Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Internet

What Website has the Cleanest Site Design? 181

Posted by Cliff from the suitable-examples-for-others dept.
Gabe Anast asks: "The recent article on Microsoft's market dominance referred to an article at the International Herald Tribune, which I read until I became engrossed in the natural readability and intuitive interface of that site. It's amazing! I'll have to say that site has the cleanest design of any I have ever used. So, of course, I thought 'What are the other "best designed" sites? Would Slashdot know? My personal criteria for site design is: graphic design/appeal; an intuitive interface; and content that flows naturally (eg: high content density that does not sacrifice clarity). What are your favorite sites, and by what criteria do you judge such?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Website has the Cleanest Site Design? More

What Website has the Cleanest Site Design?

Comments Filter:

  • Easy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sporty ( 27564 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:40PM (#5994382) Homepage
    Google.com

    Easy interface, easy results.

    • Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:48PM (#5994453) Homepage Journal
      funny thing that google.com is sometimes the best interface to some sites too, as some sites are really hard to manouver but it's really easy then to make up few words that will take you straight where you want on that site.

      the less there is the better usually. ads should not be getting too much space and useless bloating by providing links to other pages of the same provider(that have nothing to do with the content) are usually useless on every page.

      in fact these 'navigational' bars sometimes make the navigating much more difficult, since they tend to make it so that you get everywhere from one point. now this might seem smart and useful, but would you rather have easier time finding where you are going with a room that had 300 doors, or finding where you want to be in structure where there was like 4 doors from every room with signs saying what are you going towards..

      • Re:Easy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fredrikj ( 629833 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:54PM (#5994503) Homepage
        funny thing that google.com is sometimes the best interface to some sites too, as some sites are really hard to manouver but it's really easy then to make up few words that will take you straight where you want on that site.

        Case in point: slashdot.org. Seriously, Slashdot's search function rarely takes me to the article I'm looking for, while with Google I always get there if I just remember one or two words from the headline.

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Monday May 19, 2003 @06:02PM (#5994550)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:Easy (Score:2, Informative)

            by brendotroy ( 251962 )
            Or, if you use the toolbar (I know, it's only available to a few OS/browser combos) just type your search terms in and click the "search this site" button while you're on a /. page. Also potentially helpful (and obvious).

            http://toolbar.google.com/
            • Or, if you use the toolbar (I know, it's only available to a few OS/browser combos) just type your search terms in and click the "search this site" button while you're on a /. page

              Actually, the original version of the Google toolbar was a set of JavaScript links for use with Netscape. The IE-specific version came out later. The originals can be used with any JavaScript compatible browser. Here they are, the original and a few handy modifications, for those that don't know the trick. Add these to your

        • Re:Easy (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bedessen ( 411686 )
          Agreed. Slashdot's pathetic search function can't even search the body of comments, just the title. When is the title of a post ever really that meaningful? Hardly ever. There are a bunch of times I remember some tidbit in a post but unless it was moderated up, or appears at the top of a thread (and thus is included in the ".shtml" archive version of the page which Google spiders), it's almost completely impossible to find.

          Or how about the ability to force the search on stories to only match ALL keywor
          • Here's a search.pl for you :-)

            <!-- Search Google -->
            <FORM method=GET action=http://www.google.com/custom>
            <INPUT TYPE=text name=q size=31 maxlength=255 value="">
            <INPUT type=submit name=sa VALUE="Google Search">
            <INPUT type=hidden name=cof VALUE="LW:275;L:http://images.slashdot.org/title. g if;LH:72;AH:left;S:http://slashdot.org/;AWFID:528b aeba264afd9b;">
            <input type=hidden name=domains value="slashdot.org">
            <input type=hidden name=sitesearch value="slashdot.org">
        • Slashdot's search is so unhelpful that I never consider using it. Go ahead and mod me down for "redundant", but it's worth it to make the point that this poster isn't alone in this opinion.

    • Don't get me wrong, google is my favorite search engine. I just don't think they deserve any awards for Web page design.

