not logged in
| re: Ryan, your site is one of the nastiest designed pieces of crap the net has to offer... | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 01:52 pm UTC 03/26/07 |
| In reply to: | Ryan, your site is one of the nastiest designed pieces of crap the net has to offer... - Wilbury 01:40 pm UTC 03/26/07 |
Hey, I LOVE constructive criticism when it comes to this stuff. It allows me to make it even better which I love doing. Just out of curiosity, what version did you see? I had an earlier one which had a black / red background texture and inline frames. It got really repulsive after a while and I scrapped it. I started from the top and made everything straight black (I SWEAR that was a coincidence. I wasn't trying to ape Dream Pollution.) My template is now closer to Smeg's with the top bit and the border. I call this VERSION 2.0. The font is Verdana since I go practically blind reading Times against a black background (it's a real eye-sore). White and black do NOT go together at all, IMO. I have Verdana with various shades of grey. I find a mix between dark grey and light does the trick. I've read it at various times of the day, testing my eyes on the design, and it's been OK so far. The reason the "Batman" site is still Times New Roman and more clandestine than my latest ones is because it's been around for (checks MSN, haha I'm on 7956 hits over 26 weeks. Woo-hoo!) But I'm too scared to change "Batman" because heaps of people have gone there and it looks like a change would just unsettle everything. What do you think? I can read ...:: BAT OUT OF EXCESS though. I couldn't before. Where it's at will keep me pleased for the next 6 months. AT LEAST. But. Thank you > ... and Smeg's is really really bad too. I think I > commented on that ages ago and Smeg got a little > defensive, understandably, but you gotta understand where > it's coming from. I'm a graphic designer with really low > tolerance for things that are hard to use / see / navigate > and I can and have done much better myself, despite my > skills in that area being an absolute pittance compared to > most of my peers (designing for screen makes me want to > punch small mammals, and it really isn't a strength of > mine, comparatively speaking). > > When I see Smeg's site I see fantastic / priceless content > being completely undercut by shithouse visuals and crap as > information and content design. And Ryan's too. That > complete list of songs Steinman has written -- great > stuff! Do you think I can read it without getting a > headache? Hell no! A great big long list of bold white > type with no extra line spacing, no breaks and (worst of > all) all the type CENTRED!?! Aaaggghhh, makes my head > pop. > > Of course, these things are perfectly natural and expected > because these things take years to learn, decades to > master and a lifetime to (attempt to) perfect. > > I really only wrote this long diatribe cause this heat on > Smeg all of a sudden made me feel bad about dissing the > legibility of his type ages ago at the old ("new") board. > I mean, what I said was absolutely correct because that > Gothic looking typeface on Smeg's site is hard to decipher > at the best of times, much less in white reversed out of > images and all close together, but I said it with Love, > and it wasn't MEANT to be an aimless dig... > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Ryan, your site is one of the nastiest designed pieces of crap the net has to offer... - rockfenris2005 05:48 am UTC 03/27/07 |
| Next: | This is what I mean - rockfenris2005 02:09 pm UTC 03/26/07 |
| Thread: |
|