Simon Clayson

The last two additions to the gallery are disappointing. I would assume the standards have been lowered for the sake of more content.

Nice comment, Raul. Assume all you like, but best not to ruin this designer's moment on Stylegala, right?

Simon, well done. Having been aware of your work for some time, it was a very nice surprise to see you on Stylegala. Deserved, despite what some bores might say.

Well put, Colly. Congratulations Simon! Great site!

I like Simon's site.

It's easy to get around and well laid out.

The only problem I had with it is when I clicked to have the high contrast versions, I got a 404. I figure that this is something Simon will have fixed sooner rather than later.

Funny that everyone complains when layouts that are "bloglike" get included in the gallery, but then they complain when non-bloglike layouts come along too.

Perhaps some people are just jealous that their site isn't in the gallery.

Congrats Simon!

Raul,

I'm sure that Colly, myself, and the other reviewers here can both vouch for the fact that we've got no shortage of great submissions and plenty of possible content.

We receive heaps of beautiful websites each day, and it takes a remarkable site to stand out from that horde of submissions. I think the reason the last two sites were disappointing to you is that they're a bit different than what you're used to seeing here, and I don't have a problem with that. We need some fresh ideas in this community, and this site was one of the few I've seen that wasn't just a rehash of designs we've already featured here.

Simon did a great job on this site, and deserves to be recognized for it. I stand by every word of my review.

While I think Rauls comments were overly harsh I have to say I think the site is boring.

Congrats all the same though.

I must admit I agree with Rauls : even if the Simon's site is well coded and have nice pictures, I can't even see where are those 'never seen before' you talk about.

I realy don't find the design or layout attractive and readable, even if minimalistic and user friendly (high contrast switcher, but poor adaptation to font-size growing).

So you talk about not ruining his Style Gala Moment, but I think comment may deserve his work in all ways, not just those which are kindness.

Bye

This is a nice, clean site and I enjoy it for that. Since all design must be measured by its purpose and in context, I really don't understand comments like, "I think the site is boring." Minimalism is, by its very nature, subtle. As the purpose of this site is not to entertain us, isn't the above comment a non sequitur?

I find it increasingly interesting (or ridiculous) that much of the commentary here revolves around how worthy a site is to have been reviewed here. This is not Entertainment Gala. I think that exposure to and presentation of different styles of website design and aesthetic is worthile - and the point, perhaps.

Here we have an example of a site that exhibits some measure of excellence in design for a particular style. Kudos!

I have to say i agree with Raul and Pierre. Alltho' all the pages validates on everypage, it does not show up to my view of a «gala-page», sorry.

I like this site a lot. It is very clean overall, has a very good and logical information architecture and makes use of a very soothing color schemata. I think the picture on the homepage is also great and has a very "everyday, we're home" sort of feel to it which immediately introduces an inviting atmosphere. I also like the little icons. I have not seen this style of icons being done before. Personally, I think this is a non-trendy, albeit fresh and intelligent site.

Kind regards,

Maleika

I really can't say I love the style of this site, but that's just my personal taste.

What matters though, is not my personal taste, what matters is the fact that this site is professional and from a design perspective it has some very unique, albeit subtle, and noteworthy qualities. Therefore, this being a gallery, I must say congrats to the designer for what he's just achieved, and now I'm off to explore his design further.

Finally, I agree with Andy. Are the comments really here for people to re-review whether a site should be in SG? I too don't think so. The review's been done. The comments are here to comment on the design and code, not whether a site should be here or not.

I think all comment are useful, whether they be praising the site or criticising it. There is value in both.

The big problem with this comments page is the fact that people comment on eachother comments (yes I know I've just contradicted myself with this comment).

I just think it gets out of hand. Comments should be made about the site, not about eachother.

Going back to validate my apparently 'non sequitur' comment:

-It's a portfolio site, however it feels like a corporate bank page. The style seems constricted (that isn't minimalism)

-There is almost no use of colour or graphics

-It's a very run of the mill navigation

None of this suggest the site is bady designed. Quite the opposite, I think it is a very functional, and well layed out design. However this does not detract from the fact that the site is simply boring.

Heh! Llandudno! Me' local town.

Anyway.

Good site - seems very solid. Nice one.

Congratulations on making SG, am very envious! I like the site, but will agree with others that it's more about the functionality than looks in this case. Just two points I'd like to make.

Firstly, some of the CSS image rollovers take a little time to execute, and perhaps you'd want to look into one of the CSS pre-load techniques out there (I know I'm guilty of this as well sometimes!)

Secondly, I find the extra padding on some of the links, particularly at the top for the alternative stylesheets is actually quite off-putting. There are borders which look like the delineate the 'clickable area' for that link, yet the link extends outside that, and when you have all three links at the top of the page without any margins in between it can be a little difficult to determine which link your going to be clicking (yes I also know the text turns red on a:hover)

my 2 cents, cheers!

Nice, clean site - except it falls apart in both Safari and the latest version of IE on my mac. So much for usability...

Raul is correct. Let's put personal feelings aside, and call this site what it is: average.

Calling a website average, disappointing or a reflection of StyleGala's lowered standards without offering any specifics or suggestions to the site designer is not constructive, not helpful, not flattering.

- - - - -

I think the site will serve him well. Love, love, love the checkboxes, and how they check. Not so much the widgets next to the checkboxes - what's that all about?

I hope that left side nav bar fills up over time. Oh wait... ugh, I just went to the news page. I really think that a design like this needs to have well-balanced columns. The news page is *divine*... as long as you don't scroll down too far.

Overall: this is definitely a site I'd enjoy while using more than something I'd admire in passing. That said, the layout is too easily broken by the dynamic nature of the content.

I stand by every word I said.

James writes

"...it different than what you're used to seeing here..."

It is indeed "different". However, I visit numerous beautiful sites each day whose style is different than my own or than I'm use to seeing.

However, I believe you've blown the "different" thing completely out of proportion; almost to the point that you chose this site just because it was "different", rather than because it was a visually appealing, high quality design.

My comment is not about the overall site but about the accessibility feature.

If the high contrast versions of the site are for low vision users, why is the text for these options so small - how are the low vision users supposed to see these buttons along the top in the first place?!

99% of people will simply ignore this feature and never realize it exists.

I would love to know more about low vision users and whether they know what these types of accessibility tool actually are. I've never come across any research on the matter.

It's amazing what one good photo can do. Other than that, and that's most of the front, and sub-pages, the site is rather plain as others have said.

It does have a banking look to it, but the photos spice it up quite a bit. I would say the layout is very versatile and depending on the graphics used, could work well for a wide range of sites. Maybe that's a good thing for a company that makes websites for other people, not just themselves.

The picture on the matte looks great...almost out of place. With such a sharp crisp image you should maybe think about possibly making the navigation a little cripser by using a tight border around the nav areas.

Simple is good though.

Neat interface. I like the three styles proposed, and the quality of the photos is impressive.

Great site!