GarrettDimon

Man, talk about simple. It is so simple, but still contains everything you need to get around the site. The subtle navigation at the top with the about and home page is a very nice touch.

The comment posting section is also very well done. Nice and large and easy to read.

Nice job. Interesting about Bright Corner being in Plano, didn't know that. I am from Plano also.

It's simple all right, mates, but is it what we really want to see? It's sub-minimal because at a minimum a Web site is to have content and bitchin' graphics. I give it an 8/10.

Garrett has taken the keep it simple philosophy to an extreme and still managed to create a site that is great to look at as well as easy to use. Great work and fantastic content too.

man, get rid of the drop shadows from those buttons at the bottom of the page or put a 1px white stroke around them! Makes the edges look murky.

Hmmm...*thinking*... I just don't get it. Yes, it's simple and yes, "keep it simple" is an important rule, but besides that?

Excellent typography? Nice colors? Clever grid? Impressive portfolio items that are the reasons for the simplistic approach (to make them stand out)? Not in my eyes.

What I find really funny is that such a simple navigation is achieved by using an image map.

After all it's just a question of taste, not ability, as Garret obviously isn't a beginner.

Some of the minimalistic websites I enjoy:

http://www.whynotassociates.com/

http://www.practise.co.uk/

http://www.jungundpfeffer.de/english/

http://www.designmadeingermany.de/pixeldurst/

Minimal = Yes

Use of standards = Yes

use of good colors = Yes

Taking CSS to the edge = No

I like yourtotalsite.com and I like the simplicity of garrets personal site here, but do I think it represents what the cssvault, stylegala, cssbeauty, etc... go for? Not really. There are some css submissions that would be very difficult for many novice and even skilled css designers to pull off, but this one, with just a little understanding of css, could make his design. I like it, I just don't know if it merits a style gala submission. Just personal opinion.

Am I the only one who thinks this looks a little too much like Svn?

http://www.37signals.com/svn/

Really really great. So simple and subtle with what it does, there was obviously a lot of thought behind it which is hidden to the untrained eye. Great job - Simplicity Is Beauty...

@Bryan - I didn't see anywhere in this sites 'About Us' section that says submissions should take CSS to the edge.

A good design (and this submission is a great one) is one that allows the users of a site to actually use that site and do it in a professional 'stylish' way. There is a place for cutting edge technique but it certainly shouldn't (IMO) be in a live production environment but in an 'experimentation' area.

Simplicity does not equate with less quality.

I really like it. Sweet and simple.

I think it's great and surely worthy of mention here at Stylegala! :c)

The headings look really pixelated on my screen. Anyone else find this? Of course that may be because I am not using anti-aliasing or ClearType (for medical reasons).

I agree with Jacob, this site looks too much like Svn.

A little off topic here but can anyone identify the typeface used at the top of Garret's homepage?

Looks like frutiger at first glance, but I might be wrong.

For those of you who are knocking it because "it isn't that hard to make", wake up. Sure, theoretically, anyone who understands CSS COULD have made this site, but DID they? It's a real skill to get a design looking this clean, and flowing this nicely. Perhaps you shouldn't judge a site on its difficulty to be created, but rather on its overal effectiveness. For me, the layout, colors, and open space more then get the job done.

Well said, Brad. I completely agree with you.

Greg - It is in fact frutiger.

Thanks for the comments and feedback everyone. It is greatly appreciated.

Garrett's website is simple. Simplicty is awesome, but in taste. In my opinion, he could have done a better job.

The design is probably just a little too sparse for my taste, but I agree with the points made above: it achieves everything a site should do in that it is functional, accessible and well organised. The average 'end user' doesn't care how clever your code or graphics are. It's a good example of the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" philosphy. Bearing all that in mind, I think it's every bit as valid an addition to a CSS gallery as more complex and inventive designs because it serves as a good example to other designes, both experienced and novice.

Completely agree with Brad. A simple clear design is far from easy to do well. This does it very well.

I actually Renig my comments above (juicedthoughts Bryan - my personal blog). I was ignorant to the fact of what Style Gala shoots for. I was thinking 'css to the edge' type of stuff, rather then good quality design.

My apologies can be seen at Whitespace in regards to Garrett's review.

I am sorry for being ignorant though :)

The type is fine, but the site is boring. His content is nothing I haven't read a hundred times before elsewhere.

To support a minimal design like this, your content better be lightning in a bottle. Alas, this is not so in this case.

da dawg — Point taken, but I didn't realize this was Contentgala. (Hmm... that gives me an idea...)

so by that logic, i could have a kick-ass looking site, and just have gibberish written and it could make the stylegala list? geez, i hope they're a bit more discerning than that around here.