4 ms·
I like the first impression - nice and dense - and I get what you're trying to do, but beyond the first impression I find that the multiple tile sizes make it h
by GioM 13y ago
I like the first impression - nice and dense - and I get what you're trying to do, but beyond the first impression I find that the multiple tile sizes make it hard to skim the page. Additionally, on the tiles where text is overlaid onto the images, I find it hard to visually parse the text. The tiles where text is above and below the pictures are a lot easier to read.
My suggestion would be to stick with the tiles, but use only those that place text separate from the image, then group tiles in rows of similar dimension. For example, a row of 2x2, a row of 2x1, a row of 1x2, a gutter of 1x1 on the right-hand side, etc. I feel like this type of grouping would help the eyes scan the page, and feel a little less random and hodge-podge to the user.
Just a couple suggestions. Keep up the great work!
- kindlez 13y agoThanks for the feedback! We've already played around a LOT with those and there's not much we can do about that. The point of the tiles it to show popularity (more popular = bigger). If you don't like the grid view, you can always switch to the list view (which actually has more sifting functionality) by clicking on the tab near the top.
- GioM 13y agoI did find the list view, but I switched back to grid view pretty quickly. If you're set on keeping the different tile sizes intermixed, perhaps you could come up with a layout that creates rivers of similar size tiles on the page for the eye to follow naturally. In typography, rivers are avoided at all costs, but I feel like the concept would be valuable here. Just a suggestion, as always.
- kindlez 13y agoThanks, it's much appreciated.