Topic: How do you feel about these current web design trends?
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #39,067
1. Flat design: not using visual cues, such as beveled edges, to indicate clickable areas, etc.
2. Scrolling: instead of using multiple pages, use one very long page that users scroll through.
I personally dislike them both. Please explain your choice.
2. Scrolling: instead of using multiple pages, use one very long page that users scroll through.
I personally dislike them both. Please explain your choice.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| I like them. | 1 | 20% | |
| I dislike them. | 4 | 80% | |
| 10 myle websytes | - | 0% |
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #520,278
Here is a good article on flat design: http://blog.usabilla.com/flat-design-going-far/
Meowth joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,279
I used to make my own site layouts, but the problem is now that it's considered outdated unless maybe I added some flash content. Although, I like old basic styles. Not too flashy, easy to navigate between pages, and it didn't take 30 fucking minutes to find out how to contact any support whatsoever. As much as I hate current website design, I do love and support of things like HTML5 use for coding sites. I can use HTML5 on any modern device nowadays, and not to mention most mobile decides can't play flash... Anyway, my point is old sites were easy to navigate and got straight to the point. Now it's filled with bullshit like ads everywhere. I respect the people who design sites to where you can navigate and not "accidentally" click an ad because it moved around the screen or some stupid shit. Am I making sense? I know I'm rambling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,281
@previous (Meowth)
I agree about ads for sure. My problem with flat design is my problem with minimalist design in all art forms: I do not agree with Wright that "form follows function." I believe that the beauty of something is almost equally important to is function. I prefer a lush, beautiful website to a flat one.
I agree about ads for sure. My problem with flat design is my problem with minimalist design in all art forms: I do not agree with Wright that "form follows function." I believe that the beauty of something is almost equally important to is function. I prefer a lush, beautiful website to a flat one.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,282
you forgot the most important thing; responsive design
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,283
@previous (C)
Yes, true. I think a website that converts to a mobile version on mobile devices, is ideal. My own website does such.
Yes, true. I think a website that converts to a mobile version on mobile devices, is ideal. My own website does such.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,285
@previous (A)
and the sticky headers, don't forget those too. you're not 3.0 if you header doesn't stick when you start scrolling
also you need loads of floating css elements
and the sticky headers, don't forget those too. you're not 3.0 if you header doesn't stick when you start scrolling
also you need loads of floating css elements
Meowth replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,287
@520,278 (A)
I just read this, and it's funny because it's exactly what I was talking about but more in depth! Great article.
@520,281 (A)
As do I, for these days anyway. Before, if it wasn't really a "pretty" site, I cred them anyway because one attempted to even make a site. These days, so easy to make a good looking site. No skill. Also, templates. Now, I understand sites like .webs.com and shit for gaming clans and such, but for a legit company site... Should've at least hired someone ya know?
@520,282 (C)
@520,283 (A)
I remember there wasn't stuff like Facebook mobile. It was a touch version of the site that you would use instead.
> touch.facebook.com
I just read this, and it's funny because it's exactly what I was talking about but more in depth! Great article.
@520,281 (A)
As do I, for these days anyway. Before, if it wasn't really a "pretty" site, I cred them anyway because one attempted to even make a site. These days, so easy to make a good looking site. No skill. Also, templates. Now, I understand sites like .webs.com and shit for gaming clans and such, but for a legit company site... Should've at least hired someone ya know?
@520,282 (C)
@520,283 (A)
I remember there wasn't stuff like Facebook mobile. It was a touch version of the site that you would use instead.
> touch.facebook.com
Meowth double-posted this 11 years ago, 21 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #520,288
@520,285 (C)
I fuckin' hate that too! Like, there's the title of the window already!
I fuckin' hate that too! Like, there's the title of the window already!
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,328
What I dislike most is the sites that fuck with scrolling. Like fading content in the further you scroll down, I really don't see the point of it. It often breaks search, and it's pretty annoying for the entire screen to change when I'm scrolling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,330
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,331
@previous (A)
I can't really find a good example right now, but it's mostly "hipster" startup websites that do this. It's a bit like http://prinzhorn.github.io/skrollr/ and http://johnpolacek.github.io/superscrollorama/
I can't really find a good example right now, but it's mostly "hipster" startup websites that do this. It's a bit like http://prinzhorn.github.io/skrollr/ and http://johnpolacek.github.io/superscrollorama/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,332
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,372
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,373
actually what i hate quite a lot are sites that endlessly scroll down and just add more content the further you scroll. example: yahoo
but more than that i hate sites that are overly compartmentalized. imagine a full sized filing cabinet with hundreds of folders in each drawer, but most folders are empty or only contain a couple of things each. i hate it when a single page layout would be better than multipage, and when a multipage layout should be used instead of an overly cluttered and indecipherable single page layout. also it bothers me when ads load super fast and the content i want 404's, but i don't know who to kill for that one.
but more than that i hate sites that are overly compartmentalized. imagine a full sized filing cabinet with hundreds of folders in each drawer, but most folders are empty or only contain a couple of things each. i hate it when a single page layout would be better than multipage, and when a multipage layout should be used instead of an overly cluttered and indecipherable single page layout. also it bothers me when ads load super fast and the content i want 404's, but i don't know who to kill for that one.
Handel !XFpaTU3A5E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,415
@520,281 (A)
Sorry I have to disagree.
The main purpose of most websites is to display information.
I don't access the web to look at beautiful websites, I access it for the information contained in websites.
A flat design complements most forms of information because it doesn't distract the user like a "beautiful" website would.
Look at some of the most popular websites there's a reason they all use a flat design.
In my opinion web design is a subtle art form, just like architecture. A building is useless unless it has a function just like a website.
Sorry I have to disagree.
The main purpose of most websites is to display information.
I don't access the web to look at beautiful websites, I access it for the information contained in websites.
A flat design complements most forms of information because it doesn't distract the user like a "beautiful" website would.
Look at some of the most popular websites there's a reason they all use a flat design.
In my opinion web design is a subtle art form, just like architecture. A building is useless unless it has a function just like a website.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,417
@previous (Handel !XFpaTU3A5E)Agree
Worlds #1 website based on a combined measure of page views and unique site users
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 7 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,551
When sites have the scrolling feature, my computer tends to crash because it can't handle so much information at a time. I just avoid said sites.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 35 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #520,554
@520,415 (Handel !XFpaTU3A5E)
But what about, say, a Gothic Cathedral, versus a modern church that is in a toolshed. They both serve the same function, but I think the cathedral is much better.
But what about, say, a Gothic Cathedral, versus a modern church that is in a toolshed. They both serve the same function, but I think the cathedral is much better.