      The basic features of google are easy to access, but there are a whole bunch of google features that are not available from their main page. Google has their own features page [google.com] (try getting to that from the front page), but there are all sorts of third party Web pages explaining some of the "hidden" features of google. Their "Advanced search" really does not offer many of their fea

      • But.. but.. they have 5 main features anyone would want. Everything else is in their business section, which is what anyone else WOULD want.

        All in all, it's a pretty good interface. Even their advanced forms are easy to use.
      • First to get there, click "jobs, press & help" and second item down in the middle of the page is "Google Web Search Features."

        Second, most of those features show up automatically, which you will come across when you use Google frequently. Granted, the address search feature isn't very obvious, but I've still had google ask if I wanted directions when searching for cities. The spelling corrections show up if you misspell something, the news items when there is current and relevant news, similar pages a
    • Also, a clean home page.

      If you want to drive away people quickly, just load the homepage up with graphics.

  • Without a doubt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Loosewire ( 628916 ) * on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:40PM (#5994383) Homepage Journal
    Google - even their ads are clean and not obtrusive.
    • Loosewire writes:
      "Google - even their ads are clean and not obtrusive."

      I guess so! My first reaction when I read this was, "Google has ads?!"

      Not obtrusive indeed! =)
      • If you've never used a google ad you are missing out. Unlike 99% of sites their ads are on target and if you are looking for a product rather than information they will almost always be a good place to look. In fact in my decade+ of web surfing I believe google is the only site that has led my by ad to a place I bought something =)
  • The current one's not bad, but it's sliding downhill in my opinion. In the hall of shame I think we find The Register, and the random story ordering.
  • G - O - O - G - L - E

    well, only four distinct letters...
  • My own [openglforums.com] of course. Its clean, table-less, and is valid XHTML1.0 Strict.

    -Vic
    • And yet, when I click View|Text Size|Largest, your site's font doesn't change.

      Makes it difficult for readers who can't read small fonts, I would say.

  • Gripe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gehrehmee ( 16338 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:46PM (#5994433) Homepage
    Off hand, I'd say that site's not all that hot. The site doesn't even vary its layout with the width of the window, which means it not only wastes most of the available space on my big monitor, but is completely useless on handleld displays.

    I think we can set the bar a little higher than that don't you?

    • Re:Gripe (Score:4, Informative)

      by missing000 ( 602285 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:54PM (#5994498)
      It's also not a website. W3C [w3.org] can't tell what it is, and a quick look at the source tells me it full of problems, numberone on my list being an extreeme over-use of javascript.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) *
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • It works fine for me in Mozilla Firebird.

          What's up with this "not a website" attitude? As much as the W3C would like to think it dictates web standards, there is a significant "de facto" standard of what works and what doesn't on web pages. It's perfectly possible to make a web site that essentially everyone can use without passing the W3C validator. That page might not be proper XHTML 4.0/CSS2/XML/RSS/WSDL compliant, but that doesn't make it not a web site! At the same time, you can easily make a proper s
          • ah, but it doesn't work on mozilla firebird correctly, at least i don't think the feature of having the middle of the page pretty much empty and the layout pretty much f*****d otherwise too.

            but the biggest indicator would be that navigator bar, it gets fumbled when you scroll down.

            could you say a car that didn't meet the requirements for a legal car is perfectly ok for a car?

            or would you say a cripled 'enchanced cd' is a real compact disc?
        • Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly...

          I've enjoyed reading iht for a while now. When I see a news.google.com hit for it, I'll choose iht over other news sources, just because of the nice way it provides article reading.

          And I'm doing this all in Mozilla 1.3.
        • Internet Explorer seems to me to be the only browser capable of rendering it correctly...

          It doesn't honour the user's font size preference in IE.
    • I disagree, I think you jumped the gun a bit in your judgment.

      The site dynamically re-allocates the content across multiple pages based on window height window and font size. (Small window = 'page 1 of 7', large window = page '1 of 2'). So, though it may not use your entire big monitor left-to-right, it does expand top-to-bottom, and redistribute the content across the appropriate number of pages. One great thing about the site is that all content is loaded in the first request, and if you click to the 'ne
    • Doesn't work right in Safari either, so I guess none of the other KHTML browsers can deal with it either.

