20-02-2018, 11:25 AMLukecetion Wrote:Someone paid 50 USD for this? Really? People have grown more gullible in the past years.
As for an actual review of the design... It is a very good example of; "I know how to copy, but have no creativity to speak of, nor understanding of design" type of thing. Well, that is being overly pessimistic about it, even by my standards so tune that comment a notch down or so.
First of all, the design is wayto big to be a thread design. Unless everyone who views this is using a 4K monitor on a full-width website with the right format then most of the quality of the design will be completely lost and the design will look like a 20 resolution print. Now how many people have 4K monitors? Fewer than you'd think. How many times is this going to be used on a full-width forum? Even less in numbers. Meaning that 99% of the time, this design will appear in awful quality thanks to the pointless size increase. Now back to what I said in the beginning.
This design lacks on fundamental thing and that is a clear plan. It uses elements from material design, modern designand flat design. Why is that bad? because of the idea behind each of those design guidelines. Material Design is made by creating depth in the design to mimic paper on top of each other. Flat Design is created by avoiding all forms of depth to a single layer, meaning that there is nothing "on top" or "under" it. Microsoft's Modern Design uses a mix of these two by adding transparency and visible gradients to create some form of depth.
Hence what I said earlier, this seems like you've tried to copy three distinct styles without understanding the first thing about each design direction. This also shows in the edge radius you've used on different boxes. The header box and the "Purchase Now" boxes. They background places them at the same height level (material design), despite the fact that the shadows are thicker in one than the other. Meaning that the background tells me that they are the same place, while the shadow tells me that one is higher up in the air than the other one.
Another breaking point is the background pattern which is part of the backgroundyet at times overlap the elements that are floating. Another example of this is in the header. The main header box has a shadow, signaling that it is "floating" and creating depth, while the image block has a solid color backdrop with no shadow, meaning the image and backdrop are on "the ground" of the background, yet they are still "above" something that is floating. Think of it like this. A flying carpet in the sky above a rock with a second carpet attached directly underneath the flying one. The flying carpet is above the rock, while the second carpet is attached to it. However the attached carpet is under the rock but also above it while the flying is just above it.
It creates a meaningless paradox which is what Google tried to avoid when creating the guidelines for Material Design. One other major problem is the lack of contrast. There is one proper contrast I can see, which is the "Features" box because of it's "weight contrast". It is placed off the center, giving it focus. Everything else in the design is so bland and thus has no focus, meaning it is more of an annoyance to actually read it and use the design. This also goes back to what I started with. This looks more like graphical art than design, and they are different. Design has a use, art does not. Art is just meant to look at and think, design is meant to deliver a message, something this design fails at completely.
I appreciate the feedback. I do not see what you're saying in regard to the shadows as they are all the same depth and cannot see otherwise, unless you're speaking of the difference from the header to the 3 main packages. I also can't say I necessarily agree with all your points, but thank you for putting the time in. I'll definitely take it into consideration despite the distinct discouraging undertone.
I did test the resolution on this forum to see it resize to the page as that is the original size in the software itself. I would not have it exported nearly so large on other websites, especially the one it will be dedicated to. This was merely for showcase. But I can see where you're coming from.
Thank you, though. I'll keep much of this in mind!