Ten Web Design Trends to Avoid
-
-
Let me save everyone a little time:
-
Besides the obvious (that the site itself uses rounded corners when it advises this is an overused trend), does anyone else feel as negatively about rounded corners? I kinda like them.
-
-
Several of the things in that list are like that. Don't do this because we say they're overused or dated. Not sure what Aqua Style buttons are, I'm not familiar enough with Macs, does that site use those too?
-
@SuperousOxide said:
Not sure what Aqua Style buttons are, I'm not familiar enough with Macs, does that site use those too?
Aqua was that stupid "lickable" theme from Apple where all the buttons looked like glass. The whole thing was a precursor to the crappy Web 2.0 design cliches.
-
@WhiskeyJack said:
Besides the obvious (that the site itself uses rounded corners when it advises this is an overused trend), does anyone else feel as negatively about rounded corners? I kinda like them.
So say we all!
-
-
Here's another one on the same page:
<center>
</center>
That's not black.
Edit: Epic formatting fail
-
@WhiskeyJack said:
Besides the obvious (that the site itself uses rounded corners when it advises this is an overused trend), does anyone else feel as negatively about rounded corners? I kinda like them.
I believe the scaffolding for RoR uses corners. RoR never did anything wrong so rounded corners are ok by me.
-
@belgariontheking said:
I believe the scaffolding for RoR uses corners. RoR never did anything wrong so rounded corners are ok by me.
Unless they changed it recently, the scaffolding is completely unadorned.
-
@ds0 said:
That's not black.
Try turning off subpixel rendering (looks like what Windows calls ClearType, not sure what MacOS calls it), then check it again.
-
@WhiskeyJack said:
Requiring us to do "rounded corners" back in 2004 was one of many WTFs we had: apparently some guy in Photoshop made the "design" with total disregard of HTML/CSS limitations. The result was a site made with ugly hacks into an existing CMS's templates, just to give them their stupid "rounded corners".Besides the obvious (that the site itself uses rounded corners when it advises this is an overused trend), does anyone else feel as negatively about rounded corners? I kinda like them.
Ok, I'll admit that the rounded corners were just one of many WTFs on that site... which no longer exists. I still cringe to this day when "rounded corners" comes as a requirement.
-
@Quietust said:
@ds0 said:
That's not black.
Try turning off subpixel rendering (looks like what Windows calls ClearType, not sure what MacOS calls it), then check it again.
Actually if you check their CSS (http://www.hostway.com/css/main.css) you'll see that they don't use black. Their CSS is a bit wtf-ey in itself, why only use indentation half the time?
Also, I hate rounded corners. They usually add nothing to the design and are more often than not poorly executed and/or heavily pixelated. All the sites I visit regularly are simple, straightforward jobbies that are sooo much easier on the eye. I wish Web 2.0 would die the horrible burning death that it has coming to it already.
-
@cablecar said:
Actually if you check their CSS (http://www.hostway.com/css/main.css) you'll see that they don't use black.
This. Just didn't turn off the anti-alias for the screen shot, but that deep into a bold font should show its true color, which, in this case, ain't black.
-
@cablecar said:
Actually if you check their CSS (http://www.hostway.com/css/main.css) you'll see that they don't use black
Or if you use Firebug and turn on "show computed style" in the Style window, you can plainly see that it's #333333.
Reminds me of a (government) client who provided a design for a website which was OK (nothing too fancy, used their corporate colours) but then later slammed us because we didn't use "browser safe colours". Who uses those any more?!?
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
Requiring us to do "rounded corners" back in 2004 was one of many WTFs we had: apparently some guy in Photoshop made the "design" with total disregard of HTML/CSS limitations. The result was a site made with ugly hacks into an existing CMS's templates, just to give them their stupid "rounded corners".
Ok, I'll admit that the rounded corners were just one of many WTFs on that site... which no longer exists. I still cringe to this day when "rounded corners" comes as a requirement.
If you use jQuery there is actually a nice little bit of code you can use to add rounded corners to anything.
(edit: I freakin suck at using this forum for anything except plain-jane posts. Here is a link: http://pastie.org/private/un8mwkyakzz7ywc1gf8pg )There are additional parameters you can use. Antialiasing, the corners can be different sizes, etc. Pretty nice.
-
The ironing is delicious!
-
@cablecar said:
...
Also, I hate rounded corners. They usually add nothing to the design and are more often than not poorly executed and/or heavily pixelated. All the sites I visit regularly are simple, straightforward jobbies that are sooo much easier on the eye. I wish Web 2.0 would die the horrible burning death that it has coming to it already.
<pedant>
You are probably aware of this, but Web 2.0
isn't just the use of AJAX or funky styles like rounded corners and grunge - it's the evolution of
sites into platforms for social collaboration. The proliferation of these cool styles and themes that weren't previously used was just a co-event, not a result of this trend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
</pedant>
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
Requiring us to do "rounded corners" back in 2004 was one of many WTFs we had: apparently some guy in Photoshop made the "design" with total disregard of HTML/CSS limitations. The result was a site made with ugly hacks into an existing CMS's templates, just to give them their stupid "rounded corners".
Oh come on, rounded corners are like 4 lines of CSS and an other 4 lines of HTML, you don't even need Javascript to have rounded corners. Besides, the graphic designer is paid to come up with a nice UI design and you are paid to figure out how to implement that. If both of you do your jobs properly, the end result will be a nice, user-friendly, functional, professional UI, and I don't know about your company's clients, but ours expect nothing less.
