Be careful! You might actually learn something...

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_.../GDBasics.html

Coders, there you have it.

The very basics of what you apparently (tend to) ignore.

Be very afraid! You might even learn a thing or two!

Putting my money where my mouth is by default,

--
Pepe
Milano, Italy

"Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio" <gcdbTOGLIMI (AT) email (DOT) it> wrote

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_.../GDBasics.html

From my point of view the very first lesson to be learned in graphic design
is that such things as computer generated logos *MUST* be antialilased.

The one on the above site is not.

QED.

Coders, there you have it.

Year, right.

--
Cheers
Richard.

In article <2jik7hF11su08U1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de>, Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
says...

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_.../GDBasics.html

Coders, there you have it.

The very basics of what you apparently (tend to) ignore.

You mean like
no DOCTYPE;
no character encoding;
using deprecated elements (<center>, <font>);
using tables for layout;
using poor quality graphics.

That page is rubbish, plain and simple.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://kibo.org.uk/
http://kibo.org.uk/mfaq.php

You mean like
no DOCTYPE;
no character encoding;
using deprecated elements (<center>, <font>);
using tables for layout;
using poor quality graphics.

GAAAHHH!

Don't you people ever think about actually READING something?

I have to cut it out for you, as you don't seem to be able to find out for
yourself:

READ THE CONTENT. COMPREHEND THE CONTENT.

You coders "live by the [html] code and die by the code, uh?

Thank you for the laugh. Really.

Darwin was wrong. All along...

:-)

--
Pepe
Milano, Italy

In article <2jj1miF11fatrU1 (AT) uni-berlin (DOT) de>, Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio
says...

You mean like
no DOCTYPE;
no character encoding;
using deprecated elements (<center>, <font>);
using tables for layout;
using poor quality graphics.

GAAAHHH!

Don't you people ever think about actually READING something?

I have to cut it out for you, as you don't seem to be able to find out for
yourself:

READ THE CONTENT. COMPREHEND THE CONTENT.

This is a critique group, not a content review group, you dipshit.

You coders "live by the [html] code and die by the code, uh?

Thank you for the laugh. Really.

Darwin was wrong. All along...

Indeed. People like you are still in the gene pool. According to
Darwin you should have been eradicated years ago. I guess you're a
lucky mutation.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://kibo.org.uk/
http://kibo.org.uk/mfaq.php

Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio wrote:

READ THE CONTENT. COMPREHEND THE CONTENT.

Off topic here I'm afraid. Try alt.content.critique.

HTH.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Hywel <hyweljenkins (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

This is a critique group, not a content review group,

Pepe was trying to help you.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

Cool.

More crying babies' bate?

:-)

--
Pepe
Milano, Italy

LOL - hey, I have to give you credit for trying.
Thank you! I did it even if I already knew this will be an exercise in

futility...

Actually, I came across that particular site a long time ago and even
bookmarked it at that time. I didn't get far with it, though, because I
wasn't convinced it was exactly a stellar example site itself.
The site was NOT about the site itself, but just to put out some basic

knowledge about the elements of design. NOT just "webdesign".

Kinda stomped on its credibility a bit. Besides, it required stuffit for
the
pdf samples, and I don't want no stinkin' Mac junk polluting my box. :P
Winzip and WinRAR open stuffit files just as any other compressed file. No

excuses here. And a pdf is a pdf is a pdf. Binary-compatible in any
platform. No excuses here either.

Some parts I did read seemed like fairly obvious ideas, like decent use
of white space (often ignored on commercial and designer sites, BTW) and
drawing focus to particular elements.
When the DTP revolution started by the Macintosh, the Apple LaserWriter and

Aldus PageMaker, it was a lot of bad design going around because
non-designers were allowed to produce themselves the printwork. Afterwords,
FrontPage did the same thing with "websites". Today we're still paying the
price of putting technology in the hands of the design-challenged people.

Good use of both white space and negative space makes its mark when in use
by a good designer. This applies to both webdesign and print design; good
design is good design. Period. It can be applied to almost anything.

Design is a language. When a new-yorker talks, he does it in a certain way
and with a certain accent. If a french guy talks english, everybody will
instantly know that he's not an american and by any means a newyorker. But a
guy from Bulgaria might not hear the difference...

That's what happens with design and hacks. Only those that speaks the
language would know.

That's why a wholelotta hacks can still make a living... :-/ .

The blind leading the blind.

I think they are dead wrong where
it comes to "page organizers" (columned layouts), though. I find more
than 2 columns on a page starts encroaching into readability problems,
probably because I normally use smallish windows and a larger than
average text size. 4 or 5 columns, like they suggest, is horrible on
screen.

This comes from the print school of newspaper layout. It's not written in
stone; those are just guidelines, the very basics of design. From the
usability labs of Jakob Nielsen showed, most people will anyway maximise
their browsers when opening a page that won't fit in that particular screen.
Three colums viewed @ 1024 x 768 gives plenty of room to use readable type
and being width-friendly. Some would use four columns at that particular
screen resolution, but it all depends on the site's design to achieve a
certain goal.

There must be better "tutorials" out there.

They mightbe, but this one is just good enough to coders to have some very
easy-to-read-and-comprehend articles about what they are apparently proud of
ignore: the elements of design.

But will they read it? Will they comprehend it? Will they care?

I don't thnk so.

But anyway, I'm the one putting my money where my mouth is.

Exercising futility by default,

--
Pepe
Milano, Italy

Giuseppe Carmine De Blasio wrote:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/ET650_.../GDBasics.html

Coders, there you have it.

The very basics of what you apparently (tend to) ignore.

Be very afraid! You might even learn a thing or two!

This site has gotten the basics wrong itself: invalid HTML, no DOCTYPE, a
rather ugly logo (even if remade as antialiased as another poster
suggested, it would still be terrible).

Not to mention, it's about pure graphic design, which is not always the same
as Web site autohring/design.

--
Shawn K. Quinn