Jeff Croft

jeff croft

(26) Posted by Alex Giron on Feb 17, 2008


GravatarOn February 18, 2008 9:20 PM Henry Peters said:

Good looking site, but your vertical logo moves to the center top of the page on my computer:

Windows XP, IE-6 with 1024x768 resolution.

GravatarOn February 18, 2008 11:11 PM Brad Haynes said:

Great looking site. Warm and inviting. Oh, and Henry with the IE6, he states quite often that he isn't doing cross-browser compatibility, which leaves me wondering why the site made it on cssbeauty...

GravatarOn February 19, 2008 1:52 PM sam s said:

I liked the previous design more than this one.

The nav items are hard to read, in fact the color used mean that many headers are unclear

GravatarOn February 19, 2008 2:18 PM Robert said:

This site has alignment issues along with contrast issues. In its current state, it should not be posted on this site.

GravatarOn February 19, 2008 4:51 PM Kari Pätilä said:

The design handles the brown quite well without being too shitty. On the other hand, crap is precisely what comes to mind when readability is concerned. I don't have any visual impairments as of now, but there's a fair chance I'll develop some if I keep reading sites like this one.

GravatarOn February 19, 2008 6:03 PM Sean said:

Yes, poor use of contrast. I can't see the brown text on brown background. Really, why is this site on here? Is it because of he's the real Jeff Croft?

GravatarOn February 20, 2008 7:38 AM Ash said:

I really have no idea why this site is here. Hard to see the nav, just a blog

GravatarOn February 20, 2008 9:56 AM Levi Figueira said:

Absolutely LOVE this new design!
Works good on FF3, but works GREAT on Safari!! And who cares about IE?? It's not his fault that it doesn't support CSS3!

He clearly states that he was designing it with Safari in mind, but was "kind" enough to make it look pretty good on FF3.

The low contrast text is a key design element: is supposed to de-emphasize areas and text that is not supposed to be look at... unless you want to!

Again, fabulous design! Keep it up, Jeff!

GravatarOn February 20, 2008 9:59 AM Andy Budd said:

The contrast is poor so wouldn't win any accessibility awards. However this is not The colour and typography is very pretty, so I'm not sure what people's problem is with it being featured on the site. How about a bit of perspective guys.

GravatarOn February 20, 2008 2:16 PM Jem said:

It's incredibly boring - not the kind of quality I would normally expect to see on CSS Beauty - and the excuse about low contrast is exactly that: an excuse. You can de-emphasise text and other elements without crippling your visitor's eyesight in the process.

GravatarOn February 20, 2008 2:25 PM Brandon said:

Andy makes a good point. In addition, take a look behind the scenes and view the CSS. It's very well-thought out and incredibly forward-thinking (not only for the fact that the site uses CSS3). Regardless of whether it's a blog or not, we can all still learn from the design, markup, etc. of others.

GravatarOn February 20, 2008 5:07 PM Matatatt said:

I don't believe you read this website and are using ie6 on xp. Admit it, you test in ie6 on xp, but there is no way your using it as your default web browser to surf.

It would be impossible to please everyone and some designers don't have the time to serve up code differently based on browser versions. Another thing to keep in mind: Audience. Croft's audience, I'd be willing to bet, doesn't use ie6. And if they do, he's doing something wrong.

That has always cracked me up about web standards people. They test in an obscure browser and instantly deem the site worthless if it doesn't render correctly.

I too have adapted the "forget about ie6" logic when it comes to design. I mean of course i don't totally forget about them, but if we continue to cater to these atrocious old discontinued web browser nobody will ever upgrade and we are stunting out own learning growth by ignoring technologies that don't work in ie6(for example). I realize not everyone has the ability to upgrade due to network admins or whatever. But by not catering to these outdated browsers we are actually putting pressure on the admins to get off their lazy butts and update machines.

Just my 2 cents.

GravatarOn February 21, 2008 3:17 AM Colin said:

@Matatatt: Spoken like a true novice. 25% ~ 35% average browser usage for IE 6 is far from obscure.

A company I used to work for had an article in the San Antonio newspaper talking about a recent client. The homepage had an IE 6 bug that was purely cosmetic. The paper took a screenshot from IE 6... Better to cover your tracks, even if you wish to shun a good quarter of your site's potential audience.

You have to stop blaming the user for browsing with an inferior browser. Especially if your a professional.

GravatarOn February 21, 2008 5:07 AM Jeff Croft said:

Hey guys -- thanks for all the highly constructive comments!

First things first: I launched the site without testing it in IE because only 8% of my visitors use IE (proof is here). For 8% of visitors, on my personal site that I run for me and only me, it just wasn't a priority. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's the way it is. I did go clean it up a bit in IE7 tonight, though. My apologies to the 1% that are viewing in IE6 -- it's not that I couldn't support you, it's that I just don't care.

As for the low-contrast text. I understand some people are having trouble reading it, and I am considering changing it. I knew I was pushing the limits of legibility when I chose those colors -- and for me, pushing the limits (of what CSS can do, of what a CMS can do, of what we can do typographically, etc.) is exactly what my personal site is all about.

I do client work all day, every day. I spend plenty of time browser testing in shitty browsers, making things hyper-accessible, and stopping to the lowest common denominator when it comes to what kind of visitors are browsing those sites. When I come home and play on my personal site, sometime I just want to have a little fun. Is that really so offensive?

