[–] willcate 12y ago ↗ Ugly it may be, but hey, it says right down at the bottom, "This web page was successfully Validated as: "HTML 5 with CSS level 3" and tested in all above browsers."So there.
[–] mikecane 12y ago ↗ Oh please. This is still the champ: http://www.lingscars.com/ [–] marquis 12y ago ↗ I love this woman. She knows what her site does to people. Her Dragon's Den episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtib4WZW_4M [–] krapp 12y ago ↗ That's not ugly, that's a work of stupefying genius.
[–] marquis 12y ago ↗ I love this woman. She knows what her site does to people. Her Dragon's Den episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtib4WZW_4M
[–] lttlrck 12y ago ↗ Maybe but I had a complete overview of what they sold within a couple of seconds...
[–] coldtea 12y ago ↗ No. It's straight to the point, minimal markup, few distractions (with the exception of some bad color choices), fast to load too.There are some Web 3.0, responsive, all buzzwords included sites that are way more annoying than this. [–] nnnnni 12y ago ↗ ...and the icons are VERY clear.
[–] Torgo 12y ago ↗ At least that one has an excuse, from the copyright it appears it was created in 1996. This was created in 2010: http://www.warrens.net/
[–] brianstorms 12y ago ↗ If you're going to criticize a website, at least spell "existence" correctly.
[–] krapp 12y ago ↗ All they need to do is tone down the colors.Red should never be used as the background for a website. Ever.
11 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 35.1 ms ] threadSo there.
There are some Web 3.0, responsive, all buzzwords included sites that are way more annoying than this.
Red should never be used as the background for a website. Ever.