-
Knight of Ni
- Jul 2006
- 3198
-
Escaped Mental Patient- Apr 2007
- 117
Great article exodus. I've always thought of 'web 2.0' as a load of rubbish personally, it is one of those 'things' that aren't actually anything. Just a word that has a very abstract and vague meaning. Yes user preference and customisation has it's place but if a visitor can completely change the look and feel of your site then they have really just employed themselves free of charge as designers, your website becomes nothing more than a freeware wysiwyg editor. -
Senior Member
- Jun 2004
- 8866
I did a website for one of our customers (one of the ones we weren't charging to get this new web design service off the ground as a 'test', as they were already paying support), and about a month after it was finished, despite her signing off on the comp for approval, I got in the e-mail "Our site, although usable, is kinda boring. Any suggestions?"
I suggest you go **** yourself.
Comment
-
Escaped Mental Patient
- Apr 2007
- 117
Yeh that's the problem, a balance between usability and 'sexability' web 2.0 is generally boring. If users want something that requires so much customisation that they end up more or less making it then they really should be buying a copy of the sims.Comment
-
Knight of Ni
- Jul 2006
- 3198
-
Precious ingenue
- Jun 2006
- 265
I try not to associate "Web 2.0" with a style of visual design. To me, Web 2.0 is about how it works, not the way it looks.Comment
-
Senior Member
- Sep 2004
- 944
-
Senior Member
- Jul 2003
- 30623
But Web 2.0 has come to define a 'look'. A logo in liquid form with a forward thrown drop shadow comes to mind.
Boring, MySpace-esque stuff that can be tedious to navigate and has a certain program-induced cookie-cutter feel. Kinda like a lot of design these days.Comment
-
PEBKAC
- Nov 2005
- 2320
-
Making the maggots cry
-
Login or Sign Up
- Log in with
Comment