Wow. really dont like this one at all. From layout to color its just bland.
Comment #1 made by Alb
Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:45 PM
Rating: 2
Using graphics for the text is just poor design, even if you add hidden text.
Comment #2 made by Ivan
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 03:09 AM
Rating: 1
Wow. I can see why this is featured in the peak of CSS.
Using images for text, and sloppy code (7 errors) and very dull. Great.
Comment #3 made by Ben
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 03:55 AM
Rating: 1
I was under the impression that comments were meant to be "constructive"?
In any case, I can definitely see why you lot are upset that this site made it in - given it's lack of over the top color(s) and standardized layout that we are all accustom and comfortable with now.
CSS is a technology, a tool, not design. Show me a way to acheive the same text with just html text and I would have done so. Again, "using graphics for text is just poor design"? I don't think so. Poor technic, maybe, but definitely not poor design.
Building a site using CSS doesn't mean you have to bend over for every popular and trendy web convention being used today just to fit in with the trend and validate your "skills".
Concerning the errors, I'm not really concerned about validation these days. The site remains as accessible as it needs to be.
I'm sure the site will get ripped apart some more, but hopefully the feedback is a bit more helpful and insightful.
Comment #4 made by Justin
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 05:34 AM
I disagree with most of these comments so far. I think it's well conceived and has all the code it needs under the hood.
Too often people just run a site through a validator to see if it works for them. I don't know if that's a good way to judge a website. Personally I'm more interested in the website's aesthetic quality, which seems more important and relevant to me than validation.
Comment #5 made by Ethan
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 09:12 AM
Ethan - I couldn't agree more. The validation system in itself is actually flawed. A site can still utilize streamlined and semantic markup while still implementing a nice aesthetic . Not all sites have to look like they came from a stock template, as is the case with too many sites showcased in web-galleries.
So wait, the code doesnt need to validate and the site doesnt look good? Thats really what your saying? So what is good about it then? As for the trend comment, just becuase I said the layout and color are bland doesnt mean it's not trendy. In fact, its just a bad design. Plain and simple. Trend has nothing to do with it. Who in the world uses images for text! Thats not a trend, that just common sense. Anyone can go into photoshop and press the slice button which is what this site looks like. Oh, and incase you have not heard, you could have used sFIR for all your text. No images were needed.
Comment #7 made by Alb
Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 04:26 PM
Alb, lots of people use images for navigation text, 'cause it looks better than hypertext. Hell, go to zeldman.com or happycog.com; hey look, images are used for navigation text.
The design being critiqued here is not deserving of these bad ratings. It does cry out for more color and contrast, however.
Comment #8 made by
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 06:07 PM
Rating: 6
I would describe the color as "understated" rather than bland. The palette is low-key and that works for me because it focuses attention on portfolio. I don't need flashing lights and bells with loud sirens or whatever. The hover gradient on the home link is enough for me [nice]. As far as the text/image thing goes, I don't necessarily see the problem. Everything's there so it's accessible and by avoiding sIFR you avoid something third party. Plus, it shows typesetting skills, something difficult to translate to the web. It's silly to limit yourself with blanket/cover-all types of rules like "all browser text all the time." That is funny.
Comment #9 made by
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 06:09 PM
Rating: 8
It´s a bit strange that duplicity of text -in the image and in text itself- but i like the layout, find it original.
Comment #10 made by Rafa from Madrid Spain
Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 04:27 AM
Rating: 6
I like that you have a concept. Although it's not my cup of tea I respect that you have a voice of your own. I also like the the top part of the page and the understated color scheme. I don't like the bottom part (I'm referring to your home page) as I think it lacks rhythm and balance between the white space and the content.
Excellent, great credit to the designer - you have passion for your design, something I feel is lost with many trying to keep up with the 'next best thing', so power to you, sir!
On second look, it's not my favorite site but it does the job - each to their own etc. Just one (honest) question - on your contact page, with CSS enabled only a form displays, with CSS off your email and postal address is visable - why?
Comment #12 made by Ben
Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 02:24 PM
Rating: 7
Comments?
Please keep it constructive and polite. We do not store
or redistibute your email address.
Using images for text, and sloppy code (7 errors) and very dull. Great.
In any case, I can definitely see why you lot are upset that this site made it in - given it's lack of over the top color(s) and standardized layout that we are all accustom and comfortable with now.
CSS is a technology, a tool, not design. Show me a way to acheive the same text with just html text and I would have done so. Again, "using graphics for text is just poor design"? I don't think so. Poor technic, maybe, but definitely not poor design.
Building a site using CSS doesn't mean you have to bend over for every popular and trendy web convention being used today just to fit in with the trend and validate your "skills".
Concerning the errors, I'm not really concerned about validation these days. The site remains as accessible as it needs to be.
I'm sure the site will get ripped apart some more, but hopefully the feedback is a bit more helpful and insightful.
Too often people just run a site through a validator to see if it works for them. I don't know if that's a good way to judge a website. Personally I'm more interested in the website's aesthetic quality, which seems more important and relevant to me than validation.
The design being critiqued here is not deserving of these bad ratings. It does cry out for more color and contrast, however.
On second look, it's not my favorite site but it does the job - each to their own etc. Just one (honest) question - on your contact page, with CSS enabled only a form displays, with CSS off your email and postal address is visable - why?