  • Clean Design? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DarkBlack ( 5773 ) <[darkblack] [at] [miscreation.net]> on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:47PM (#5994445) Homepage
    This site is broken in a very recent build of Mozilla Firebird. I find it horrid. I hate the floating bar at the top. There is no content in the middle area, probably because it doesn't validate. [w3.org]

    I am very displeased with the website's designer. This is all before I have even had a chance to explore the rest of the site. Sorry, your 10 seconds is up. Next Link.....
    • Looks awful on Safari too! The text overflows and overlaps the footer and the headline too jumbles the beginning of the second column... lousy
    • The content is there. You have to hit refresh and firebird fixes itself. Sometimes firebird omits chunks of content randomly. Does it on my XHTML valid blog to.
    • And it's a interface designer's problem if you use 'a very recent build' of a particular browser? I use moz 1.3 and I read iht all the time without incident.

      While we're calling the kettle black, your own site only 'tentatively' validates as html 4.01.
      • I don't know why you say 'tentatively', but it validates as HTML 4.01 strict [w3.org] , and if you visit with a compliant browser [mozilla.org], that asks for xhtml 1.1, you are served xhtml 1.1 [w3.org] with a content-type of application/xhtml+xml. I'd welcome you to show me how it doesn't validate.

        You probably saw html 4.01 content if you visted with konqueror, opera, or IE. Mozilla requests application/xhtml+xml as a higher priority than text/html.
      • I'm using Mozilla 1.4b, and the IHT site looks like crap. Huge empty space in the middle, scroll right to read the text which is crammed into a column about three words wide.
    • I'm using Moz 1.3. The floating bar is an annoyance, but I'm sure they could set a prefs cookie to leave it pinned (assuming they bothered to research it). In a way, though, it's handy to have, since it's always there without scrolling being required. If Moz's repaints weren't so slow, it'd be much cooler.

      They don't underline their links, which should be a crime -- we're not all awesome at seeing the difference between colours, especially as our eyes age or if we're unlucky enough to be colour blind.

      Oh
      • As someone mentioned earlier, it probably is a Mozilla Firebird bug in the quirks mode rendering. It renders fine in Mozilla 1.3. However as some others have stated already, it's not valid html or anything else except tag soup.
    • Same story here. That's got to be the worst website design I've come across in weeks. I seriously thought that calling it a clean and intuitive design was meant to be a joke, until I read the parent post.

  • Shocked at Doonesbury (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BrynM ( 217883 ) *
    I was going to say the Doonesbury [doonesbury.com] site, and even noticed that I was a bit behind reading them... Then I went there. (Microsoft's) Slate has taken it over! The site used to look like the white area without the Slate shit around it, but I guess MS felt that interface was too intuiti... err... not branded enough. First the subscription debacle of Non Sequitur [ucomics.com] and now this. Damn it!

  • ok, it's not really part of the internet... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:49PM (#5994459)
    ...but about:blank is nevertheless really, really clean.

  • It's right here! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:51PM (#5994475) Journal
    http://games.slashdot.org [slashdot.org]
  • Here's a mirror:

    This web page is not here yet

  • Cleanest site design... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Photo ( 640363 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @05:54PM (#5994495) Journal
    My nominee for best site design is Slashdot, but then again I'm completely colorblind... ;-)
    • Actually, for the longest time, i have been using slashdot in "light" mode (available under one of the preferences).

      It's actually ultra-clean and very light. it's faster to download and render - it's still very usuable under lynx and i have for a while too. And it's pretty color agnostic. as in, just black on white. So give slashdot light a try.

      Basically the table is not a monsterosity and the sidebars are missing. And you don't get the pretty topic icons.
      • It's still pretty rank; it's a mess of semantically meaningless tags like <font> and <b>, doesn't bother with any paragraphs (<br> everywhere), and is just generally nasty for what's supposed to be nice clean HTML aimed at textmode browsers and the like.

        Just because it's written like a 1989 website, doesn't make it clean.
      • ACKKKK!! Will everyone PLEASE stop talking about Lynx as if people still use it!!!

