Comments
On October 3, 2006 10:59 AM Vebo said:Really nice. Shows how less is more.
On October 3, 2006 1:12 PM Dominik Lenk said:Uh, first they rip of cssbeauty.com... Now I look at the second new site in the gallery and it looks remarkably similar to coudal.com.
What is wrong with people? (Or is it just me?)- On October 3, 2006 1:17 PM Dominik Lenk said:
I another look, and I guess it is just me... Sorry about that. However, the site is a little to simple for me. It just doesn't feel as if the grid is working. On the other hand I just love the gallery pages... The black works really well.
On October 3, 2006 6:29 PM Jared said:No I think you were right the first time Dominik!
On October 3, 2006 7:47 PM Paul said:No, I'm pretty sure it's just you.
On October 3, 2006 9:20 PM Edward said:Cover looks pretty, albeit kinda boring beyond the initial glance (gallery space takes way too much real estate space to make up for the lack of visual enticements elsewhere). The inside article pages look too much of 1998 for me. I don't understand that yellow band across the top. It's a space that should hook you in, but instead, I end up being repulsed. And the uneven and sometimes way too large font makes me want to lean back, like it was trying to reach out and gouge my eyes. I hope they're still working on this.
On October 4, 2006 10:34 AM Seth Aldridge said:I think the site uses design sparingly which is good, but they could use a little more. My only negative with the site is it can be a little confusing to the eye.
I like design that makes it easy for the user to understand. This design is very clean, but I've looked at the site for about five minutes and haven't read anything yet...not a good thing for a news website.
Thanks,
Seth
On October 4, 2006 3:56 PM David M. said:I've come across this site before and enjoyed it. Maybe I'm still getting used to the new layout, but I think some of the quirky charms of the old site have been wiped off. As a designer, I appreciate the cleanness that they’ve done a good job of, but as a whole this seems more sterile. I also find it to be more visually confusing and don’t know where things are or why they are there or why I should want to read them.
On October 6, 2006 1:59 PM Dave Rau said:The old site was amazing and I can see where some improvements were had with this one. Much stronger grid elements make it feel tighter, but I do miss some of the visual cues the former design had.
And the gallery is raaaaad! hah
On October 15, 2006 3:20 PM Duk said:Normal, classic web
On October 29, 2006 11:29 PM blinking8s said:I like the design, it's east to read. But navigation is entirely too hard for a news site. It looks good, but the layout is cluttered with story information. They could cut some stuff out and replace it with better organization.
On February 26, 2008 11:12 AM Design Guru said:Very clean and clear design. Why not?
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.