Comments on: legendary aircraft http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/ Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:24:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: fly http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-299 fly Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:19:22 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-299 Hello there, I am Tom, the creator of the Legendary Aircraft site. I just want to say thanks for the review and yes You are right all of the typography weakness of the site. I'm not a typographer, but in the last few months I see that I have to pay more attention to this side of my works... I think reviews and forums like this here will move in a positive direction of my work. Again, thanks for the critique and I think I will change some things on the site as you mentioned above. My English is not so perfect as I wish but I hope you understand all that I want to say :) Thank you guys! Hello there,

I am Tom, the creator of the Legendary Aircraft site. I just want to say thanks for the review and yes You are right all of the typography weakness of the site. I’m not a typographer, but in the last few months I see that I have to pay more attention to this side of my works…
I think reviews and forums like this here will move in a positive direction of my work.

Again, thanks for the critique and I think I will change some things on the site as you mentioned above.

My English is not so perfect as I wish but I hope you understand all that I want to say :)
Thank you guys!

]]> By: Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-269 Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo Sun, 25 May 2008 21:08:20 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-269 And sorry for my harsh and blunt comment. It was just the contrast of typographic awareness from the former sites that has been reviewed - but I know understand that this site also can serve dual purpose, in pointing out sites where typography should have been given more love :) And sorry for my harsh and blunt comment. It was just the contrast of typographic awareness from the former sites that has been reviewed - but I know understand that this site also can serve dual purpose, in pointing out sites where typography should have been given more love :)

]]> By: Ty http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-268 Ty Sun, 25 May 2008 18:38:24 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-268 Sorry for being critical just I get tired of people who think any such site is a dynasty and sites chosen don't live up to the expectations of the sites community, You'll soon wind up with what Stylegala has a dead gallery. Sorry for being critical just I get tired of people who think any such site is a dynasty and sites chosen don’t live up to the expectations of the sites community, You’ll soon wind up with what Stylegala has a dead gallery.

]]> By: Ty http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-267 Ty Sun, 25 May 2008 18:36:58 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-267 A site is entered here as it is on other gallery review sites, the quality being judged is solely the opinion of the reviewer. People who challenge the greatest of sites, need to find their own forum to write up their own sites. The idea being anything review is up for discussion, and not judging the reviewer for choosing to enter a site. All sites are good for discussion [period]. A site is entered here as it is on other gallery review sites, the quality being judged is solely the opinion of the reviewer. People who challenge the greatest of sites, need to find their own forum to write up their own sites.
The idea being anything review is up for discussion, and not judging the reviewer for choosing to enter a site. All sites are good for discussion [period].

]]> By: Kevin Zak http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-266 Kevin Zak Sun, 25 May 2008 18:30:05 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-266 <b>@Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo</b>: Actually, in many areas, the reviewer found that it <i>was</i> lacking. Hence my comment: <blockquote>The review offered insight into what <b>not</b> to do in terms of typography, as well as some areas that were well done, based on examples from that website.</blockquote> @Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo:

Actually, in many areas, the reviewer found that it was lacking. Hence my comment:

The review offered insight into what not to do in terms of typography, as well as some areas that were well done, based on examples from that website.

]]> By: George http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-264 George Sat, 24 May 2008 12:51:19 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-264 Also I think Its time a review was done on a flash based site, or is these reviews restricted to html? Also I think Its time a review was done on a flash based site, or is these reviews restricted to html?

]]> By: George http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-263 George Sat, 24 May 2008 12:46:24 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-263 Faux small caps are always the first typographical issue I notice on sites these days, the leading letter just look miles too strong! It makes for a very uneven coloring across the text and I wonder why people do it. That aside I agree with above, the graphic design is fine, I wouldn't say the type use is anything to praise. Faux small caps are always the first typographical issue I notice on sites these days, the leading letter just look miles too strong! It makes for a very uneven coloring across the text and I wonder why people do it.

That aside I agree with above, the graphic design is fine, I wouldn’t say the type use is anything to praise.

]]> By: Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-262 Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo Sat, 24 May 2008 10:38:19 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-262 Yes, but as you say, the typography is lacking - that was not the case for The New Yorker. Yes, but as you say, the typography is lacking - that was not the case for The New Yorker.

]]> By: Kevin Zak http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-261 Kevin Zak Sat, 24 May 2008 07:34:05 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-261 <b>@Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo, Benek</b>: I'm not entirely positive, but if I were to make an educated guess, it would be that this is a design with potential; it has visual appeal, but its typography is lacking at best. As stated in the editor's note: <blockquote>Typesites is looking for your feedback!</blockquote> I would assume that this is a chance for us, the readers, to make recommendations for the site, rather than just comment on the design itself as per the status quo. A while back, Typesites reviewed <a href="http://typesites.com/the-new-yorker/" rel="nofollow">The New Yorker</a>. The review offered insight into what <b>not</b> to do in terms of typography, as well as some areas that were well done, based on examples from that website. This is similar, only it is more of a community effort, if you will. Very nice review, Rett. I'll write up an actual critique tomorrow, when (hopefully) I won't be so sleep-deprived. @Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo, Benek:

I’m not entirely positive, but if I were to make an educated guess, it would be that this is a design with potential; it has visual appeal, but its typography is lacking at best. As stated in the editor’s note:

Typesites is looking for your feedback!

I would assume that this is a chance for us, the readers, to make recommendations for the site, rather than just comment on the design itself as per the status quo. A while back, Typesites reviewed The New Yorker. The review offered insight into what not to do in terms of typography, as well as some areas that were well done, based on examples from that website. This is similar, only it is more of a community effort, if you will.

Very nice review, Rett. I’ll write up an actual critique tomorrow, when (hopefully) I won’t be so sleep-deprived.

]]> By: Benek http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-260 Benek Fri, 23 May 2008 22:18:49 +0000 http://typesites.com/legendary-aircraft/#comment-260 I'm a bit puzzled as to why this site would be featured here. I’m a bit puzzled as to why this site would be featured here.

]]>