Jesus, who hit Gawker with the ugly stick?. My poor design...
There are 22 reader comments
• Oct 23 2003 • 12:46PM
It looks like someone just dumped image tags randomly in the HTML source, without any concern for layour or spacing.
• Oct 23 2003 • 12:59PM
Come now, you didn't expect Denton's mighty blog-based business model to live on bread alone forever, did you? This is an inevitability, almost certainly as inevitable as every other dot-com mechanation we've already witnessed before. How long before Gawker Media gets rolled into CondeNast (the cruel, cruel irony) or Yahoo?
For all of the supposed brilliance of micro-publishing ("we use Movable Type! See, we're different!") I've yet to see what differentiates Denton, Inc. from any other online content provider.
• Oct 23 2003 • 1:08PM
I would never mention this without you bringing it up, but the gawker design always caught me a bit off guard. Never quite as nice as some of your other stuff. Though it's always let the content shine and certainly hasn't hampered the popularity. It just never felt quite as tight or finished as other things you've done.
• Oct 23 2003 • 1:09PM
i didn't do it! messing with that design would have been like peeing on the mona lisa! and i already got arrested for that in paris last year.
• Oct 23 2003 • 1:20PM
Ryan, that's what I liked about the Gawker design. Most site designs of the type - sans serif font, white background - look kind of dead to me. Too clean, too static. Gawker has/had this kind of riotous charm, like ... well, like a New York street corner.
• Oct 23 2003 • 1:53PM
At least, through it all, the truly awesome banner logo lives on.
• Oct 23 2003 • 2:12PM
what, i can't tell the difference
• Oct 23 2003 • 2:26PM
Yeah, the design has been slowly degrading for the past few months. It's barely recognizable now, though.
• Oct 23 2003 • 2:27PM
I think my previous post reads a harsher than I meant. It's a nice design, esp for the content/audience.
lock: it's funny, it's the banner that always felt the most uneven to me. I've always wondered what I was looking at.
Lukas: I guess I don't really see the "riotous charm" I see (and I think this is what Jason's comment was) a nice, clean, readable, design that's been cluttered uncarefully by ads.
All of my comments are in the respectful "design class crit" sense rather than the "kottke sux @ web de5ign" sense
• Oct 23 2003 • 2:49PM
Ryan, for me, the banner echoes sidewalk hopscotch and graffiti. Just feels urban.
• Oct 23 2003 • 3:00PM
I always thought the logo was some kind of Tammy Faye makeup homage.
• Oct 23 2003 • 4:19PM
Who wants an Anna Nicole Smith nightie? Gross!
• Oct 23 2003 • 4:28PM
No worries about the (perceived) harshness of the design critique...I never take anything like that personally.
Re: advertising and making money... I don't have anything against either of those things. I think there are larger issues...the site design was never meant to accomodate the amount and placement of content and advertising that it currently does.
As far as the design goes, design is a collaboration between the designer and the client, so I am only responsible for a part of it. If I had sole responsibility for the design or if I was dealing with a different client, it would have turned out differently. And the logo...that was a last ditch effort on my part that everyone seems to love except for me (and Ryan and Mike apparently).
• Oct 23 2003 • 10:31PM
I wouldn't promote and draw attention to such an albatross.
• Oct 24 2003 • 1:58AM
y'know, I can't say I love the design overall, but I really dig the way you handled the dates. That's noice.
• Oct 24 2003 • 9:41AM
bottom line: gawker jumped the shark content-wise a few months back (snore...). now with the design molestation, the look of the site has jumped as well.
• Oct 24 2003 • 10:05AM
Honey, the phrase "jumped the shark" jumped the shark a few months back. Dintcha get my memo?
• Oct 24 2003 • 1:53PM
Touche. Actually, Choire, I didn't mean it as any reflection on your "taking over" - in fact I quite prefer your writing style, and tend to read just for that. I just can't figure out why it's so damn boring now. Perhaps there's no good gossip around just now, and the last thing my fat ass needs is to know what they're serving in the CN cafeteria.
• Oct 25 2003 • 12:55AM
But, hello, you totally missed the "Yoplait Tasting" on Thursday at the Conde Nast cafeteria!
(Seriously: a Yoplait tasting? I mean the shit tastes like yogurt, right? How much Yoplait do you have to taste to figure that out? I'm still thinking about that, and it's now Sunday morning. Oh also, if you're implying that New York is a cultural wasteland? I'm sure I have NO idea what you mean. Cough cough. Heh.)
Jason, I'm sorry, I'm being totally off-topic in your comments. My apologies.
• Oct 25 2003 • 6:08PM
Banner ads can be ignored. Althougth that Absolut ad is a bit hard to. The others don't bother me so much. You gotta make money, not a huge deal. The Onion is a lot worse.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
Joey Gawker • Oct 23 2003 • 10:55AM
doesn't look that much different than before. what's the beef? the advertising?