4 ms·

Everyone wants to be Dustin Curtis. Still, the author calling HN posters Neanderthals was a nice touch.

• notanidiot 17y ago
  Joy Division was a great band, although I thought the lead singer died in the 80’s.
  • RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    Disambiguation: * http://dustincurtis.com/ http://dustincurtis.com/ * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Curtis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Curtis
  • dmix 17y ago
    Choosing such a username is always risky.
• ilovecomputers 17y ago
  Well actually, it's common in the printing business to have each article to be of a unique style. Take National Geographic for instance. One article has a different theme: http://www.valeriedaysings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/national-geographic-article.jpg http://www.valeriedaysings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/na... from another: http://www.simongarnier.com/images/wordpress/ft_hdr.5.jpg http://www.simongarnier.com/images/wordpress/ft_hdr.5.jpg Well actually, those are title pages, but I've read those articles and I can attest that the different designs set a suitable mood for the topic at hand. I applaud web publishers for taking up this paradigm and applying what publishing graphic designers have been doing for some time. Of course with most methods of design, it depends if the occasion is suitable. Some online publications can do well with a consistent design: http://www.alistapart.com/ http://www.alistapart.com/ While others do well with differing designs, almost as if each posting of their articles is a treat for their readers: http://trentwalton.com/articles/ http://trentwalton.com/articles/ just like D.Curtis does, so good on him if he has inspired others to do the same.
• ugh 17y ago
  “Still, the author calling HN posters Neanderthals was a nice touch.” In this case quite appropriate, though. Having to scroll down one third of the page before you get to anything resembling a meaningful discussion about the actual content of the article cannot possibly be a good thing. Neither can the sneer and arrogance displayed in this thread. (I’m kind of aware of the irony of me participating in this thread. Resisting the temptation to be self-righteous on the web is hard.)
  • Semiapies 17y ago
    That's the downside of a design-heavy blog post: people will talk about your design first.
    • ugh 17y ago
      Really? That’s where you want to go? It’s the author’s fault that people here talk (mostly) rubbish for trying to make his post look great (even if he falls short)? I don’t quite follow.
      • Semiapies 17y ago
        "Really? That’s where you want to go?" Lose the ego-investment/chip on your shoulder/BS. Nobody's impressed, and this isn't a schoolyard. Where I "want to go" is exactly what I said. People will talk about the design first: how much they like it, how much they don't like it, whatever. We are not robots, and those of us with normal vision will pick up on color, shape, and arrangement before they read any of the text. Simple rule: if you're going to be offended at people talking quite a bit about the striking color (or other design element) you used for your web page, whether appreciatively or not, don't use that striking color.
  • jrockway 17y ago
    The "sneer and arrogance" displayed in the thread is from people who actually already implemented most of these features, and from people using those extensions. This article boils down to "It isn't pretty enough, and I didn't write it." In other words: no actual relevant content. Just a lot of pretty images as text, BIG FONTS, and whining.