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
Requiring us to do "rounded corners" back in 2004 was one of many WTFs we had: apparently some guy in Photoshop made the "design" with total disregard of HTML/CSS limitations. The result was a site made with ugly hacks into an existing CMS's templates, just to give them their stupid "rounded corners".
I had rounded corners (and drop shadows too) on my business-related website since the late 90s, works with anything from NS3/IE4. But exactly in 2004, I got rid of them, because ... I considered them overused. Ironically, my private website still uses rounded corners... the nice guy who made the design for me introced them last year.
-
@Zemm said:
a client slammed us because we didn't use "browser safe colours". Who uses those any more?!?
Did they want it to work primarily in IE5/Mac as well?
-
@donniel said:
<pedant>
You are probably aware of this, but Web 2.0 isn't just the use of AJAX or funky styles like rounded corners and grunge - it's the evolution of sites into platforms for social collaboration. The proliferation of these cool styles and themes that weren't previously used was just a co-event, not a result of this trend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
</pedant>
So, at best, it's just a stupid name.
It means that people are making better use of the technology, as opposed to the technology itself changing, which is what the name seems, to me at least, to suggest.
This is the reason I hate Web 2.0. It's evangelists seem to think it means something big and important, where in reality it is a completely vapid name.
-
@DrJokepu said:
Oh come on, rounded corners are like 4 lines of CSS and an other 4 lines of HTML
Pls email me the codes.
(Translation: I don't believe you that a decent rounded corners treatment can be done in 8 lines of CSS and HTML.)
-
He doesn't say how long the lines are...
-
@Rootbeer said:
Pls email me the codes.
(Translation: I don't believe you that a decent rounded corners treatment can be done in 8 lines of CSS and HTML.)
Presumably he also meant there would be gifs for each of the actual corners.
-
@Rootbeer said:
Pls email me the codes.
(Translation: I don't believe you that a decent rounded corners treatment can be done in 8 lines of CSS and HTML.)
.bt {height:10px;margin:0 0 0 11px;background:url(teh_gif_with_corners.gif) no-repeat 100% 0;}
.bt div {position:relative;left:-11px;width:11px;height:10px;background:url(teh_gif_with_corners.gif) no-repeat 0 0; font-size:0;line-height:0;}
.bb {height:10px;margin:0 0 0 9px;background:url(teh_gif_with_corners.gif) no-repeat 100% 100%;}
.bb div {position:relative;left:-9px;width:9px;height:10px;background:url(teh_gif_with_corners.gif) no-repeat 0 100%; font-size:0;line-height:0;}That's the CSS part. I'm sure you will be able to figure out the HTML part yourself.
-
@Zemm said:
@cablecar said:
Actually if you check their CSS (http://www.hostway.com/css/main.css) you'll see that they don't use black
Or if you use Firebug and turn on "show computed style" in the Style window, you can plainly see that it's #333333.
Reminds me of a (government) client who provided a design for a website which was OK (nothing too fancy, used their corporate colours) but then later slammed us because we didn't use "browser safe colours". Who uses those any more?!?
I'll bet they wanted it to support Netscape as well :)
-
Er, your solution (tables-in-tables) indeed works on almost all browsers, but fails in most other ways I'm afraid.
Oh well. border-radius in CSS3 should solve all these problems ;-)
-
@WhiskeyJack said:
Besides the obvious (that the site itself uses rounded corners when it advises this is an overused trend), does anyone else feel as negatively about rounded corners? I kinda like them.
I'd say it's definitely not a website-destroying sin in itself, but rounded corners are becoming a bit of a cliché. =) I personally think the "Web 2.0 style" (shiny pastel + rounded corners) is tolerable, but don't overdo it, especially when you know you can do better and something else is far more appropriate... (wouldn't recommend the particular examples in the previous link to everyone, of course - I just said "something else". =)
The funny thing is, I didn't notice this site had rounded corners when I read the article. I guess their page template works in this case</e>. Sufficiently understated and not getting on your face.
-
@Monomelodies said:
Oh well. border-radius in CSS3 should solve all these problems ;-)
Except that IE will have their own interpretation of the value, Firefox won't support it, and nobody uses Opera. :-)
-
Personally, I think "Solution: Increase your fonts to a size that makes on-screen reading comfortable." is the real WTF.
A web site should never set font sizes to absolute. As a reader, I should be able to increase the font size to whatever I want.
B
-
@havokk said:
True. In fact, I personally hate "giant fonts" almost as much as the idiots that set their screen resolution to 640x480 because they can't "see" well. *grumble*Personally, I think "Solution: Increase your fonts to a size that makes on-screen reading comfortable." is the real WTF.
A web site should never set font sizes to absolute. As a reader, I should be able to increase the font size to whatever I want.
I usually advise these guys to use the "large fonts" theme on Windows, instead of ruining their resolution.
-
@danixdefcon5 said:
True. In fact, I personally hate "giant fonts" almost as much as the idiots that set their screen resolution to 640x480 because they can't "see" well. *grumble*
I usually advise these guys to use the "large fonts" theme on Windows, instead of ruining their resolution.
I have someone like that in the office. Problem with "large fonts" theme and such is though that some websites, apps, etc. assume the standard font sizes and space things accordingly. Things then look absolutely horrible when you raise the font size past what they expect it to be.
In the end I ended up actually did end up just lowering the resolution on his monitor rather than increasing font sizes because the results were actually better. Though in this case we're talking the next step down from 1680x1050 (whatever that resolution is) and not something ridiculus as 640x480 or 800x600.
-
@dhromed said:
Did they want it to work primarily in IE5/Mac as well?
I know you were joking but since when does government use Macs?
Then again according to the style guide they apparently test with Netscape 3 and IE4, so anything's possible!
