Gr0w Collective

Care to elaborate Jon? I would be interested in your views.

<b>I'd expect to see comments that don't add any relevance or input on a showcase site to be found on CSSVault and not Stylegala as well, Jon.</b>

Next time you come to discuss a site, read the TOC below the comment box before you post.

<b>As for the site:</b> The colors, branding, and typography are top notch. I'd like to see some more contrast between the headers/body text and better graphics for the navigation bar.

All in all, it does a great job of directing your eye, which is what a site is suppose to do upon first glance.

This site is wonderfully minimalist and versatile. There is nothing else to it I am afraid.

The navigation fails to impress. Neither does the logo. The color is too subdued. Also the CSS does not validate. I am sorry to be blunt about this but that is the way I see it.

Jon, how about you drop us a link to some of your work so we can see how much better you can do.

As for the site, the typography is great and the design doesn't get in the way of the message. Great work.

A great factor is the clickability, I went through quite a few pages before I moved back to stylegala, more than I can say for previous entries.

A nice site.

@Mohodin, you are more than welcome to express your valid opinion of the site, which you backed up with a legitimate clain ;)

to answer to why the site was still entered, i felt that thetwo errors which where used as browser hacks from what i can make of them did not out weight the rest of the value of the site.

Now if we are splitting hairs :) then yeah it doesnt validate and is a good reason not include it, but i feel that if i really had to just measure the site on its all round appeal that it measured up. hope that give a good insite into my reasoning.

I really like the clean simplicity of this site, especially the way they choose to seperate various elements of the site with those borders. The only negative that I could propose is that on the home page, it's very hard to tell that this is "Grow's" site, not about "Scooch". Scooch is a very nice program, and they do try to push it as hard as possible, but I can see how one may become confused.

One of the best points about this site, in my opinion though, is the content. As good as the design is, all it really does is showcase their content, and they have a lot of nice articles to show off. The rule that we all live by, or should anyways, is that content is king, and that's what your site is for. In that regard I think grow nailed it, along side promoting their brand/buisiness.

Lovely design, clean and accessible code, validates and feels distinctively like A List Apart. This is a bit more like the StyleGala I remember ;)

On a side note to I think the branding is spot on - the flower works a treat.

Good work!

Yes, it does remind me somewhat of ALA, with the subdued palette but with their own twist on the typography. Very readable, and the content is interesting as well. One of the few sites on Stylegala that made me want to explore and click about. Great job!

Top notch branding? If you call putting three different versions of your mark all on one page top notch branding then yeah.

The dead space in the middle column doesn't do much for me, and giving a callout for your main product an id of "adbox" isn't very bright, because adblock ignores it. And what's up with the credits roll in the stylesheet?

I'd imagine that the "credits" are there to let the people who browse their stylesheet, to figure out how they did things, etc. It's kind of like copyrighting, they're just letting everyone know that it's their property, that they created it.

I agree with Steven's comment, a site's design simply serves to make it's content more appealing and accessible. The gr0w site does this very well, providing a nice "atmosphere" for the content without detracting it. Great site in my opinion.

Joe's comment about the div's id being "adbox" is a great point we should all note. I was unaware of it before he mentioned it, but it makes sense and I've deffinately learned from that. Thanks Joe!

David, non-validation is not good enough reason to exclude a site from being put up for peer review. I agree with you on that.

However, people take different views on the site and that is what makes stylegala so interesting: it would have been utterly boring if all commenters agreed each others. Let's give credit where it is due and similarly point out any negativity if any. People are different. So is their views on design. Therefore, I have no problem with this website being put forward for this reviewing process.

not sure if you were aiming that latter comment towards me, but let me say for the record, I have absolutly no problem with peoples varing opinions, in fact i support

and applaud independent, critical thinking.

if you gathered anything from my previous remarks it was aimied at those who make comments purly for their shock value with no real intent or purpose behind them.

Those types of comments - and i believe i have the backing of the sites administration - will be vetted out, and those people who routinely make such comments will be asked to refrain from doing so, so we can build a more mature place where people can having discenting views and feel comfortable doing so with out having to leave a disclaimer about not wanting to be berated for having such a view.