        And if you are using it, get a clue! I have handhelds that can run Firebird or Ie just fine!
        In all seriousness, I use the browser that takes the least time to open, and on a fresh install of XP Pro w/ swap file turned off and all patches applied, IE opens in a snap, so I will keep using it. :) Firebird is pretty close second as far as opening speed. Anyone else have a good graphical browser that is very very fast to ope
        • NCSA Mosaic loads up pretty quickly on my XP3000+.

          Oh, yeah. I still use lynx. I'm using it right now. Where I live, I can't get a modem to connect faster than 14.4kbps, and lynx is functional over that type of connection. Mozilla does OK, with its image permissions and blocking, if I need to look at graphics. I still do a lot of browsing with lynx.
  • Allthough you might not be able to read the articles, th entire site, including the free font page, has a very clean and elegant design... http://www.wsj.com ---Lane

  • Here's one that has some of the cleanest design and interface concepts, as well as low bandwidth support that I've seen: ccosas beanbagcentral site [beanbagcentral.com]

    The whole beanbagcentral.com [beanbagcentral.com] website is really impressive.

    Either way, I vote for well managed color coordination, easy display of commonly used information, not a bandwidth hog, and relative content.

    Keep in mind though - how good a site depends on the purpose of a site. It's all a matter of the design, intent, target audience, etc. What may seem like a bad

  • My Opinion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MooseGuy529 ( 578473 ) <[moc.liamekaens] [ta] [20b6th85i]> on Monday May 19, 2003 @06:01PM (#5994544) Homepage Journal

    Well I would say one site that has a very clean design is Slashdot in Light mode, but I guess that doesn't really count... I haven't really run in to any really easy to use sites lately.


    First, a site has to look decent, color- and font-wise. A standard font like arial or times is good, and the colors can't clash. Also, the font, color, size, et cetera has to be consistent throught the page, i.e. if there are topic headings make them all the same style. The place I have seen this most ignored is in small e-shops where they have links and pictures and huge headings everywhere.


    Next: navigatino has to be easy and structured, but not overstructured--it's a balance. If you have just a pile of pages without organization, it's really hard to find stuff, but (as it sometimes happens with large directories like Yahoo and Google) grouping under too many levels gives vague top-level headings that don't really reveal what's beneath.


    Another random thing that popped into my head: if the main content of a site is articles, then the navbar should have a bunch of categories for articles. It's really annoying when I see something like Home, About Us, Articles, Polls, Members, Forums, Help, Log In and I go to several places looking for stuff when all the main content is under one heading; in other words, keep the sections balanced.


    Use stylesheets... it's really annoying to see crappy web pages with different fonts and colors, or mistakes in markup because the writer was typing out font tags. I saw a web site the other day that had font tags around each and every link on the page to give links a different color... um, there's an easier way to do it!


    Don't add pointless features. Nobody really wants to vote on which picture of your cat is the best (sorry, a classic of vanity web pages) or sign your pointless guestbook. When you use one of those stupid web-page wizards, put a little thought into whether you really need each feature you want to add...


    More about stylesheets... This is hard for already-created sites, but lay out and format the bulk of your site with CSS so it can be resized, stretched, and twisted without looking stupid. Make sure changing the font size doesn't ruin your layout, and also that you can change the font size--don't use pixel sizes!


    Okay, I'm done ranting...

    • CSS (Score:2)

      by jefu ( 53450 )
      For a nicely impressive look at what CSS can go for you try the Zen Garden of CSS.
    • don't use pixel sizes!

      Well, pixel sizes are often a more consistent way to do the layout. The biggest problem is that Mac web browsers generally assume that the screen is 72dpi, while Windoze assumes 96dpi. I don't know about Linux.

      The end result is that stuff designed with point sizes on a Windoze machine ends up reallytiny on my Mac!

      Pixel sizes overcome this

  • The author of the article has a good list of what makes a site good, but needs to swap his first and last items.

    The same damned thing's true of most web designers.

  • Apple has the most intuitive company webpage I've seen in a long while. You are never more then three clicks away from information. Their new store, on the other hand, is much less intuitive than it used to be. I'm not sure why they changed it into the more cluttered interface. Look at Dell's page, or Compaq, or Sun... icky.

