Comments on: get and give http://typesites.com/get-and-give/ Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:24:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: dev http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-587 dev Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:43:01 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-587 All design version was good, clean, beauty and simple, hope to see more All design version was good, clean, beauty and simple, hope to see more

]]> By: Cyprian http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-550 Cyprian Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:58:54 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-550 I would spice this websites a little. I have to admit, typo is cool and smooth as banana. I would spice this websites a little. I have to admit, typo is cool and smooth as banana.

]]> By: wRong http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-549 wRong Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:19 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-549 Don't listen listen what the want, give them what they need! Forget restriction, and write out of box. Typography isn’t only typefaces. You got me, on this article. Keep going with a good work, cheers. Don’t listen listen what the want, give them what they need! Forget restriction, and write out of box. Typography isn’t only typefaces. You got me, on this article. Keep going with a good work, cheers.

]]> By: inspirationbit http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-532 inspirationbit Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:33:55 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-532 You're absolutely right, Steve. The title copy is Rockwell. The scaling large background type was what prompted me to review this site for Typesites in the first place :) You’re absolutely right, Steve. The title copy is Rockwell. The scaling large background type was what prompted me to review this site for Typesites in the first place :)

]]> By: Steve Killen http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-531 Steve Killen Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:45:49 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-531 Thanks Vivien for explainging your approach to the article, I appreciate your effort as it is never easy to write for the web! Incidentally am I right in thinking the title copy is Rockwell? The large background type is my favourite part of the site. Thanks Vivien for explainging your approach to the article, I appreciate your effort as it is never easy to write for the web! Incidentally am I right in thinking the title copy is Rockwell? The large background type is my favourite part of the site.

]]> By: inspirationbit http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-530 inspirationbit Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:31:59 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-530 Thanks, Steve. Since you are reading my site, you probably know that I love going behind the scenes of exquisite Web typography and dissect every bit of it on Inspiration Bit. In my review of GAG, I did talk about its typography, but here it's so much intertwined with the rest of the design choices on the site—colours, photos, different alignment, story—that I just could not neglect those elements, hence my stray into talking about all of that as well. Typography on GAG is very subtle, it doesn't hold that many secrets into how it's been implemented, the right alignment of the site on the other hand was very interesting and that's why I've revealed CSS implementation for that rather than for Typography. In saying this, GAG is a perfect example where an understated Typography doesn't compete with the design and content for attention, but rather works in unison with them, which prompted my divided focus on all of that rather than just Typography alone. I'm not arguing the point you made, I'm just explaining my point of view. I myself wasn't sure if I should talk about all those other things for my review on Typesites, but in the end I did, and left it up to Kyle to cut anything he didn't find fitting. I'm glad he didn't, otherwise we would've not had all these discussions, that will help us (at least, help me) with defining a clear direction for reviews on Typesites. So thanks for the comments, keep them coming :) Thanks, Steve. Since you are reading my site, you probably know that I love going behind the scenes of exquisite Web typography and dissect every bit of it on Inspiration Bit.

In my review of GAG, I did talk about its typography, but here it’s so much intertwined with the rest of the design choices on the site—colours, photos, different alignment, story—that I just could not neglect those elements, hence my stray into talking about all of that as well. Typography on GAG is very subtle, it doesn’t hold that many secrets into how it’s been implemented, the right alignment of the site on the other hand was very interesting and that’s why I’ve revealed CSS implementation for that rather than for Typography.

In saying this, GAG is a perfect example where an understated Typography doesn’t compete with the design and content for attention, but rather works in unison with them, which prompted my divided focus on all of that rather than just Typography alone.

I’m not arguing the point you made, I’m just explaining my point of view. I myself wasn’t sure if I should talk about all those other things for my review on Typesites, but in the end I did, and left it up to Kyle to cut anything he didn’t find fitting. I’m glad he didn’t, otherwise we would’ve not had all these discussions, that will help us (at least, help me) with defining a clear direction for reviews on Typesites. So thanks for the comments, keep them coming :)

]]> By: Steve Killen http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-529 Steve Killen Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:25:38 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-529 @inpirationbit/Vivien: I wasn’t aiming my criticism at the site, it does have some fantastic typography and is a welcome addition to this site. I just think a lot of reviews on here do stray into talking about the layout rather than the type as it’s so easy to do. It could be argued that this site is a review of sites with great typography rather than great typography within a site but I like the reviews to focus on how they created the great type treatments. Your review did focus on typography a bit but not enough for me, sorry :(. btw, I love your site and your articles on colour etc, it took me ages to find your site again after the first time I came across it but I was happy when it turned up on cssbeauty.com! @inpirationbit/Vivien: I wasn’t aiming my criticism at the site, it does have some fantastic typography and is a welcome addition to this site. I just think a lot of reviews on here do stray into talking about the layout rather than the type as it’s so easy to do. It could be argued that this site is a review of sites with great typography rather than great typography within a site but I like the reviews to focus on how they created the great type treatments. Your review did focus on typography a bit but not enough for me, sorry :( .

btw, I love your site and your articles on colour etc, it took me ages to find your site again after the first time I came across it but I was happy when it turned up on cssbeauty.com!

]]> By: Kyle Meyer http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-528 Kyle Meyer Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:01:26 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-528 <strong>@Leon</strong> <blockquote>Whatever happened to good, old–fashioned redesigns, eh? Look forward to seeing it.</blockquote> It is more of a redesign perhaps, but with many of the same elements. I think it's important to maintain a consistent brand and certain parts of the current design are relatively unique to Typesites. Either way, we can worry about semantics afterwards. :) @Leon

Whatever happened to good, old–fashioned redesigns, eh? Look forward to seeing it.

It is more of a redesign perhaps, but with many of the same elements. I think it’s important to maintain a consistent brand and certain parts of the current design are relatively unique to Typesites. Either way, we can worry about semantics afterwards. :)

]]> By: Ronny Jander http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-527 Ronny Jander Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:58:53 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-527 I had to read it twice to get it... I had to read it twice to get it…

]]> By: Leon Paternoster http://typesites.com/get-and-give/#comment-526 Leon Paternoster Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:55:31 +0000 http://typesites.com/?p=114#comment-526 <blockquote>dramatic re-align</blockquote> Whatever happened to good, old–fashioned re<em>designs</em>, eh? Look forward to seeing it. <blockquote>the content’s somewhat orphaned</blockquote> I did think twice before typing that…

dramatic re-align

Whatever happened to good, old–fashioned redesigns, eh? Look forward to seeing it.

the content’s somewhat orphaned

I did think twice before typing that…

]]>