Epocrates

I love the typography used on the site. It is nothing dazzling or anything, but I like it because looks very refined. The layout is a nice spin on the two-column layout by dividing it up vertically. The buttons and bullets are one of the little details that gives the site "that feel."

I think the "My account" link should be located with the other checkout and etc links, the drop shadow could be lightened, and the navmenu looks squashed. Perhaps tabs would have done better.

It's absolute crap and looks like a million other sites. Man the quality of your links is going downhill

Com'on beavis, you can't call that absolute crap - it's worth a bit more than that I'd say.

Don't forget that this is no portfolio site but a corporate site where the intent is not to put forth stunning graphics but to make it usable and elegant while driving home their message, which I believe they have done quite well.

You see, normally I would delete a comment like beavis just wrote. It's offensive and not constructive in any way. I don't mind that people write critisism in here, but comments like that are just destructive. If you want to discuss stylegala.com in general, please use the forum instead.

Something is wrong with that site. When it loads, the stylesheet load is delayed, causing non-styled markup to appear in the browser before the styles flash in. It looks terrible while loading. But once it's loaded, it looks rather refined.

That is most likely caused by the infamous flash of unstyled content (google it for more info).

Not a big fan of this site. Its to gray and nothing is original about it.

I like the nav buttons most of all. They look nice and they're very easy to read.

There's a clean, white, enameled, laboratory theme to the page which is intended, I assume, and well done.

I have to agree with beavis a little though. Most commercial sites have a standardized look and the designs tend to be rather timid and plain. But that's the dilemma of designing commercial sites. You want a design which is eye-catching but at the same time easily understood by a large audience.

OK maybe I should have added more. I have seen hundreds of sites like this. I cant see what makes this special. Its anything but original. Why say it's good typography when it is absolutely awful typography? Please go to sites like misprinted type for excellent typography and look up the definition of the term.

Is it hard to stop using our priviledge of commentary as a means to make attacks on everyone else's judgement and taste. Why not do more than down someone, and just critique the design as it is? It really isn't hard to add some meat and substance to our commentary.

If we like/dislike something, that is fine and also interesting when shared, but it is much more beneficial when we give a sensible reason why.

I think that the goal is for less comments and more critiques.

Great web design is not just about style. It is about all the other things that make it into one, cohesive experience to push the message, which as others have said, they have done quite well here. If there is a problem with show-case sites, it is that they favor initial impact of style rather than a solid site design with all things considered. The gray does seem unoriginal but in this context it seems appropriate. All things considered, it's quite a nice site.

I have to agree with beavis, this site isn't that great. The grey color scheme is boring, the navigation doesn't really match the site's design scheme (plus it looks squished), and the typography is average (Verdana, Arial, etc).

Also, the photos used on the site are all disconnected with each one having its own style and some of them look low-quality (doctor pic). Also, the varying column widths are jarring. I'm a bit surprised this made the gallery, and not the "worth a visit" sect

I'm with beavis too. I have to agree about the design being boring. (I think it is awful - sorry) On the 'typography' aspect - maybe stylegala meant something else because there is no typography on this site. Sites like juxt interactive, misprinted type have typography. Typography isn't possible with web standards so it's an incorrect statement to make.

One could argue that typography and html don't match, since the term itself originate from a printed medium. But that discussion does not belong here. Please try to focus on commenting the site itself and not the comments made by stylegala or anyone else.

I really like this site! Nice design, clean code and a good content presentation - great work at all.

I've just got to say something here. I haven't read comments on a site on Stylegala which has provoked such strong feeling before.

I agree with David on this. The site has good semantic markup, overall a good design (it's not my taste, but that does not mean it doesn't work) and it has good typography. Now, let me explain that last point.

As a typographic designer by background I know there is more to 'correct' typography that the sort of expression you see at misprintedtype. cont...

beavis, you're wrong about the typography on this site and wrong about your definition and examples of typography. The art of typography exists, generally, to aide the reader. True, there is an element of decoration, and always has been, but that must have it's place. Is a business website the place for type you see at misprintedtype? Probably not.

Now, i'm not out to flame beavis (or anyone else) but this site's typography is considered and relevant.