|
Website
Oct 8, 2005 12:55:56 GMT -5
Post by dietspam16 on Oct 8, 2005 12:55:56 GMT -5
I don't think i ever was very rude, mostly though i'm just pissed off at how badly he handles criticism. and the thing is, theres pleasently simple, and theres simple, but ugly and and painfully horrendous...
|
|
|
Website
Oct 8, 2005 13:46:57 GMT -5
Post by Random on Oct 8, 2005 13:46:57 GMT -5
alright, i do not see anyone that jumped at his neck without being provoked
and his second post? yea, look at the post after it, and then go pack to the first one, and notice that pavel had to modify it, and that he "meant it to be as rude as possible"
and as far as simple goes? both my current site and my old one could be considered simple in almost every respect, but the old one at least was aesthetically pleasing, and unless you're running windows 95 with a < 1 ghz processor, you can load it quickly, whereas the site we're discussing isn't exactly what i'd call aesthetically pleasing
|
|
|
Website
Oct 8, 2005 17:29:36 GMT -5
Post by dietspam16 on Oct 8, 2005 17:29:36 GMT -5
exactly. theres simple to use, and simple to design.
|
|
|
Website
Oct 10, 2005 23:19:25 GMT -5
Post by Monolith on Oct 10, 2005 23:19:25 GMT -5
It's not the simplicity that sucks, it's the fact that it's just a bunch of big blocks of white text one a black background, which isn't very easy to read. The pictures are basically unnecessary, and are so bad they just makeit look worse. I'm not asking you to use dreamweaver and make some fancy website with animated buttons and a fancy background. I'm just asking you to make it less dull. It's like trying to read a prison cell.
I've already expressed my views on the crp that serves as content.
As for being rude, I would have been a lot nicer if Andrew here hadn't had a tantrum when someone added some very polite constructive criticism.
|
|