Relax a bit, guys. Let your hair down. It's a personal website. The content is virtually meaningless in the grand scheme of things. ho really cares if you can't read a few lines of it? It's fun, and it's pretty.

Like Andy said -- a bit of perspective is needed here.

GravatarOn February 21, 2008 1:00 PM Matatatt said:

Colin, maybe you didn't read my post. Thanks for your IE stats, but as you should know, since your a pro, those stats vary immensely based on user audience. Do you really thing the San Antonio Newspaper vs. some Web Design Blog is a good comparison?

I'm just a novice, what do I know.

GravatarOn February 21, 2008 4:40 PM Henry said:

Jeff, I understand that you dont care about IE6 users. However, then perhaps CSS Beauty should not showcase a site that does not work on this browser. A truly well designed CSS site works on the most popular computer setups. CSS Beauty should not be a place for nonfunctioning sites.

GravatarOn February 21, 2008 5:39 PM Jeff Croft said:


First all, I couldn't really care less whether CSS Beauty showcases my site or not. It's nice that they did, but I don't design sites for this kind of attention, and I never asked for it.

Second, I thought CSS Beauty was about showcasing beautiful sites that were designed using CSS. If it's actually about showcasing sites that are especially accessible and compatible with tons of browser setups, then that was lost on me.

Third, if you can explain to me how a browser that get 1% of traffic to my site should be a priority, I'll buy you 500 beers. Netscape 4 get about the same amount of traffic to my site as IE6. Should I also be designing for Netscape 4? Do YOU design for Netscape 4?

GravatarOn February 22, 2008 10:37 AM Alex Giron said:

Guys relax a bit... Andy & Jeff said it right.

The site is listed here because I like the design and it's CSS Based.

He's also done some really interesting things in safari which I hadn't seen before.

There's a lot that can be learned from the things he's doing on his site.

Regarding IE6, I could care less if works on it or not... I saw beyond that. The new stuff.

GravatarOn February 22, 2008 12:01 PM Devon said:

I don't see why this is featured here or why he thought his new design was public-worthy. First of all, the nav; it's just completely off -- can't read it and the hovers are bad, the rounded corners are all chunky; that's intro to photoshop that wasn't pulled off in this site, the same goes for "Continue Reading" buttons. The entire "design" (term used loosely) looks unbalanced, the color is nice I guess, not very exciting though it screams "fall"..

This definitely needs to be re-thought...

GravatarOn February 22, 2008 12:40 PM Devon said:

Just want to note something else, I read the post about the design, I got half way through and my eyes are watering and I see spots from trying to read that on that background, I am not exaggerating, it REALLY is hard on the eyes to read on that color background... I mean that with constructive criticism, please do your audience a favor and lighten that up or change the contrast of this design.

GravatarOn February 23, 2008 4:51 AM Kari Pätilä said:

Regardless of your opinion on the design, you'll have to admit that this has provoked an actual discussion - something that has become quite a rarity here.

Even though I don't particularly like the contrast issues, I'd still be pretty damn happy if I was able to design a site explicitly for Safari.

Furthermore, when I choose to criticize, I do so with my full, actual name. That way it at least seems like I've put at least some thought into the comment I'm posting.

GravatarOn February 23, 2008 11:27 AM Brad Haynes said:

Jeff, I don't think anyone is questioning your design skills. I think your new site is pretty freakin' ridiculous and I had a case of design envy when I first checked it out. I wouldn't change the contrast in the typography either. I'm all about subtleties in design. Like you said, it's just for fun.

I think the bottom line is that you DO need to develop for Netscape 4. It's coming back pretty strong. Before long, there won't be many arguments against it as IE is falling off and Netscape is picking up its fan base. We're talking 50% of web users!! How can you NOT design for 50%?

Sorry for starting the negativity :(

GravatarOn February 23, 2008 12:29 PM Andrew Christensen said:

Design personally is a bit bland and boring. Nothing stands out and it's a bit of an eye-sore. Horribly jagged edges on the nav rollovers, the overuse of simplicity (your site is text and a logo). I think some of the A-listers are just given too much credit.

Site is boring and your very average run of the mill design. Clean, but next please.

GravatarOn February 24, 2008 12:49 AM Akhil said:

I saw some comments about the rounded corners edges. If you have some time, check the site in Safari and read his post about redesign. It not a bad photoshop usage, its advanced css usuage. Jeff, I appreciate you for your efforts. The box-shadow and text-shadow looks nice :)

GravatarOn February 27, 2008 12:20 AM Brandon said:

"the hovers are bad, the rounded corners are all chunky; that's intro to photoshop that wasn't pulled off in this site"

Once again, look under the hood (e.g. view the CSS!) and you'll notice he didn't use images at all for the hovers. Regardless of whether it works in "said browser" he is doing things with CSS that very few others are. Exactly as Alex said, there are some interesting things done in Safari (which I hadn't see either). Instead of complaining about why Jeff's site was featured, spend some time looking behind the scenes and learning what we'll be able to do in the near-future. You might even find yourself appreciating it.

GravatarOn March 4, 2008 12:36 AM Levi Figueira said:

Guys, just remember: IE6 is dead and buried! IE7 is dying... IE8 is coming and they finally decided to correctly support standards!

Windows users that (still) use IE6 have a lot more serious problems than just missing out on a lot of beauty all over the internet...

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.