|
|
Posted by Drew on 12/07/05 18:10
Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:06:15 GMT, Drew
> <whoisthatmaskedman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Well it is a rather effective means of incurring harsh overly critical
>>>analysis of my work...basically the rejects like yourself...I'm just
>>>using you to further my art...although in your case, yer just a fuckin
>>>burn out, cause you can't seem to identify a specific aspect of a
>>>specific work of mine that has something specifically wrong with it
>>>(non-aesthetic based)...
>>
>
>>Well first off let's re-clarify that it was you who stated "My skill in
>>typing is as badass as my skill in web design," so thus all critique
>>will cover aesthetic and non-aesthetic aspects of your work.
>
>
>>The inconsistent kerning of Backwater Productions on your home page is
>>pathetic and amateurish.
>
>
> How is it amateurish, Stupid, it's supposed to look like it's UNDER
> WATER...tell us all though, how would you make text look like it's
> under water WITHOUT altering the kerning? Uh oh, didn't quite think
> that one through too good, didja?
If you had pulled the underwater look off then I would have thought that
through. But you didn't especially when the title UP IN THE SKY.
>
>
>>Badass web designers complete their site before declaring it thusly (ie:
>>Products and Contact). Jeeze, can't you even post contact info?
>
>
> Well since I currently don't have any products to sell, it might be a
> little hard to put them up. As for the contact information, yeah
> right, what are you fucking stupid? I get enough contract work
> WITHOUT putting any contact information on there, I'm not looking to
> flood myself just yet.
Then take the links down. It leaves an unfinished and unprofessional look.
>
>
>>The drum beat rollovers, the whooshing breeze and sliding portfolio
>>effects are worthless.
>
>
> If you're blind and deaf, yeah I suppose they would be pretty
> worthless, but then the design wasn't made around people like that.
> I'm sure in your perfect world 'o Stupid all sites would have plain
> white backgrounds with plain black text and no graphics at all...but
> then you wouldn't know art if it crawled up yer ass, laid eggs and
> they hatched inside you and ate their way out. And uh, your bitching
> about the sounds and such is an AESTHETIC perspective.
You asked for a critique and I gave you one. No need to fly off in your
ass whupping mode.
>
>
>>"Breeder of Australian Shepherd dogs." is not a complete sentence in
>>contrast to your other descriptions that are.
>
>
> That would be a copy editing issue and has nothing AT ALL to do with
> DESIGN, Stupid.
It has to do with the site thus EVERYTHING has to do with the site.
Aesthetics, color theory, vocabulary, diction, coding, etc.
>
>
>>http://www.tripoweraussies.com/ is basically a box on a white
>>background.
>
>
> Stupid, every site that's ever been made could be called a box on a
> background. I dunno, maybe in the land of STUPID they make like
> triangular monitors or something, but here in REALITY, all monitors
> are some kind of box shape.
Since all your sites seem to have this "aesthetic" you seem to be
working from a template not using any creativity in your work. Plain and
simple; poor execution.
>
>
>>Totally uncool.
>
>
> Yeah, throw yer whole fuckin monitor out the window, it's a fuckin
> box, that's totally uncool. All the cool kids have TRAPEZOID
> monitors!
Has nothing to do with monitor shape. Your sites are so incomplete you
should jump out a window.
>
>
>>And what's with the scroll bars that aren't needed?
>
>
> Which site are you referring to and what browser and OS are you using?
> I think you're starting to confuse design problems with shit browser
> problems.
Matters not. A badass designer takes into account all browsers and
functionality. Period.
>
>
>>The rollovers are trite and overused.
>
>
> How so?
No imagination.
>
>
>>Nothing "badass" here.
>
>
> Actually there are several bad ass things about that site...none of
> which an AMATEUR like you would ever notice or realize. That's one of
> my oldest sites though and I could do a lot more "badass" things with
> it, by utilizing more PNG alpha transparencies to cut the total site
> size down to 1/5th of it's current standing.
Until you do, it sucks.
>
>
>>Click on Males then Family, for example and your Venus, Kitsy, Jack
>>image doesn't match up with the box properly.
>
>
> Maybe on the Mac it doesn't.
So it's obvious you don't test your sites across browsers OR platforms.
Amateur.
>
>
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/cell-biology/ Worse problems
>>here. Are you using a template? White box in image shows incomplete work
>>and lack of knowledge.
>
>
> ...what "white box in image"? Again, must be some kind of a mac
> issue.
See above.
>
>
>>Are you sure that http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/histology-1/
>>is W3C compliant as you claim?
>
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/histology-1/index.html
>
> Well considering the W3C is the one making the claim...uh, yeah. Dum,
> dum, dum!
Drew 27 Hatter 1
>
>
>>Please explain the lack of functionality here:
>>http://www.backwater-productions.net/wwcc/yoga-online/ Did Ms. Johnson
>>really pay your for this site? You need to give her her money back, plus
>>interest.
>
>
> That site was designed to work specifically for Internet Explorer on
> the PC, no other browser or OS, that was the clients
> choice...partially because it was just a prototype, so it only needed
> to work on one browser and OS.
Then since this isn't a "badass" site it shouldn't be in your "portfolio".
>
>
>>That's it from my corner of the world. As I stated earlier, I'm just a
>>janitor. There's the trash.
>
>
> Everything you look at on a Mac is trash.
Sites of quality look great from here. It's the sites made of trash that
look like trash. There's nothing there that's even recyclable. The old
saw is true; shit in, shit out.
Drew 28 Hatter 1
Drew
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|