I got really confused by that too. I think 99% of target audience are going to think "oh, it's a web-based terminal app". They should change the name before it's too late.
Haha, we were wondering how long it would take people to notice. Yeah, it is. We picked it before realizing it, and didn't know until we were getting permission for it. We'll probably change it soon, but since it plays a pretty minor role on the site, we decided to leave it until we could get some more time to search for a replacement.
this is a pretty awesome idea. Maybe I'm just inefficient, but I always find myself spending a stunning amount of time tweaking CSS, refreshing the page, ad nauseum. The only downside I see is that in order to modify your site CSS, it seems you would have to be running this tool, and you wouldn't be able to use your IDE of choice.
Maybe I'm not understanding this completely (and that's entirely possible!) but why use 3rd party web servers? I like the idea but it just seems like it'd be easier as a browser addon. With the browser addon:
||Step 1 > Visit Url or open file
||Step 2 > Click the addon button
||Step 3 > Addon opens double pane and clears any current CSS
||Step 4 > Edit CSS and refresh
There's probably already an addon like this. Admittedly I've never looked past Firebug.
Could someone explain why most recent websites look as if the members of the target audience are five-year old children? This is not a troll - I'm honestly wondering if anyone actually likes such a "design".
Can you explain why you think the design targets "five-year old children"? All you did was make a reductive, flippant accusation without backing it up at all.
I don't think it really needs explanation - using the term "fisher price style" is quite a common way of describing that style.
For example:
Each Fisher Price style button leading through to a small nugget of information that users can consume very quickly and move on or should we continue designing pages that are more traditional in their layout (more text+images)?
Because childrens' toys are highly functional. You've got building blocks with letters on them. They do exactly 1 thing, and they do that 1 thing very, very, very well.
Or maybe you have a board with some buttons on it. The one with a picture of a cow makes a cow noise. The pig makes a pig noise, etc.
Turns out this is also really good design practice. For a long time, when the web was new, having lots of "neat stuff" meant that you knew how to make neat stuff, which meant that you were "professional".
As this "neat stuff" became more accessible, it started having the opposite affect.
The transition you've seen happen in web is the same one that you saw happen in print. Things start off "fancy", but as "fancy" becomes easily attainable, it starts to look cheap.
40 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 92.8 ms ] threadWe would have loved to incorporate transmogrifier into the name, but that's hard to type and spell.
[1] http://www.bluebison.net/content/?p=786 [2] http://www.webputty.net/credits
||Step 1 > Visit Url or open file ||Step 2 > Click the addon button ||Step 3 > Addon opens double pane and clears any current CSS ||Step 4 > Edit CSS and refresh
There's probably already an addon like this. Admittedly I've never looked past Firebug.
Can't see how it could be regarded in such a light? Too bad.
For example:
Each Fisher Price style button leading through to a small nugget of information that users can consume very quickly and move on or should we continue designing pages that are more traditional in their layout (more text+images)?
http://www.welcomebrand.co.uk/blog/2010/09/10/the-dumbening-...
Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing at all. Obviously the grandparent disagrees, but the question is quite valid.
Or maybe you have a board with some buttons on it. The one with a picture of a cow makes a cow noise. The pig makes a pig noise, etc.
Turns out this is also really good design practice. For a long time, when the web was new, having lots of "neat stuff" meant that you knew how to make neat stuff, which meant that you were "professional".
As this "neat stuff" became more accessible, it started having the opposite affect.
The transition you've seen happen in web is the same one that you saw happen in print. Things start off "fancy", but as "fancy" becomes easily attainable, it starts to look cheap.
You may be interested in this article: http://lesswrong.com/lw/154/why_real_men_wear_pink/
"Why Real Men Wear Pink"
Wish the stiqr guys had a bit more exposure. Awesome product.