3000k

3000k

(17) Jun 29, 2006

Comments

GravatarOn June 29, 2006 12:36 PM Chris Griffin said:

The design is clean and it works but I guess I'm getting sick of the overused cliche of plants representing growth. You would think a design shop would be a little more original.

Here's what I'm talking about:

Top Ten Stock Photography Cliches (Check out cliche #5)

GravatarOn June 29, 2006 12:47 PM Eric said:

Hi, Chris.

Yes, thanks, we've learned how much this metaphor is being used. It still works, however, and fits for where we're at.

Don't worry, we get the itch to redo our site now and then. Something fresher next time. :)

-Eric

GravatarOn June 29, 2006 1:34 PM Emma said:

Chris, I was going to say the same thing. And yes, it works, but how many of those images do you have to use on one site? Metaphor overkill if you ask me.

Still, nice layout, good organization and navigation.

GravatarOn June 29, 2006 1:40 PM Mark said:

I like it but I think the header is too large and the content resembles that of the default Wordpress theme. Overall I like it a bunch. Great work!

GravatarOn June 29, 2006 6:51 PM Dawson Ricardo said:

very good. congratulations!

GravatarOn June 30, 2006 4:52 AM Nathan said:

I like it, but I agree with Chris about the cliche and Emma on the metaphor overkill.

I personally think the header is a little oversize, while it may not detract from the site I do think it overpowers the content, by the time the header loads I find myself heading for the next page because the content (although possibly interesting) looks so boring.

IMHO, the content typography could do with a lift and the header could be reduced by at least a third and the design could be much more effective.

2 thumbs up for the effort, I like it.

Cheers!

GravatarOn June 30, 2006 8:45 PM Stephen M. Walker II said:

Although there were some valid points made above about the use of plants (I happen to like the apple shot, despite the fact that I’m allergic to them), I think more criticism should be focused on the design itself.

While the content and layout is quite nice (and nothing too unique as mentioned above), there are small design flaws that seem more amateurish than anything else does. The most noticeable was the JPEG compression (even on my CRT) and rough rounded corners; next in line (within seconds of viewing the page) was the use of gradients and the bottom drop shadow – they seem forced, as if the designer had not really used them much before. Lastly, and a bit more subtle than the rest, the header/banner image extends a few pixels more to the left than the #main div does. It is a solid design concept and the navigation is quite easy to use, but the aspects of the site that I mention make me question how this could be something of note.

Nathan mentioned the large banner detracting from the effectiveness, but it just seems like a more print-centric designer came up with the concept and it is almost refreshing to see a large banner make it off the drafting board. However, a large banner is usually effective in either relaying a message or allowing the user to take an action – in this situation it doesn’t do either, in fact, the secondary text is often hard to read or uninspiring (i.e. “Pay Us, Sit Back & Succeed” – not to many customers want to be greeted with “Pay Us”).

Featured sites should be the pinnacle of the design community’s abilities, not the middle ground. I realize this is not the most positive review either, and so to the team at 3000k, I would just like to say that I offer all of this as constructive criticism because if I was in your shoes, I hope people would be honest with me as well.

GravatarOn July 1, 2006 7:33 AM Eric Tapley said:

Hi, everyone.

Great comments and feedback. We're continuing to check the responses here and are taking them in - whether we make changes in the short-term or not is uncertain (because we're busy with client projects), but we *are* listening.

Thanks,

-Eric

GravatarOn July 1, 2006 7:33 AM Eric Tapley said:

Hi, everyone.

Great comments and feedback. We're continuing to check the responses here and are taking them in - whether we make changes in the short-term or not is uncertain (because we're busy with client projects), but we *are* listening.

Thanks,

-Eric

GravatarOn July 3, 2006 6:36 AM Ash said:

I think the text in the big header images is a bit ropey.

Eg. Work: Its what we do

Stuff like that just seems a bit naff to me. Could be "We like apples" or "look, heres some mud" for all it matters when compared to the other stuff.

Nice enough design though.

GravatarOn July 3, 2006 2:36 PM Steve said:

The apple image used on the "Our Work" page is also used by slashfood (http://www.slashfood.com/). Don't know if you care about that or not.

GravatarOn July 5, 2006 2:31 AM Kyle said:

I thought this entry was fabulous. I envied that it's still outside of my reach of talent. I don't agree with some of the others that the header was too large, but that's just my honest opinion. I do agree that some cliches are just WAY over used. Almost to the point that it becomes the tell all sign of whether a site is representing a truly trustworthy company or a hack. The number one thing that bothered me about the site is that I had NO clue what the site was about. As a matter of fact, i thought it was about plants until I started reading the conversation about cliches being abused. I even went and read the about page and all I read was blah blah. Sorry, not trying to poke fun, but some copy writing is IMHO seriously lacking. NO, i can't do better....well maybe a little. But, i'm just giving honest feedback. I do remember the hand holding the plant, though.

GravatarOn July 5, 2006 5:06 AM Ash said:

Thats a very fair comment if you ask me. One I would definately take notice of.

GravatarOn July 5, 2006 10:27 PM Eric Tapley said:

Hey, Kyle.

I'm curious why you didn't check out our services page to see what we're all about. On the homepage we start off by saying we do extraordinary things with the web and are an interaction agency, and we back that up with details on the services pages, items in the portfolio, etc. We (or I) thought this would be enough to convey us as a web dev. company.

I'm not asking to imply you're wrong and should have looked around to see what we do. I'm trying to understand why you're right so we can improve the site.

- Did you not read the text but just skim, and thus not see the message?
- Were the graphics overpowering the textual message?
- Was a clarifying statement like "wicked cool website design" needed to position the site right?
- Was it something else entirely?

Thanks!

-Eric

GravatarOn July 9, 2006 7:27 PM Maz said:

I can't say that this one does much for me at all. From a design perspective, as others have mentioned, it's just way too cliched, which is a shame, as it does have some good qualities about it.

Nice font use throughout, easy to read. I have no idea what is going on with the light smudge at the bottom however, and I have even less idea what an "interaction agency" is supposed to be. That's a new one on me!

GravatarOn October 15, 2006 3:29 PM Duk said:

Very big logo but good

GravatarOn October 20, 2006 12:47 PM Kyle said:

Sorry for not responding to your question sooner. I just revisited your site again to collect my thoughts. To answer your question about whether I read the copy or followed the links such as the services link, no I didn't. Part of my evaluation of the site was to examine what I was moved to do. Once again, I thought and still think the site looks VERY nice. However, if I didn't have previous knowledge of the site, I wouldn't have know that it was a consulting site. The things I DID associate to the site was 1) Planting (plants) or something to do with plants. Why because the plant was exclamated with color while the rest of the picture was black and white. 2) I associated a mental / social care site. The dark colors made me think depression, the plant made me think children. Where the plant was green and growing against the black and white background, it looked like a site promoting the care of abused children or something. Hence, the phrase "Grow: make something worth seeing" and "develop" as in child development.

So, do I think that everyone will make the same associations that I have made, "NO". What would have made a big difference to me is if there was a big phrase in the picture that contrasted well against the background such as you suggested..."Wicked Cool Website DESIGN!" or something to position the readers associations basis as soon as possible. I might also trying to add some sort of image or icon that solidifies that as well.

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.