| 11:10 am on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I simply see it as way for Mac users to feel right home. Agricultural sites will use some green and show cows. Business sites will use some blue and show handshakes. Mechanics sites will use some grey and show wrenches. So why would'nt some Mac site be translucent and show Macs?
For instance, I love Apple's site. It's clean, to the point and works for any platform and browsers. Can we say that about any computer site?
By the way Brett, do you browse Mac sites often?
| 4:40 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's all branding. When you go to the Mac site, it looks like you are "where you are supposed to be". While someone may not care for the look, it's definitely it's own look, which makes it effective. I know a lot of people love the look and there are several tutorials in the graphics-types of sites about how to replicate those transluscent looks Brett loves so much. So someone likes them :) Personally, I don't care for Amazon's look, for CNN's look, etc. - but I still am a regular visitor and know where I am when I get there.
<added>I'm sure Mod Mivox could whip you up a set for WebmasterWorld :)</added>
| 5:14 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It's understandable however when apple does it, it their look. Still, they've been doing this for over three years and perhaps it's time for an update.
What's unforgivable is the copy-cats who integrate those gels and that light gray tiled background. Eck.
| 5:38 pm on Sep 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>I'm sure Mod Mivox could whip you up a set for WebmasterWorld
Done. mivox did a skin for this site. Just click 'control pannel' then 'edit skin'. You will find 'Tundra Spring Time' by mivox.
>>What's unforgivable is the copy-cats who integrate those gels and that light gray tiled background. Eck.
What is unforgivable by my standards is some site kicking you out to the MeSsIE downlowd page, because your smart enough not to ride this dead rotten donkey. M$N did a while back, and many other sites still do this stuff today.
What can also be called unforgivable, (also by my standards) is to design some site for the portfolio. A lot of designers show off theyre 'skills' with the clients money. They usually craft web sites totally incompatible with the search engine media placement. At least the designer showed he could play with the newest toys.
What can be called unforgivable too (again by my standards) is to purposedly 'desing' some web site so it looks really bad if you dont belong to the herd of lemmings.
What can also be called unforgivable (again by my standards) is beeing kicked out of some site to Macromedia because you dont use the Flash plugin.
People designing sites to match the point of interest are right to do so, whathever the platform. They are just real pros. doing theyre job right. Nothing related to some sin beeing forgiven or unforgiven about.
Whathever you like the site or not is just a matter of taste. If you dislike the product, you will probably dislike sites about it too.
By the way, my GF is an art director. She hates WebmasterWorld, not only because she believes it is plain ugly, but I think she really hates WebmasterWorld because of the time I spend on it. ;)
| 5:06 pm on Sep 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I don't mind the use of the translucent graphx at all, then again Im a mac user. When I see the graphx i think Macintosh. Theres a difference between the straight copycat sites and the ones who go for the look and feel.
I was searching for some hardware and ran into a PC hardware site which was nothing for the mac yet they used the macintosh style graphx for their page design. ;) I wonder how their sales are? Plus the gel look is nice on Mac OS X with the browser and everything else so i have no issues ;)
| 12:30 pm on Sep 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I tend to agree with Brett that the "gel" look is over done UNLESS you are desgining a site that is VERY MAC specific- like a software product.
A friend used the look for his mobile DJ service site and I thought "been there, seen that."
| 6:18 am on Nov 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Don't these sites get that they look like all the mac sites though? It's hurting them.
| 12:22 pm on Nov 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You're not talking about the "Search" button on search.msn.com, are you? ;)
| 4:20 pm on Nov 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
bird, Are you implying that Microsoft would steal ideas from others? They would not do a thing like that, now would they? :)
| 4:31 pm on Nov 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
A still love is, apple.com = good design.