  • Ha'ayal and Fisheye (Score:3, Informative)

    by epsalon ( 518482 ) <slash@alon.wox.org> on Monday May 19, 2003 @06:08PM (#5994589) Homepage Journal
    These [haayal.co.il] Hebrew [fisheye.co.il] sites [sf-f.org.il] employ a very clean and easy forum system, unseen anywhere else.
  • By an dlarge the BEST site design I have EVER seen. The though, effort, and creativity involved in this masterpiece has to been experienced, not just seen.
    • I concur, for a site that makes anything possible, zombo is free of clutter. The fusion of form and function. Truly awesome. Too bad it's down right now, or you could see for yourself.
  • I have to say that Robert has put together a clean site for your anime needs at Animeigo [animego.com] East yo maneuver, easy to find information and works on all my browsers without a fault.

  • Jodi (Score:2)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 )
    The best: jodi.org [jodi.org] .

  • The man knows his html... (Score:4, Informative)

    by crapulent ( 598941 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @07:00PM (#5994898)
    Come on, the timecube guy [timecube.com] is obviously a master at modern UI deign and html layout. :-)

    Seriously though, here are some sites whose design I like:

    Sweetcode [sweetcode.org]

    Mathworld [wolfram.com]

    openrbl.org [openrbl.org]

    perldoc [perldoc.com]

    Paul Borke's website [swin.edu.au]

    the Joel On Software forums [fogcreek.com]

    the Tech Report [tech-report.com] (a debatable choice, but the best of its type)

    Dmitry's Design Lab [webreference.com]

    • Timecube.com confirms to the following standards:
      • Correct and proper use of the tag
      • Good conformity to "Accessiblility Standards", using nothing smaller than +3 fonts.
      • Proper use of the underline tag, with no associated link.
      • Line drawings compressed in JPEG format.
      • Contains insightful phrases, such as "CREATION HAS TWO SEX POLES & 4 CORNER RACES OF HUMANS". I'm not touching that with a 10ft, err, pole.

      Man, so much talk about cubes and 4x4's. Obviously created by a frustrated SUV driver. :P

  • Everyone knows that Jeff. K's Web site (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mordant ( 138460 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @07:11PM (#5994968)
    is the best [somethingawful.com].

  • how about some judging criteria: (Score:5, Funny)

    by avi33 ( 116048 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @07:12PM (#5994970) Homepage
    First of all, it can't use javascript, because anything that can't be displayed on my 1984 casio digital watch (running slackware via the CLI) isn't really a website anyway. Same goes for tables, XML, pixel gifs, images that use more than 8 bits of color, and true type fonts, though CSS and a DTD are mandatory.

    And secondly, it's got to look good running at 64 x 48 pixels. Some people need to look at their monitors from the next room using an inverted pair of binoculars.

    Finally, under no circumstances shall you take into consideration the content being displayed. My blog (dedicated to the daily minutiae of my plants and their arcing patterns toward sunlight) easily satisfies all of these requirements, so why shouldn't a consumer-oriented, dynamic, international news site be able to do it too?
  • Websites should read like books. The content should get most of the space, with a bit on the top of the page for the title and chapter, a bit on the bottom for location (page number), and a bit on the side for navigation (ala tabs in a book). The front page (cover) should be easy to get to and give the basic information. The back cover should also be easy to get to, and give information such as publisher and contact information. Images not adding to content should be scarce.

    • NOOOOOOO! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 )

      Websites should read like books.

      But the thing is, web users don't read web sites like books.

      Look at the usability research, and a few things are clear. Most web sites are scanned, not read. (The exceptions are things like lengthy articles, but even then, many of these are printed and read from paper anyway.) Hence writing in the same style, and offering the same "mass of text" presentation, as would be appropriate for a book is bad practice for the web.

