GarrettDimon.com

Thanks Steve.

I guess this blows my minimal site in the works out of the water. This is truly minimal simplicity.

I'm a long time fan of Garrett's as well. He used to be on my web host and answer my "dweeb" questions. He's also authored some nice articles for: http://www.digital-web.com/types/view_source/

If Garrett learns how to terrorize a version of photoshop, we're all in trouble!

validation is for pussies...

I'm a huge fan of this site. My favorite parts are the page/post titles and the gray italicized text beneath, it's one of the best examples I've seen of two elements complimenting one another.

Based on his first article and working on my own design where typography plays a large part I would guess that this design did not come easily.

I'm wondering if the front page is going to be tweaked anymore, or if it was purposefully designed to have the most recent post only?

A good analogy of this site would be someone in a museum of modern art that comes upon a piece and instantly exclaims, "I could do that!" But when given the tools and told to recreate something similar they couldn't come close to anything of its caliber.

I read in a magazine last night a quote from Jonathan Ives, "If something looks over designed, it's under designed." Point proven with this site.

Wow! I must say I am rather impressed. Great work.

I love this site, but you and I both know it doesn't deserve a place around here. Please Stylegala, stop being such tools and feature sites that show exceptional design and good use of standards. Not just A-lister's redesigns.

"I love this site, but you and I both know it doesn't deserve a place around here. "

I couldn't disagree more. This is exactly the kind of site SG should be sharing with everyone. Slick, considered typography is no small feat. Garrett's site shows both exceptional design and good use of standards. I'm curious as to where you are finding fault in the design?

I was JUST wondering the other day if anyone still uses the word "tool" but there... yes... they do! Boy that takes me back, to Green Day and Stone Temple Pilots and all the tools who use to listen to everything else. Oh, wait where was I going with that? Um, Kyle... stick around. Eventually you'll come to know good design when you see it. It's not about flashy pictures and cool graphic effects. Nor is it about web standards even. People like JSM and Garrett can teach us all about design if we (you) can stop being critical for a moment and really LOOK at their designs and forget who they are or how connected they may be to one thing or another.

Ross.. Just out of curiosity, which way are you leaning with that quote? I can't tell if you mean Garrett's site is over-designed or under-designed?

I'm a huge fan of the site. Yes, there may be some A-listers that frequent the spots a lot... but that's because their work is A-list. Sorry if M-Listers get upset because their work is only M-List and won't be featured..

Really nice site. Not immediately great to look at. Once you begin to actually read it is when it's simplicity and usability becomes apparent.

But am I the only one who thinks a "Skip to the main content" link that moves 100px down the screen is a bit superfluous?

My first impression of this site was not a good one. I didn't care for the huge text and the uncrossbrowser friendly :first-child styling, but the more I look at it the more I enjoy the subtle things that are done. I am beginning to really try and extend myself to more typography based designs and this site gives an excellent representation of all text and very few images...I counted 4. I do like the simplicity, however, I'm not a fan of people talking in the third person...that's just not something Seth Aldridge likes.

500 - Internal Server Error

I almost fell into the trap of ranting at Stylegala, telling them to put only sites that I approve on into their listings. However, I see, there are still plenty of others doing that, without me needing to.

I don't share any enthusiasm or awe for this design at all. There are times, yes, when less can be more. There are also times when less can be too little to be useful. It's my belief that this site falls into the latter category.

Sometimes, people can get away with minimal designs by having really well written content that enthuses the reader enough to ignore the lack of effort put into the surroundings. This site doesn't even have that. It's average to mediocre content that lacks any real shine when reading.

I perhaps need to join in with the ever popular designer worship that seems to have gripped a few too many designers of late. That way, I might be able to ignore the obvious and pretend I can see the brilliance of the subtlety. I don't buy it, in the least.

500 - Internal Server Error...again

"I don't share any enthusiasm or awe for this design at all. There are times, yes, when less can be more. There are also times when less can be too little to be useful. It's my belief that this site falls into the latter category."

Well said.

It looks terrible in IE, which it shouldn't because the layout is not too complicated. I wish more designers would take the extra work to make sites work in IE/FF/Safari/Opera etc.