September 28, 2005 7:58 AM ethan said:

I think it looks boring and unimaginative. It's one thing to make something simple, but you can still have some excitement. There is nothing special to see here. If this is really the best you can find I'm quite disappointed.

GravatarOn September 28, 2005 11:15 AM said:

Visually appealling, decent copy, but....

Where is a sample of their work? a portfolio? If I were a potential buyer I'd want to see proof.

And am I the only one getting the following message when using IE?

"Precondition Failed
The precondition on the request for the URL / evaluated to false."

Kindof goes against thier claims of multi-browser support. Unless its just me. I'm seeing this more and more on designers sites. works fine in FF

GravatarOn September 28, 2005 11:56 AM Peter said:

dull, ininspiring and lacks examples of work.

GravatarOn September 28, 2005 12:22 PM evan said:

Well, I like it. After going through the site, it is rather simple and clean; which really shows off the UI and accessibility skills that they are pushing.

As far as actual web design though, not having a portfolio can really be detremental. And i'm worried that the accessibility copy doesn't sell the client enough on why they need it.

The layout and simplicity is quite nice though. I'd probably get the navigation up a few pixels for safety, but other than that - good job.

GravatarOn September 28, 2005 12:25 PM Jordan said:

Ugly. HUGE body/titling copy is blatently trying to do the fashionable 'big text' thing, but missing the point entirely. And it just looks awful. It looks constructed rather than designed, exactly the kind of look that gives CSS a bad name in the design industry.

And that's just the subjective stuff.

Nav below the fold? And for screenreaders (used by the people the site's owners claim to be catering for explicitly) they've got about 260 words before they get to a navigation -- most of them spurious.

No portfolio? No client list? Lots of talk about 'experience' but no actual examples of what they've done/can do for clients?

All testimonials from random web 'experts' rather than actual clients of members of professional bodies such as the RNIB, or even WASP.

Seems to me like it's trying it's very best to be 37Signals, but without all the things that make 37Signals great.

GravatarOn September 29, 2005 4:39 AM Pierce said:

To those criticizing the lack of portfolio, the company is brand new. While the individuals involved are experienced webdesigners, the company hasn't been in existence long enough for examples of its work to be shown.

Even if they decided never to show a portfolio, it's entirely their business. Criticizing the site for missing a section that you think should be there is not valid. Criticize the design, not the content.

GravatarOn September 29, 2005 11:02 AM Peter said:

I did criticize the design; it's dull.

Why should usabilility/accessibilty be ugly, dull and use oversized fonts? For a web 'supergroup' there's little on display to show it.

That said, I do like the logo.

GravatarOn September 29, 2005 7:29 PM Yoko said:

This is clear:left's only client, as far as I can tell:

GravatarOn September 29, 2005 9:08 PM minimal design said:

looks like it was designed by 37 signals :) Which means it's clean, clear, but I personally don't really enjoy looking at it.

GravatarOn October 1, 2005 2:05 PM Maleika E. Attawel said:

I like the approach taken. The logo in particular is very effective and powerful. The IA seems more than logical to me as well. Though I'd say in this case that linguistics and popularity (the creative heads behind it) have more significance to the overall impression than the design itself. If that is good or bad, I wouldn't know. I have seen some designs by them and like the approach they're taken. My favourite being this one:

GravatarOn October 10, 2005 8:57 AM _iconoclast said:

As ever, the web 'design' industry shows us that there is no shortage of emperors without clothes.

Look at 'em queing up! "Hey! I'm a fekin Standards and Accessibility guru!".

Although eminently accessible and w3c compliant, the whole clear:left (tm) package is dull, dull, dull, bloody green and as dull as ditchwater.

Clearly more effort went into the nice logo than the actual site or sales proposition.

Supergroup? Pah!

I teach college students that can do better than this lot in terms of actual 'design' and originality.

It's just that they aren't 'names' and don't happen to speak at conferences and 'workshops'.

Clique anyone?

GravatarOn January 6, 2006 10:19 AM James said:

got to agree with iconoclast, this design does absolutely nothing to inspire me. The only thing that's perhaps worthy of note is that the copy is pretty well written on the whole.

The design and layout really doesn't work out and the menu in a browser at 800x600 only shows two of the buttons.

Large text can look good, but I'd suggest H1's tend to look nasty in fonts like Trebuchet at large sizes.

Still, if this is what a web super consultancy can do I hold out hopes one day very soon of large contracts dropping through my letterbox offering all sorts of buzzword related consultancy work.

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.