      Most users do not scroll much, if at all. Two o

  • Off the top of my head: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fweeky ( 41046 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @08:07PM (#5995264) Homepage
    • aagh.net [aagh.net] -- degrades gracefully, uses real (X)HTML properly, has clean URL's, simple and clear navigation, plenty of <link>'s, and is one of the few sites I know of that not only serves XHTML as application/xhtml+xml as it should be, but serves HTML 4.01 to clients that don't support it. Yes, it's my site ;)
    • xiven.com [xiven.com] -- honourable mention :)
    • diveintomark.org [diveintomark.org] -- aside from the braindead US date format he uses, it rules.
    • DevEdge [netscape.com] -- clean, degrades very well.
    • kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] -- Has a nice fresh creamy flavour.
    • While K5's not as bad as it used to be, Rusty still hasn't updated the site to NOT use the FrankenHTML that works on NS 4.x. I know that some people consider Mozilla bad in this day and age, but anything beats Netscape 4.x.

      Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way, and Rusty's not about to cut off the readership.
      • Um, yes.. I was going to mention the bitter aftertaste from that, but forgot when I rewrote my comment. Bah :)

        It does at least look quite nice and clean, anyway ;)
  • I don't know whether it's a standards problem with the Safari rendering engine, but this story: http://www.iht.com/articles/96772.html from their site doesn't render well enough to read at all in Safari (latest, patched beta).

    It looked OK in Firebird (the browser, not the DB), tho. I like the attention to detail regarding spacing in the articles, but the main page just made me want to do anything but surf further on their site.
  • Seems that large-audience, or atleast focussed audience, news sites are the best in terms of interface design and general usability

    my two favorites:

    NewsToday [newstoday.com]
    BBC's main site [bbc.co.uk]

  • I came across Marshall Electronics [mars-cam.com] while looking for miniature cameras and immediately fell in love with their site. It's packed with technical info, easy to navigate, and uncluttered. I wrote their webmaster a thankyou note. These are also the folks responsible for Mogami cable [mogamicable.com] and connectors.

  • Clean news sites (Score:3, Informative)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Monday May 19, 2003 @08:56PM (#5995520) Journal
    Personally, I think that the BBC News [bbc.co.uk] and NewsNow [newsnow.co.uk] sites are both well layed out, work well, etc. Skimming either can be done in seconds and give you a good snapshot of what's going on in the world.

    Drilling down to an area of interest on either site is very clean, quick and easy too.

  • My vote goes to... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrResistor ( 120588 ) <peterahoff AT gmail DOT com> on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:16PM (#5995613) Homepage
    McMaster-Carr [mcmaster.com]

    At first glance many will disagree, and likely every one of them will have no experience with McMaster-Carr. The thing you have to realize is that their printed catalog is about 3500 pages, and they stock over 400,000 items, and this site incorporates all that and more. I have to say this is hands down the most usable e-commerce site I've ever had to deal with, putting many sites with far fewer items to shame.

    • MrResistor said:

      At first glance many will disagree, and likely every one of them will have no experience with McMaster-Carr. The thing you have to realize is that their printed catalog is about 3500 pages, and they stock over 400,000 items, and this site incorporates all that and more. I have to say this is hands down the most usable e-commerce site I've ever had to deal with, putting many sites with far fewer items to shame.

      To which I say, "Amen brother!"

      For those who want a comparison to an industrial

  • webpagesthatsuck.com (Score:3, Informative)

    by schnits0r ( 633893 ) <nathannd AT sasktel DOT net> on Monday May 19, 2003 @09:20PM (#5995640) Homepage Journal
    They offer tips on how to fix thing and how not to make annoying sites. I find it best to learn by example. They show bad examples so you know what NOT to do.

    http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com

  • I've been liking this guy's [mke3.net] stuff lately. He did the Blender3D site, and if you follow the links, some others that have a similar look. Just clean color bars with a nice asymetric balance, navigation is integral to the design, not just patched into some corner block some where.

    Chris Croome [croome.net] (hi dude!) had a role in the WebArchitects [webarchitects.co.uk] page which IMO is the right way to do a text-only approach... let color do the work, not graphics.

    Finally, my own Cream for Vim [sourceforge.net] page is a monochromatic (single hue) design i

  • ... Homestar Runenr [homestarrunner.com]!!!

    This website has such a great interface. It has sound, it has one simply Flash object, it is actually funny, and it's so easy to use that my parents can figure it out!