The site is boring and looks like billion other sites out there. Nothing new is incorporated into the design that isn't seen anywhere else. Go mozilla.com or flock.com and it looks just like them except not as good.

Contrast has always been a big thing with me. Users need contrast when they go to a site to tell them what's what. And defreaniate (big sp) between the different elements. The color use is bland. The pages are very long in my opinion. I'm talking about the home page and the about page and such. There's nothing new here to look at.

Ok so heres an honest question, for those of you who say, Ben that there is nothing new here' what is it that you are looking for in a site that you have not see before, that you would like to see? Grow is actually way older that say flock which just got redesigned, so that comparison doesnt work,

but honestly for my next review i want to be able take into account what you all are expecting to see. please make me a list of attributes that you have not seen used on any other site that would constitute a 'new' trend/style.

PM in the forums, ClimaxDesigns

David B shouldnt be reviewing sites here...his own site isnt very good and looks amateurish.

nice comment Mark, so i guess noone should not listen to jakob nielsen based on that same premiss, my work os an open book with a breath of pieces that you can see, and critique on thier own merits.

where are your offerings? oh thats right you posted anonymously :) you are welcome to your opinion, but i grant you that if my design skills were actually relevant to this conversation there are a great many that would disagree with you.

Im sorry, my last comment was unwarranted.

no worries mark ;) we all get like that sometimes.

To me there is little visual flow or anything to grab the eye, I am looking around everywhere trying to determine what these guys are about. Especially when a company says they design stuff I would love to see pictures and images, but the design page is very bland, and the site is extremely text heavy - far too much for me to be bothered reading.

I love the logo - especially in reverse on the dark brown - but I really think that look could have been carried across into the rest of the design much more effectively.

I think the design is minimal and attractive, however it doesn't really display the innovative qualities that other SG sites normally show. Just my opinion :)

This comment is almost unrelated to the design but still is constructive...

The domain name gr0w.com I think is a bad choice for a domain for many reasons. Its obvious they were going for something short but that zero could easily construed as an 'O'. From anything to business cards to especially talking on the phone, you'll have to explain to everybody when you tell them "grow.com" substitute the 'O' for a zero. GrowCollective.com, while longer, would be less confusing.

I agree with Rundle. The design is clean and has the minimalist appeal, but not quite to SG standards.

Oh... my... goodness... I'm pretty sure I submitted this to Stylegala months ago... like, I'm talking maybe 7 or 8 months ago. Wow.

I think at the time I was blown away by this site. Since then I look at it with a lot more experience in CSS and usability, and maybe I don't feel the same way anymore. Should the site have a huge billboard for a free product before even the welcome blurb? Should there be 3 different branding logos on the main page? Should navigation links dissappear when images are turned off? I guess these are all quirks, maybe they are working for gr0w. It's definitely a clean design, the colors are great, and there was a lot of effort put into each section. The code is accessible and the zoom layout is nice too. As I've said before, I'm not too sure what "holy grail" of web design people are looking for here, so I'm standing by my submission and saying that gr0w is a good entry :)

Wow, thanks for all the comments, both good and bad. I take them in the spirit they were meant and I consider it an honour to even have the site submitted.

Ironically, the design is over a year and a half old now and has been crying out to me for a redesign almost as long. It's amazing how much your design methods can change in an internet year of 3 months never mind 18. In fact, we almost relaunched in January way before this review but the slot got eaten away with other projects.

From my persepctive, I consider myself a fairly poor graphic designer. I only aspire to be a good one. However, the ethics of the design around usability and accessibility I still hold dear even if I now feel that some of the methods I used at that time now have significant shortcomings.

Thanks again for those who shared their thoughtful comments and voted. In particular, thank you to Christian Montoya and David Blanchet for taking the timeto submit and review.

All the best, Jon Tan.

Nothing especial, I used to see nice sites in stylegala portfolio, this one is like not so much..