3 ms·
> What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details. And since it appears as a text box and a logo, doesn't it make the point about having a l
by irahul 14y ago
> What appears to be just a text box and a logo has a lot of details.
And since it appears as a text box and a logo, doesn't it make the point about having a lot of details moot? It's slightly different than google or bing, but vastly similar. Let's not make shit up here.
> (Yet, you run a web-development company...cool story bro!)
Take a breath. Web development isn't the same as web design. It's kinda sad that I have to point it out.
> 1) DDG uses a lot of Gradients, which is what I referred to as complex
Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients.
> This is another factor that makes their design look 'complex'.
To you. I missed the meeting where you were appointed the authority on design. Since you are all pumped up about how you get design, I will be interested to know what have you built.
> It make sense because the signal lights are in Red for the same reason, because they denote something important.
For the nth time, stop making shit up. Red is used because it scatters less(higher wavelength) and can be seen more clearly from a distance.
> You haven't heard of a lot of things, that doesn't mean those things aren't valid.
I checked that before commenting. Your user survey about usability doesn't say google researches whether padding is beneficial for search.
> I for one aren't listening to your advice on design after you described DDG's design as just a text-box and a logo.
So what exactly are you not listening to? That contrast attracts attraction? Wow.
> Did you read the entire entire comment? Read what's written in the braces, I clearly say that's how I perceive about the algorithm as an end-user.
May be I should have been clear. I am saying your perceptions are made-up.
> I've noticed your previous comments as well, you just like to half-ass read stuff and jump in straight away.
What comments would that be? I can't say the same about reading yours. The cover is enough to drive me away from the book.
> Like you half-ass read the other things, you half-ass know about me too.
I don't know about you and I am not commenting about you. I am commenting about the behavior where everyone fancies himself Steve Jobs. That's what you are demonstrating by assuming you know everything about design and other people don't. Since you are so cocksure, I am asking again. Have you ever built something, or do you just comment on internet forums?
> You know what's so ironic here? I am not the one with an 'i' in front of my name.
Please tell me this is a fucking joke. Do I have to discuss my handle now?
> Now..please don't ask me what's ironic here again..
I won't. You clearly don't understand what irony means. BTW, is it too much to ask to actually know what irony means before throwing it around every other sentence?
> References: http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html http://www.google.com/forms/user_faq.html
Google is doing usability study is not the same as google has researched what padding to use.
- neya 14y ago>Web development isn't the same as web design. The one you claim to do on your homepage talks about involving design, which is why I referenced it. And which you absolutely have no idea about. >Instead of making shit up, you could have just said it's using a lot more gradients. It's more than just using just gradients (which is just one thing), which was my point. See, you're just proving it time and again. >I will be interested to know what have you built. I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this: http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too. >May be I should have been clear. Yep, you never are. You like to make vague statements to attract controversy. >Since you are so cocksure Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye.
- irahul 14y ago> The one you claim to do on your homepage talks about involving design, which is why I referenced it. My homepage talks about design doesn't mean I have to design. > I am not obliged to let you know that. But surely it isn't as shitty as this: http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg http://i46.tinypic.com/21vfc.jpg That thing is called a prototype. And you are not obliged to tell what you have built, but when you are throwing shit all around, at least have some credentials. Either don't be an asshole, or at least be correct. When it comes to opinions(and not absolute facts), who has it is an important factor in evaluating it. > For the rest of the world to see, that's what iRahul has built so far and he's here to critique a designer. And now you know why the search boxes appear the same to him, and probably everything else will, too. In case it didn't occur to you, rest of the world doesn't give a shit about a petty internet argument. When I did the prototype, it was open for everyone to see. I don't see the point in your declaration about the whole world seeing what I built. Different strokes for different people. Some people build things and move on if it doesn't work; some people post comments on news forums with nothing to back them up and then go digging something to feed their vanity. Vain people are a big pain in the ass, not because they are vain(that too) but because they sustain themselves on putting others down, rather than getting themselves ahead. > Please keep your profanity to yourself. You just proved you are worth no one's time. Bye. It isn't like I am being benefited from getting in argument with some random designer on some internet forum. And do you always lobby others to cry for you?(rest of the world to see, "no one's time" rather than "my time")