Shaun Inman redesigns

Shaun Inman’s redesign is ballsy, unexpected, disruptive, intelligent.

Comments

G.Lindqvist 18 October 2006, 04:58 (Permalink)

I don’t know, a bit dark for me. But there are something in the design that I like. But still, I don’t know.

Fernando Lins 18 October 2006, 05:45 (Permalink)

I find it boring, huge and really hard to read. I’d’say clever, not intelligent.

P Kayne 18 October 2006, 07:25 (Permalink)

Why is it when people like Shaun Inman, Dave Shea, Jeffery Zeldman, Cameron Moll etc, do anything we all have to be stop and take note. Due to the fact everyone needs blog about it. I personally have nothing against these professionals but it’s time that field of interface design be more about the variety of designs, exchange of diverse ideas, communication of advances in development than the zombie like following of so called celebs of CSS and web development.

Time to stop the sycophant CSS God worship!

The redesign is neither profound nor inteligent, it at the very least flouts usability and reability rules, through the combination of dark barkground and lack of typography colour contrast. It’s just what it claims to be another incarnation of site, which is certainly not better than the last.

Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo 18 October 2006, 13:10 (Permalink)

I agree with P. Kayne.

Jeff 18 October 2006, 13:29 (Permalink)

P Kayne nailed it.

Noel Hurtley 18 October 2006, 15:12 (Permalink)

The concept is interesting but the execution leaves much to be desired.

Ben Darlow 19 October 2006, 01:41 (Permalink)

I’m left shrugging my shoulders. The old design suffered from an excess of difficult to read pixel text, but it also had some excellent typography (gotta love that DIN) and an interesting UI. The new site has ditched all that in favour of minimalism. Now, I’m all in favour of minimalism where the objective is to not let the structure or presentation get in the way of the content, but at the moment it feels like the minimalism is the content. If the design is successful then it should be able to step back and not get in the way of the reason people visit the site: to read what Shaun writes. At the moment I think the lack of contrast and the slightly pretentious nature of the changing colour schemes (okay, what’s the point of that?) obscure what is generally engaging and interesting content.

ZenBug 23 October 2006, 12:51 (Permalink)

“Read me before you judge on aesthetics alone.”

Oh, okay…When I judged on aesthetics alone, I thought “this site sucks”, but now that its value has been explained to me, I guess I was wrong.

...I’ll have to remember to add that little disclaimer to my next design.

DutchKid 25 October 2006, 03:13 (Permalink)

What P Kayne said.

Smithy 25 October 2006, 10:46 (Permalink)

Wow Kane nailed it exactly right. If you have to have your visitors need an instruction manual before reading the site, what’s the point?

And of course had I done the exact thing, little me that noone knows about, I’d be a laughing stock to the few people that actually bothered to visit the site. But since this is Inman, some people cant get their noses out of his ass.

p|nautilus 30 October 2006, 11:08 (Permalink)

Could this be any more useless? From both a useability and a readablility [sic?] approach this site is weak. Poor design stems from poor concepts, no matter how much style you slather on. Inman or no this site is slim.

WmSmith 23 November 2006, 15:24 (Permalink)

What the hell has Mr Inman been smoking?

Personally, i think his explanation of ‘The Heap’ sounds a little pompous.

I agree with Kayne and also with Smithy ^.

Who cares if its ‘Shaun Inman’ ? It looks amateur.

melkristian 24 November 2006, 10:11 (Permalink)

Thank goodness someone finally said something. Kudos to P Kayne! I guess the “transition” is close to the end. It’s like a certain designer saying something about WalMart being “ugly”. It stopped being about the prices anymore.

Like I said in that designer’s blog, aesthetics matter to designers at a much much higher degree.

Warm regards all.

melkristian 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

Thank goodness someone finally said something. Kudos to P Kayne! I guess the “transition” is close to the end. It’s like a certain designer saying something about WalMart being “ugly”. It stopped being about the prices anymore.

Like I said in that designer’s blog, aesthetics matter to designers at a much much higher degree.

Warm regards all.

WmSmith 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

What the hell has Mr Inman been smoking?

Personally, i think his explanation of ‘The Heap’ sounds a little pompous.

I agree with Kayne and also with Smithy ^.

Who cares if its ‘Shaun Inman’ ? It looks amateur.

p|nautilus 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

Could this be any more useless? From both a useability and a readablility [sic?] approach this site is weak. Poor design stems from poor concepts, no matter how much style you slather on. Inman or no this site is slim.

Smithy 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

Wow Kane nailed it exactly right. If you have to have your visitors need an instruction manual before reading the site, what’s the point?

And of course had I done the exact thing, little me that noone knows about, I’d be a laughing stock to the few people that actually bothered to visit the site. But since this is Inman, some people cant get their noses out of his ass.

DutchKid 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

What P Kayne said.

ZenBug 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

“Read me before you judge on aesthetics alone.”

Oh, okay…When I judged on aesthetics alone, I thought “this site sucks”, but now that its value has been explained to me, I guess I was wrong.

...I’ll have to remember to add that little disclaimer to my next design.

Ben Darlow 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

I’m left shrugging my shoulders. The old design suffered from an excess of difficult to read pixel text, but it also had some excellent typography (gotta love that DIN) and an interesting UI. The new site has ditched all that in favour of minimalism. Now, I’m all in favour of minimalism where the objective is to not let the structure or presentation get in the way of the content, but at the moment it feels like the minimalism is the content. If the design is successful then it should be able to step back and not get in the way of the reason people visit the site: to read what Shaun writes. At the moment I think the lack of contrast and the slightly pretentious nature of the changing colour schemes (okay, what’s the point of that?) obscure what is generally engaging and interesting content.

Noel Hurtley 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

The concept is interesting but the execution leaves much to be desired.

Jeff 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

P Kayne nailed it.

Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

I agree with P. Kayne.

P Kayne 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

Why is it when people like Shaun Inman, Dave Shea, Jeffery Zeldman, Cameron Moll etc, do anything we all have to be stop and take note. Due to the fact everyone needs blog about it. I personally have nothing against these professionals but it’s time that field of interface design be more about the variety of designs, exchange of diverse ideas, communication of advances in development than the zombie like following of so called celebs of CSS and web development.

Time to stop the sycophant CSS God worship!

The redesign is neither profound nor inteligent, it at the very least flouts usability and reability rules, through the combination of dark barkground and lack of typography colour contrast. It’s just what it claims to be another incarnation of site, which is certainly not better than the last.

Fernando Lins 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

I find it boring, huge and really hard to read. I’d’say clever, not intelligent.

G.Lindqvist 18 October 2006, 01:24 (Permalink)

I don’t know, a bit dark for me. But there are something in the design that I like. But still, I don’t know.

Post new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.