Thread: Flash sites with style
View Single Post
Unread 7 Dec 2002, 19:31   #11
Nodrog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Nodrog has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Quote:
Originally posted by Flavius
since when are you a conservativist ?

the whole speech going around 'its a xxx, it shouldnt have yyy' is completely useless here, if your looking for a book, buy a book. Websites arent supposed to have the same feeling as books or newspapers, u want those then u should buy those. The next thing u mentioned was audience, i am most sure this site wasnt aimed at the grand audience, and thus, fulfills its purpose. Just think of this as an art/portfolio book, and not a newspaper

certain sites fulfill certain needs, and the same happens with books
i dont see anything wrong with trying something different or wacky


structual - the 'getting used to the navigation' is all part of the 'getting into the atmosphere' thing, the site would lose all its magic if u just put a bunch of links pointing at pictures

and besides, i hate having to load a whole site just because of 1 picture, then having to Alt+LeftArrow to go back, thus losing a bit more time when it can just show me a pop up with it
nononono, im not saying that all things should 'look the same'.

Its like this you see. The purpose of a newspaper is to tell the reader news. Therefore, its not going to have sound coming out of every page or extra features that allow you to cook your breakfast while reading it. A car is meant to drive places. It is not going to have a chimney coming out the roof because 'it looks good'.

Now, the purpose of a website is to deliver content to the person reading. This implies a few things.

1) A good navigation system. There is no point whatsoever in deliberately confusing the reader. It isnt 'cool', it isnt 'new age', it isnt 'wacky', it isnt 'original' and it isnt 'kitsch'. It is fu*king stupid. There is no point in doing it whatsoever other than to say "omg ur so boring adapt to the new age of art student webpage design u fag". I know some designers feel that making their links 2 pixels high and scattering them randomly over the page is in someway 'raging against the conservative machine', but I can say in full confidence that they are the retarded ones, not the people who inform them of their stupidity and lack of any kind of design skill.

2) Readable text. Now, I'm not implying that there is one 'correct' system for readable text, but this doesnt change the fact that there are lots and lots of wrong ones. This includes any of the following: a) Putting text in tiny little boxes, that requires the user to click on 'next' after every 20 words. b) Using small fonts 'because they look pretty'. Retarded. c) Stupid stupid combinations of text and background colour, eg white text on a blue background. Just. No. People dont stick to the traditional black text on white because they are "boring neolithic dinosaurs stuck in a metaevolutionaly pre-derridian neo-conservative time era, with no desire to adapt their paradigms to reconcile them with a modern proactive proto-reactionary artistic utopia of unbridled freedom and expression". They do it because it makes it easy' to read. Artistic text looks shit. The reason it looks shit is because you cant read it. A Van Gogh painting might look nice in your living room, but if you painted it on your toilet seat, it would look stupid. This is because it is not meant to be there.

3) Decent viewing times. I do not want to wait about 5 seconds for every page to load on a broadband connection. Its bad enough when download times are caused due to site slowness and internet lag, but its unforgiveable when they are caused because the site designer wants you to watch a 10 second long animation every single time you click a link.


Now, these are the 3 things that define the 'function' of the website. The form must conform to suit them, not the other way round. If it doesnt, then it is 'retarded' and 'wrong'. Within the scope of these 3 criteria, you are free to do whatever you want and have your website classed as 'decent'. If a designer deviates from them, then their site is 'shit', no matter what their trusted coffee-shop pseudo-art-critic student chums tell them.

Wow, that was longer that I meant it to be.
Last edited by Nodrog; 7 Dec 2002 at 19:39.
Nodrog is offline   Reply With Quote