Q: what is the best designed weblog?

December 3, 2001 8:03 AM

Q: what is the best designed weblog? For me, it's either what Kottke.org used to look like or DiK.
posted by ecvgi to General Weblog-Related at 8:03 AM (24 comments total)

Are we talking strictly graphic design, usability, or a fusion of both? Design Is Kinky isn't the most usable site, in my opinion.
posted by waxpancake at 8:10 AM on December 3, 2001

Both - but most weblogs have the same format (i.e. posts down the home page) so anything cool is bound to have a 'wow' factor in one way or another. Simplicity, graphics, layout...whatever.
posted by ecvgi at 8:15 AM on December 3, 2001

i dunno ... DiK looks a little too "busy" for my tastes.
posted by moz at 8:31 AM on December 3, 2001

Claire Robertson's Loobylu is continually enchanting. (And she just did a slight update to her format, which I rather like.)
posted by arco at 8:32 AM on December 3, 2001

DiK has two, count 'em, two scrollbars!!!

How kinky is that?
posted by dogmatic at 8:43 AM on December 3, 2001

Weblog? Hmm. I think within the specific weblog genre, I haven't seen too much variation in design, since the format is generally what makes it a weblog in the first place.

Although, I did like Jason's use of inlined boxes.

But once you get outside of weblogs, I think you see more variety because you aren't restricted as much to the format (content defining design).

Not that where design defining content is the best thing since sliced bread. But there does seem to be sliding scale where the two pieces have more balance..

I still like the stuff alexmassie is doing.

But then that falls out of the weblog space. Sorry.


posted by rich at 8:46 AM on December 3, 2001

I suppose DiK is a 'designer' site, and so isn't really a weblog in the traditional sense. I do think that textboxes within pages to hold scrolling text (news, etc) are interesting though...even though they seem to only occur on design sites.
posted by ecvgi at 8:47 AM on December 3, 2001

Rich, the idea of the weblog as a constraint is the reason I posted the question. Some of the best work occurs when the designer is subject to a constraint - thus having to think of something really interesting to keep people interested.
posted by ecvgi at 8:50 AM on December 3, 2001

i think heather has a pretty good design for her weblog; while she provides daily content, i think she works well within that constraint as far as variety and all goes.
posted by moz at 9:34 AM on December 3, 2001

The design doesn't keep me interested. The content does.

And for that reason, in the context of weblogs, minimalism is good.
posted by xiffix at 9:40 AM on December 3, 2001

design, however, can make me very disinterested -- regardless of content -- if it's very poor. i think it's essential to present a design which you really like on your website, if only to give yourself your best shot at keeping readership if that's your goal.
posted by moz at 9:43 AM on December 3, 2001

Design will affect the experience of the content, however.

You find a way that draws the eye to the latest update without using the 'latest comment on top' (or even, in conjunction with that standard method, but enhancing it).

Design can make navigation of previous comments easier or harder to do, or even find, or read. Extra content can be added through good design without interfering on the main update, but making it easily accessable (simple example - hovertext).


posted by rich at 9:50 AM on December 3, 2001

Well, any design that's not that design from '99. The pixel lettering and icons and dotted lines. dhtml scrolling in a small box. "Website product", the [foo] project, and "[foo] productions". If you :: you're going to hell. 3d kitsch font and kitsch killer robots and kitsch anime girl's in a sidebar beside the content. Twink on your fingers smearing round a photo like radiohead. Shift.jp and DIK are as tired as #cc0 and #058. Stop it.

I like calenders as a weblog widget. I like a liquid design. I don't like harsh white backgrounds or my default font. I don't know why I posted. I haven't seen anything lately, now that I think of it.
posted by holloway at 3:07 PM on December 3, 2001

waferbaby! - if you dont like it you can design your own version :)


posted by sawks at 5:31 PM on December 3, 2001

Has anyone noticed the blogs that are so focused on being CSS compliant (yawn) all look like Zeldman (dotted boxes, etc)? Bo-ring.
posted by owillis at 5:41 PM on December 3, 2001

not especially, owillis. the one prominent site that i can think of that uses dotted boxes, for example, is kottke's. it seems to me, though, that some design decisions are made so that your design stands out as different. "hey, we don't have to use solid borders anymore! hoo-ray!" then again, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
posted by moz at 5:55 PM on December 3, 2001

wow.. i'm surprised i didn't think of it earlier and that no one mentioned it.. Noah Grey's site has me itching to start a redesign over the holidays. sorry, but i just feel it eats kottke's, and the only thing i ever really liked about dik's design was the top right menu... hmm, not to bash on anyone's website, but was i the only one who felt dik was a poor man's k10k? i say not to bash, because i used to go there all the time anyway, even when it didn't agree well with my opera browser. (being the opera-fanatic, i always segue into this topic.) oh, lookie here. the full non-beta Opera 6.0 for windows just got released.
posted by lotsofno at 6:18 PM on December 3, 2001

holloway: I don't like harsh white backgrounds or my default font.

...Then why the heck is it your default font? Here's an idea: choose a default font you like.
posted by gleemax at 8:27 PM on December 3, 2001

Not that anyone cares, but: years ago I made a liquid CSS version of Kottke's old "zoom" layout. I think it was green, but it was a really neat ripoff (I never used it on a website, of course). I believe I shall commence remaking it, sans sidebar.
posted by gleemax at 8:32 PM on December 3, 2001

...Then why the heck is it your default font? Here's an idea: choose a default font you like.

It's at work where I have to have a default install of many browsers so I can see what the user see's, man.

I don't like sites relying on my default font as most designs suit a css font-family, if not a specific font.

Like a site that only defines the background colour but not the foreground there are situations where things are going to look screwy.
posted by holloway at 11:44 PM on December 3, 2001

Like a site that only defines the background colour but not the foreground there are situations where things are going to look screwy.

It's not the same thing. Only if they rely on you having, e.g., 12 point Times New Roman will problems occur. How could something look screwy if they say "I do not know what font this will be, so I will not fuck with it"? (Assuming your default font is readable at 1em, and they don't make it smaller, there should be no problem.)

Of course, many who leave the default font do it out of the mistaken assumption that it will always be their default font (12 pt TNR, usually). Now that is something to complain about.
posted by gleemax at 12:31 AM on December 4, 2001

Of course, many who leave the default font do it out of the mistaken assumption that it will always be their default font (12 pt TNR, usually). Now that is something to complain about.

That's the one, and it is the same thing. Relying on browser defaults will cause problems in a patchy style definition, and as you know patchy style definitions are quite popular.

It's rare that a page is entirely unstyled and only in this case would blindly allowing my default font be a good idea. I'd prefer they choose that font and it only be coincidence that it's the same.

All I mean is that patchy style definitions are bad. Allowing my default font - whatever it may be - is bad when a page themes other elements and leaves these exploitable holes.
posted by holloway at 1:07 AM on December 4, 2001

That's the one, and it is the same thing.

I was confused because of your original statement: "I don't like harsh white backgrounds or my default font."
posted by gleemax at 12:50 AM on December 6, 2001

Yeah, I was kinda vague.
posted by holloway at 8:15 PM on December 6, 2001