5 ms·
It's much easier to make it look "gorgeous" when the timeline is full of gorgeous people, beautifully photographed.
by hnriot 14y ago
It's much easier to make it look "gorgeous" when the timeline is full of gorgeous people, beautifully photographed.
- prteja11 14y agoCouldn't agree more. And it kinda looks like Spotify to me.
- ownagefool 14y agoMe too. Came here to say it won't look as pretty when you replace all those photos with random images taken by random people from their phones but the parent beat me to it.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- brudgers 14y agoI won't speak for anyone else, but better friends would certainly improve my Facebook experience. Unfortunately, I would be unlikely to improve theirs similarly.
- artursapek 14y agoTo achieve this, I quit using Facebook.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- aeflash 14y agoI'm waiting for someone to re-do the comps with crappy quality photos, ugly non-smiling people, meme pics, and instagram photos of garbage.
- ErikRogneby 14y agoExactly. Where are the Farmville, Bejeweled, <insert app X here> updates in this design exercise? Oh and where are the ads?
- pvilchez 14y agoThere's an 'Ads' list element on the left under 'Favourites'. Which no one would ever click.
- the_bear 14y agoThis seems like a pretty common mistake among designers. As a matter of fact, Facebook made this same mistake themselves not too long ago. When they release the "cover photo" feature, they showed off how great it looked when applied to a bunch of professional designers' profiles. When normal people started uploading low-res, vertically oriented images, it was instantly clear how silly of an idea the cover photo is. Facebook seems to acknowledge this since now if you view a person's profile, it automatically scrolls past the cover photo so you don't even see most of it.
- ojr 14y agoCover photo a bad idea? Thats a weird thing to say because after facebook made cover photos available twitter got a header cover, then google plus, and even app.net... The cover photo tells a lot about the person
- barclay 14y agoSure, it does. But they're also overwhelmingly crappy for most "normal" folks: pixelated, blurry, poorly cropped.
- TeMPOraL 14y agoWhich is actually a problem with people. Attention to details, along with basic technical 101, seems non-existant in society at large.
- sprobertson 14y agoEveryone copying Facebook's design decisions doesn't mean Facebook makes good design decisions...
- reustle 14y agoPretty sure google plus had cover photos from the beginning, which was before FB implemented them.
- deleted 14y ago
- tangue 14y agoI just uploaded a version with some crap instead [1], and it still works fine. These Metro styled tiles looks great whatever content you put in, the problem is the space wasted to achieve this look. http://imgur.com/H9Tri http://imgur.com/H9Tri
- edwardunknown 14y agoLol at least it will confuse grandma
- visarga 14y agoHey, that's not crap. It's herp herp.
- acchow 14y ago"it still works fine" is rather subjective. I much prefer Facebook's current and last design, from both a usability and aesthetic view.
- human_error 14y agoFacebook is about displaying posts in descending order. This screenshot is way to confusing. It's too hard to follow posts. It may work for, say, Pinterest but it wouldn't work for Twitter and Facebook.
- lifeformed 14y agoThe main problem I have with the stock photos is that they were all picked to match the color scheme. How is it going to look with random photos and clashing colors?