    • Homestar Runner is a great example of a good flash site. Unfortunately it is also a great example of a site that you can't do anything at unless you download a plugin and wait for the cartoons to load. This is 100% fine for a site like Homestar Runner, which is a cartoon-based site. It would not be a good design for a news page.

      The challenge when making a web page that a lot of "pro" designers don't understand it seems, is that you need to pick a design that works with the content on your site. In many
      • Thats because for the most part they are "Designers" with a "Designer" background.

        The Designer (turned out in the thousands by "Design Schools" or art programs and the like) :

        1. Aspires to be doing ads and layouts for Wired and Interview and the like.
        2. Or perhaps is really an Artist who is Unappreciated by the Great Unwashed.
        3. Considers web design to be something kind of icky and (they hope) temporary - but for which they should get paid quite a lot.
        4. Is not interested in readability or usability, only in

  • Financial Times (German Edition) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hughk ( 248126 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @02:23AM (#5996889) Journal
    When the FT decided to produce a German language edition, they kept the distinctive colour, but made a much more interesting paper, presenting complex information simply.

    When they did the web site for the German edition, they carried on with the new graphic design producing one that seems better than their English language site [ft.com]. Even if you are a non German-language speaker, I would reccomend a visit just to look at the design. As a side note, the FT as a newspaper is never big on pictures and the web site carries on with that tradition.

    Interestingly enough, the site remains free for the time being.

  • php.net? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by h3 ( 27424 )
    I've always admired the design of php.net. Maybe it's because I spend so much time there (the manual) and I've grown used to it, but I find it easy to navigate and read. On top of the straight design stuff, they also have a lot of neat "features" that really add to the site design:
    • Smart URLs (http://www.php.net/echo will take you to the "echo" manual page)
    • Smart 404s - mistype a URL and it'll essentially perform a search instead and come up with suggestions
    • "view source", as in view the PHP source that

  • Standards compliance, damn it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zonix ( 592337 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @05:07AM (#5997279) Journal

    Geez, forget clean "design"!

    I'd settle for standards compliant sites. If you start there, it's harder to screw up your precious "design", unless tempted by using flash and javascript, and the like.

    People, your next stop is the W3C [w3.org].

    z
  • This page:

    http://www.accessdmv.com/

    is fantastic. Clean, simple, gets to the point. Lets me renew my car registration in (literally) 45 seconds. Love it.

    I _love_ simple, mid-90's-era web pages. I haven't updated it in a while, but my page:

    www.osxadm.com

    is just like that. You can read it, some simple icons, but no fluff. In fact, at one point osxadm inspired this guy's page:
    bowdenj [216.239.57.100] (hey, someone noticed!)

  • Apple.com (Score:3, Funny)

    by hexdcml ( 553714 ) <hexdcml@hotma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @11:18AM (#5998721)
    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Apple.com It's clean, simple to use, with lot's of content - compared to Microsoft's website, this is a lot better, and I've read somewhere it reflects Apple's philosophy's or what have you... but I just think it's a really cool site - and Apple being my online Mecca, I visit it daily and never seem to tire from it.

  • Text-based design (Score:3, Informative)

    by selan ( 234261 ) on Tuesday May 20, 2003 @12:38PM (#5999302) Journal
    Have a look here [textbased.com] for a minimalist, clean approach.

  • Oboy ! (Score:2)

    by jefu ( 53450 )
    The International Herald Tribune site looks pretty good to me on phoenix (0.6) (er, um Mozilla/Firebird - maybe we should just all call it MF). On the other hand it does not use all the width of the browser and resizing the window to be smaller than the text given just hides it.

    One of the news articles on the HT front page prompted me to look at the UN page which is worth looking at for a good example of how not to build a page : the UN english page [un.org]. All the text on the page is in the form of images -

  • about:blank

    Looks clean in every browser I've tried, except lynx. :(

    The people who run the ICQ homepage should be shot. mirabilis.com looks like about four normal web sites threw up on it. Same thing with the large group of sites associated with voyeurweb.com. Their web designer needs to be beaten to death with a 14" dildo.

    Also, a lot of sites use flash or something similar to get to a "clean" design. I'm on a super-low-speed connection, and know well the pain of having to wait 25 minutes while some fuckw

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close