Am I the only one that found staring at orange hard on the eyes? I guess I should give the author credit for all the work that they put into this rant, seems like a blog post could have done just the same without all the fancy graphics and what not.
One article has a different theme: http://www.valeriedaysings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/na...
from another: http://www.simongarnier.com/images/wordpress/ft_hdr.5.jpg
Well actually, those are title pages, but I've read those articles and I can attest that the different designs set a suitable mood for the topic at hand.
I applaud web publishers for taking up this paradigm and applying what publishing graphic designers have been doing for some time. Of course with most methods of design, it depends if the occasion is suitable. Some online publications can do well with a consistent design: http://www.alistapart.com/
While others do well with differing designs, almost as if each posting of their articles is a treat for their readers: http://trentwalton.com/articles/
just like D.Curtis does, so good on him if he has inspired others to do the same.
In this case quite appropriate, though. Having to scroll down one third of the page before you get to anything resembling a meaningful discussion about the actual content of the article cannot possibly be a good thing. Neither can the sneer and arrogance displayed in this thread.
(I’m kind of aware of the irony of me participating in this thread. Resisting the temptation to be self-righteous on the web is hard.)
This article boils down to "It isn't pretty enough, and I didn't write it." In other words: no actual relevant content. Just a lot of pretty images as text, BIG FONTS, and whining.
“Orange?! U R DUMB!!!!1!” – that’s what I don’t like. Not disagreement with the actual content of the article.
Mine's roughly that; the orange background is only a bit eye-straining for me.
For a lot of people with weaker sight, or outright visual disabilities that fall short of blindness, this would be entirely unreadable without Readability or similar tools.
Something that stops people from getting to content is noteworthy.
Other people thought it was worth talking about with regards to a blog post by a guy who makes a point of giving each post a unique, custom design.
The color choice also hasn't been the only thing criticized - the layout is cluttered and confuses some people. It's overall a much poorer design than many, if not all, of the other posts on that site.
Lose the ego-investment/chip on your shoulder/BS. Nobody's impressed, and this isn't a schoolyard.
Where I "want to go" is exactly what I said. People will talk about the design first: how much they like it, how much they don't like it, whatever. We are not robots, and those of us with normal vision will pick up on color, shape, and arrangement before they read any of the text.
Simple rule: if you're going to be offended at people talking quite a bit about the striking color (or other design element) you used for your web page, whether appreciatively or not, don't use that striking color.
Ditto for if you go to Best Buy or any other non Apple store that sells Macs. They never know about this delightful key combo. </8 year old level of humor>
That's why I tend to use it more for reading medium-long stories, not fixing website's design.
But I guess there are people who will complain about anything that is different. The slight irony of posting a complaint against orange while you were surely looking at a band of electric orange is not lost on me.
(At least, I assume you're with orange. Has pg lifted the karma restriction from the custom color preference?)
http://omploader.org/vM3h3OA/Sample.PNG (HN topbar, start of site, middle of site, bottom of orange section of site.)
Appropriate contrast was maintained, the entire design was not overly luminescent. Since it was the background color it did not create a wicked eye-draw the way the banner at the top of our comment pages here do.
If you don't like unusual designs then you shouldn't read peepcode; a magazine format is one of their boasted mission statements.
Saying every site has to avoid all interesting design so that people who are legally blind can—through supreme effort—read your page unassisted seems to be unreasonable at best and disingenuous at worst. Readability and screen readers and accessibility helpers and style removers exist for a reason and people who need them use them.
It's pretty lame to say "misrepresentation" is what you call the process of "extracting meaning from unclear and muddled prose linked indirectly."
When you lash out against anyone calling you on it, that's only confirmed.
My first impression, article aside, was that the site made baby Jesus cry.
Edit: In retrospect I think it was the combination of the orange and the grid background (I have a tendency to doubleclick on everything) that really put it over the edge for me, the main design isn't terrible.
But I agree, that background image is really horrible.
That's why I have bookmarklets to disable the dictionary lookups and other what I consider annoyances on sites that implement those features on doubleclick and yes I've been told that I'm crazy on many occasions.
I do it so, when my attention gets diverted, I can quickly start from where I left off since it'll be highlighted. The obsessive clicking is because I'm obsessive.