<- Too Funny
- Started
- Last post
- 39 Responses
- ********
Well, dsmith7.....bash on their design or whatever, these kids have some very neat and intelligent info/writings on various valuable content such as CSS issues and browser compatibilities.
I actually visit that site pretty often.
You better read yerself a bit more into their content. It's worth it.
- ********0
- Redmond0
I think he was just surprised at the peculiar color combos... I was!
- IloveQBN0
I agree, this site has been around before 1998, so it's a bit dated, but content still holds.
- sexypixel0
it is pretty nasty though, content aside
- quamb0
i cringed too.
didn't realise that the content was relevant.
- jking760
personally, i kind of like straight forward, no BS sites that can at least LAST for 4+ years. pretty amazing really.
- ********0
my god....are we that superficial?
but I do agree the nav is a bit tricky to recognize due to the wild color scheme.....but I know this for sure: the content rox!
- yi_wutong0
guys, that site's like my web bible since i's in school! yeah, the design stand point may not that great but i'd learn from them alot...
- dsmith70
I'm sorry but I was simply referring to the actual title of the page "Web Page Design for Designers". With a color combination crossing the rainbow, misaligned tables, and a slew of deifferent fonts being used (even right aside eachother), it is a web design nightmare. I think the content is very informative and seems to be somewhat invaluable from what I have read but if the true nature of the site was to illustrate good web design to designers then I feel it may be at a loss. I do however praise the sites author for his contribution to pixel fonts. It seems his site http://www.minifonts.com/ has some wonderful fonts to purchase and I do encourage you to do so if looking for a teched out pixel font!
I believe it was Paul Rand who said "design is an art of purpose". Take it for what you will.
- ********0
- dsmith70
I don't get it. Why are these designers, rich in tradition and skill creating horrible looking sites? The guy at MKGraphics says he studied along side Paul Rand?! I am confused as to what he picked up on? To overuse photoshop filters and the shape tool? I think the case might be some seasoned veterans in gd that just cannot comprehend good web design. Perhaps for them it is like starting over from the beginning and finding their way through the filters and shapes to something extraodinary on the horizon.
- ok_static0
yeah all these sites' contents are golden, but they're looking poo poo.
- chilaquil0
I don't know why, but I have observed that the older you are, the more you suck at web design. I can't explain it... It seems to be regardless of your background.
And obviously, there's one thing too: The fact that you can design for print, doesn't mean you can design for the web. They're different. Some people are good at both, but I've seen good designers for print do terrible web design because they don't know WTF they're doing. I've also seen motion graphics designers do bad design work. However, for some odd reason it seems to come easily for architects. Must be some weird right brain/ left brain combination thing.
Let's face it not everyone can make the leap. And people are good at different things. Some people can't design identities to save their lives, but they're good at 3D stuff. And so on...BTW, those sites ARE terrible. But do you guys remember HOW magazine's website? It was complete shit.
- ********0
Paul Rand says not soo nice things about computers...so I guess a lack of interest in the new tools of our time left them ignore the whole range of possibilities computer generated design offer; in other words; these guys don't bother too much for putting effort in a site.
For that matter I have to disagree with these (uber)respected designers since (unlike the typewriter as Rand stated) the computer is not just a means to design to communicate but also a whole new way of communicating as a whole.
Here, imho, is where the difference between new media designers and graphic designers comes in.
I often noticed that many graphic/print designers are -often- not outstanding new media experts and vice versa.
Paul Rand must know a new dicipline is born in design.
However for print design and illustration his statement could be true...
- ********0
oh I based my comments on (parts of) this interview...
- BonSeff0
well put 4cy
- ok_static0
(no offense)
the old is learn and experiement every bit and pieces by his very own hand and mind.
shamely nowadays some of us just want shortcuts and free download of the web and too dependable on the computer.
- dsmith70
you make a good point 4cy but I would take it one step further and ask, is it the naivety of youth and passion for the computer that has brought web design to demand respect among other design professions especially print. I have noticed that because of my age (24) and my experience (4 years in development, 2 in design) veteran graphic designers often look down upon me as if I don't know what the hell I am doing and I think it is this general lack of respect or belief that affirms their own lacking in online design. Its as if they proclaim, "I don't have to listen to this punk, I am a print designer with 20 years of experience." Then low and behold they generate a site like the few we have mentioned here. I believe that it is an egotistical designer menatlity that makes them believe they are actually generating something of visual quality and appeal. I just don't get it. I am glad to see there are other web designers out there that are noticing this trend.
- IRNlun60
aahhh. the old type writer vs. pen and paper.
- dsmith70
"is there an option in Frontpage to make kool WebPages! If so, where is it? I want to become a Webmaster and/or Webmaster" - Issue 0033 from http://www.k10k.net