What is a good site design?

I love this, for the simplicity. Text-based websites that look good are one in a million, but they're usually the easiest and most straightforward to use. I also love the way this site gets so much across without trying. It's all about grouping the data in a sensible, logical manner.

In contrast... this. An abomination. Flash-based websites are sometimes cool, such as this one, but again simplicity is the key. You might think the artsy "try and confuse the user" thing looks great in a website, but trust me - it's just annoying.

I'm sure there's more to add... I'm just too tired now *yawn*. I'll sleep on it.

With my own site, I've gone through many different layouts. I know my current version has some weaknesses, but I'm slowly working on those.

Another site I've made is also just a simple site.

Also I've done my best to code both of these using CSS for the layout, and any critisism is more than welcome. Hope this helps give you more ideas.

It completely depends on the content.

If it's information-led, then accessibility, clarity, ease of navigation, quick-loading, etc are all paramount.

If it comes from a different perspective (e.g. artistic) then it may have other priorities. Entertaining, mysterious etc.

Here's a site a friend of mine put together.
http://www.voluntarywork.org.uk/

It's not perfect, by any means, and it's not particularly quick-loading but it fulfills the brief for a small community-based website which other employees with little web-knowledge could update.

Here are four sites that I have made in the last few months. Forgive me, because I am new to this.

My Site #1

My Site #2 I can't seem to fix the main page random photos so they aren't so narrow. The box doesn't change widths.

My Site #3

My Site #4

Even though I'm sure this thread topic has come up before, I appreciate it because some people (like me) rarely post and it's good to re-hash ideas sometimes. Please critique away!

I'm going to have to recommend two excellent sites:

http://www.brianellisrules.com

and

http://www.brianellissucks.com


Both are turning the web-design world on its ear.

I do love the simplicity of A Small Orange's site.

I also love the look, color scheme, and layout of http://drupal.org. (note: for some reason, the corners of the rounded CSS containers are darker in Safari. IE/Moz displays them perfectly).

I also like http://www.konfabulator.com for some reason. Good webdesign is like art. Somethings will appeal to others while other things won't.

But I like more simplistic sites, rather than cluttered flash-based IN YOUR FACE!! types...such as http://www.shiver7.com

Josh said:

Somethings will appeal to others while other things won't.

Click to expand...

That's because all design is subjective, if one really wanted to stir one could argue that there is no such thing as 'good' design.

...

I love this site, especially if I have a hankering for Flash. More Flash then I know what to do with... http://www.fullsail.com

bostonwhaler1 said:

I love this site, especially if I have a hankering for Flash. More Flash then I know what to do with... http://www.fullsail.com

Click to expand...

Thats a neat site. I especially liked that lil "welcome" by that person that talks and walks.

Josh said:

I do love the simplicity of A Small Orange's site.

I also love the look, color scheme, and layout of http://drupal.org. (note: for some reason, the corners of the rounded CSS containers are darker in Safari. IE/Moz displays them perfectly).

Click to expand...

It's because the images are PNGs and Safari applies a gamma correction to them that alters the color just a little bit. you can read about the issue
here. If they would have used GIFs the issue would be moot, but they proabably have a more sophisticated alpha channel going on those to get better blending, and then they used a script or something to get IE Win to play nice with them.

I'd say stick with a fixed width site (I prefer my fixed width sites centered) with a width of about 750ish so it is compatable to those evil people that don't deserve net connections, the 800x600 dinosaurs. I've made quite a few fixed width sites, and i've had very few problems with them in different browsers.

http://www.billyharveymusic.com/

http://www.erikotten.nl/7/

http://www.jeedub.com/

check out my site http://m.1asphost.com/liquidmedia/

i tend to like my site design http://projectc5.com. i also did http://nickistager.com.

Yotabyte said:

I'd say stick with a fixed width site (I prefer my fixed width sites centered) with a width of about 750ish so it is compatable to those evil people that don't deserve net connections, the 800x600 dinosaurs. I've made quite a few fixed width sites, and i've had very few problems with them in different browsers.

Click to expand...

Indeed. When you go above 1024x768 or 1280x1024, websites that use the whole width start to become annoying to read.

After all, newspaper make columns for a good reason: people hate to read long lines.

Having a fixed width website solves that problem (and if your resolution is at least twice the website's width, then by all mean zoom it to 200%. If you're using Opera, the only browser to understand what "Zoom" means).

rozwell said:

i tend to like my site design http://projectc5.com. i also did http://nickistager.com.

Click to expand...

Nice white page.

rozwell said:

i also did http://nickistager.com.

Click to expand...

No offence, but the light grey 6 point text on a white background is virtually unreadable .

Here are two I enjoy. Honestly, I mainly like these site's because I like the company's they represent - especially their demo reels!



1

2

Yvan256 said:

Indeed. When you go above 1024x768 or 1280x1024, websites that use the whole width start to become annoying to read.

Click to expand...

Quick tip...resize your browser window.

kingjr3 said:

Quick tip...resize your browser window.

Click to expand...

And then you scroll back and forth reading it.

Mechcozmo said:

And then you scroll back and forth reading it.

Click to expand...

I interpreted as if he didn't like pages that span the entire width (using width:100% for example) at 1600x1200, for example. Not as sites that are fixed at 1600x1200, that would be just insane.

It's funny how people's ideas of great sites happen to be their own.
No offense, but I think the nickistager.com site posted above is a great example of what not to do from a useability standpoint. Forcing a user to wait for access to buttons while birds fly around, an 'index' page of sorts with no use whatsoever, hard to read type, buttons that don't betray what they do, or even convey 'button'. Admittedly in his case a 'design driven' site is the right choice- but only good up to the point where it starts getting in the way of letting the user see his work.

A good site in my opinion is a balance of functionality, useability and aesthetics, but the priorities among the three can weigh more or less heavily depending on the goal.