3 ms·
I totally disagree. They weren't thorough enough to really bother with much of the text anywhere, given the amount of lorem ipsum and many-gendered John Smiths
by FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
I totally disagree.
They weren't thorough enough to really bother with much of the text anywhere, given the amount of lorem ipsum and many-gendered John Smiths.
Content wasn't really top of the list of priorities, it seems, which I think is a bit of a mistake if you're trying to 're-design' something driven entirely by content.
Despite that, this concept is pretty much all about an in-your-face layout of pretty pictures that looks incredibly difficult to make any real sense of, and might as well be a collage of 2013's cargo-cult trends-to-come.
- MartinCron 14y agoContent wasn't really top of the list of priorities, it seems, which I think is a bit of a mistake if you're trying to 're-design' something driven entirely by content. This reminds me of all of the times where I enountered disappointment that the actual functional implementation "didn't look as good" as the flat mockups because the actual content had sections of varying sizes. Content in the real world? It's messy and uneven. If you can't design for that, you're doing more harm than good.
- ams6110 14y agoIIRC Steve Jobs would terminate a design review if any placeholder images, lorem ipsum, etc. appeared anywhere. If the design didn't represent an actual use case he didn't want to waste time on it.