Author Topic: random . . . randomness  (Read 539638 times)

walk,on,by

  • Guest
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1350 on: July 29, 2015, 11:02:15 am »
I hate adults, who still wear shirts, such as these.  the need, to remain juvenile, in a world desperately in need of maturity, makes me want to scream.

Yeah but I make $5 off of each shirt referral sale I get.  Who am I to tell someone else what he can and cannot wear, especially if I make a buck in the process? :)

making money, off the fact that some people are losers?  I, can, support that.

DeathFromAbove1979

  • Member
  • Posts: 5034
    • Twitter
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1351 on: July 29, 2015, 02:30:49 pm »
I hate adults, who still wear shirts, such as these.  the need, to remain juvenile, in a world desperately in need of maturity, makes me want to scream.

Yeah but I make $5 off of each shirt referral sale I get.  Who am I to tell someone else what he can and cannot wear, especially if I make a buck in the process? :)

making money, off the fact that some people are losers?  I, can, support that.
Ugh I can't help myself, but I totally read your posts with pauses where the commas are. WHY.
‼‼?‼‼

walk,on,by

  • Guest
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1352 on: July 29, 2015, 03:32:05 pm »
effect.  everything, I do . . . is for effect.

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1353 on: July 29, 2015, 03:48:19 pm »
No, too difficult to use.  Everything runs together.  It is like one continuous mass of unrelated content that has no way to decipher where one part of the page begins and another begins.  It is hard to read and navigate. 

huh, interesting.  one thing that is most notable about the design is the use of colors and patterns to create distinct sections.  

obviously you see what you see and your experience is what it is, but of all the comments one could make i would have thought that "Everything runs together", "continuous mass of unrelated content" and "no way to decipher where one part of the page begins ends and another begins" would be at the bottom of the list.

To me that style actually looks like a massive pile of yellow post it notes randomly stuck on the screen with no concern for readability at all.  The flatness of it makes it horrid.  A little bit of texture (for lack of better term) would go a long way towards making it better.  The whole flat web design is really a poor design and highly unprofessional.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 07:48:24 pm by RatBastard »
FUKIT

Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1354 on: July 29, 2015, 03:52:19 pm »
WHY.
because they haven't invented a Jazz Hands font

LAMF

Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND

  • Member
  • Posts: 21318
  • Hall of Fame Poster, Certified Weblebrity
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1355 on: July 29, 2015, 04:09:29 pm »
Jazz Hands font
4 out of 5 typography experts prefer Spirit Fingers MT Light.
LVMH

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 15202
  • I don't belong here.
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1356 on: July 29, 2015, 04:36:57 pm »
^ typographical POTW
<sig>

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 15202
  • I don't belong here.
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1357 on: July 29, 2015, 04:41:42 pm »
the whole flat webdesign is really a poor design and highly unprofessional.

as a web design professional who works with both in-house developers and big-dollar vendors, i'm going to have to disagree with you. 

any chance this whole "flat design" thing is more about your personal preference, and what is easy for you to read?
<sig>

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1358 on: July 29, 2015, 07:47:37 pm »
the whole flat webdesign is really a poor design and highly unprofessional.

as a web design professional who works with both in-house developers and big-dollar vendors, i'm going to have to disagree with you. 

any chance this whole "flat design" thing is more about your personal preference, and what is easy for you to read?

I do not think so.  The flat design is very much unreadable, wastes terrible amounts of web space, uses extremely limited real content, .  It could be that most flat designers just do not do a very good job of it.  We both know how some designers think that their job is to impress the web user community with all of the cool coding tricks they know rather than build a site that is easy to navigate and intuitive.

Many of the flat pages fall to a number of faults.  One is that they are often coded a single huge run-on page rather than logically segregated into pages of unique content so to speak.  I have seen some flat sites that are one continuous pages that scrolls on and on and just randomly changes from topic to topic.  Other waste so much screen space that content which (properly designed) would fit onto one or at the most two screens, scrolls on forever and ever (see http://www.cpanel.com a TERRIBLE design).  On that page everything is so big and bulky with so little real content (not a lot of useless self advertising) that I would never even consider using their products.  An even worse page is http://www.sprint.com, I would fire any web designer who even suggested a page a poorly designed as that one.  Not only does that page fall to much of the typical shortcomings of flat design, but the use of those horrid squares/tiles and the clashing colors make it difficult to look at let alone use.
FUKIT

Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1359 on: July 29, 2015, 08:50:09 pm »
these kind of sites are all the rage now and it goes with the way people have changed from browsing sites on a computer to browsing sites on a tablet or phone.

some times it's well done, but I'm a little in the RB camp and these type of sites annoy me
hard to get find the content and it's mostly just showboating
I'm sure the pitch meeting they served Veen water 
LAMF

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1360 on: July 29, 2015, 09:17:27 pm »
these kind of sites are all the rage now and it goes with the way people have changed from browsing sites on a computer to browsing sites on a tablet or phone.

some times it's well done, but I'm a little in the RB camp and these type of sites annoy me
hard to get find the content and it's mostly just showboating
I'm sure the pitch meeting they served Veen water 


Yes they are 'modern', 'new', and 'the rage', and the 'trend', but none of those mean they are good at all.  While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time.  It really is very difficult to find the real content on these sites, especially sites such as the cpanel site I referenced above.  The amount of real content on that page could very easilly (and very cleanly as well) be fit on less than one screen, yet in that absolutely horrid design I have to scroll about six pages down to get to any amount of useful data.
FUKIT

Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1361 on: July 29, 2015, 09:58:56 pm »
umm, I was actually agreeing with you
LAMF

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1362 on: July 29, 2015, 10:16:50 pm »
While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time. 
What? Mobile internet usage surpassed computer internet usage last year. I am not going to post any links, the stats are easy to find.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2015, 10:20:53 pm by killsaly »

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1363 on: July 29, 2015, 11:08:01 pm »
umm, I was actually agreeing with you

I comprehend.  My reply was more of a summation of collective thoughts and an additional response to the comment someone made asking if I did not like the original page in question because of it being 'modern'.
FUKIT

RatBastard

  • Member
  • Posts: 2955
    • Obscenitees
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #1364 on: July 29, 2015, 11:10:50 pm »
While a portion of the web community has started using handheld devices of some sort to browse the web, very few use those exclusively and a majority still use computers most of the time. 
What? Mobile internet usage surpassed computer internet usage last year. I am not going to post any links, the stats are easy to find.



Perhaps if one counts every single time someone uses his phone for web access, which is 100% irrelevant because for the most part none of these pages modern or not are really designed for phone use. 
FUKIT