|
|
|
|
|
|
by coldtea
3388 days ago
|
|
|
>It looks non-functional and ugly to me. Non-functional and ugly? I'd say this is subjective, but I find this assessment objectively wrong. It's complete accessible, and totally functional for what it does -- present a series of sections and display code examples. And it's also quite obviously well designed from an aesthetic perspective. (There's no black box in the actual site in Chrome, but even with the black box, it's a totally fine functional design). As for the NYT, it looks like a compromise between looking like a print newspaper of yore, a portal of slightly less yore, and a modern news website cramming everything in the same start page. |
|
|
Yeah, it's a subjective opinion. Something looking good is also an opinion.
What I mean by non-functional is that the attempt at design was non-functional on my browser resulting in dead space and unattractive design.
Since this book is about programming, it already sets a precedent for potentially pretty but non-universally-working solutions. Something I personally try to avoid as much as possible.
Other issues with the design is huge unattractive margins and the main page containing almost no information when first loaded.
Honestly, this all wouldn't normally bother me as there are tons of books whose online sites have OK at best design. And maybe it's a great book, but complimenting it on design specifically seems wrong.