Comments on: Gratings 2008 – Worst Redesign http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/ Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andy Gongea http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/#comment-179 Andy Gongea Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:07:32 +0000 http://www.graphicrating.com/?p=1260#comment-179 You are right Jared. Next year there will be more categories and also a proposal section. You are right Jared.
Next year there will be more categories and also a proposal section.

]]> By: Jared http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/#comment-178 Jared Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:43:50 +0000 http://www.graphicrating.com/?p=1260#comment-178 @Frederick. I just looked at the Conceptshare site next to the Apple site and it does look, er, "heavily inspired"!! You can imagine the thinking that took place at Conceptshare HQ... "We make a product for designers, designers love their Macs, let's copy the Mac website 'cos then designers will love us too". Conceptshare is a good product (as are ProofHQ, Cozimo and others in this space). It just seems to me that for a company claiming to support designers they should not so blatantly copy someone else's work. @vbk. You are right about the Intuit logo - eek! @Andy. A proposal section would be a great idea. @Frederick. I just looked at the Conceptshare site next to the Apple site and it does look, er, “heavily inspired”!! You can imagine the thinking that took place at Conceptshare HQ… “We make a product for designers, designers love their Macs, let’s copy the Mac website ‘cos then designers will love us too”.

Conceptshare is a good product (as are ProofHQ, Cozimo and others in this space). It just seems to me that for a company claiming to support designers they should not so blatantly copy someone else’s work.

@vbk. You are right about the Intuit logo – eek!

@Andy. A proposal section would be a great idea.

]]> By: Andy Gongea http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/#comment-177 Andy Gongea Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:22:41 +0000 http://www.graphicrating.com/?p=1260#comment-177 Frederik, I'm not speaking about the product. I'm talking about their website. The ConceptShare product is quite useful and was one of my favorite a year ago. I even wanted to make something similar, so I don't have reasons for hate or anything else related to the product. Regarding the site, it is not the fact that has a clean look. There are multiple elements similar to Apple.com (the one that was online a year ago). Too bad that Archive.org is not working the way it should. And also I don't have a screenshot. Regarding my so called negative view, you should read the reviews and see what is the general feeling. Cheers! Frederik, I’m not speaking about the product. I’m talking about their website. The ConceptShare product is quite useful and was one of my favorite a year ago. I even wanted to make something similar, so I don’t have reasons for hate or anything else related to the product.

Regarding the site, it is not the fact that has a clean look. There are multiple elements similar to Apple.com (the one that was online a year ago). Too bad that Archive.org is not working the way it should. And also I don’t have a screenshot.

Regarding my so called negative view, you should read the reviews and see what is the general feeling.

Cheers!

]]> By: Frederick Townes http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/#comment-176 Frederick Townes Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:15:45 +0000 http://www.graphicrating.com/?p=1260#comment-176 I’m definitely a bit confused as to why ConceptShare is on this list. Those guys have been making an incredibly popular and useful product for years and over time they’ve added more “fresh air” to their designs as their feature set grew. I often see how clean sites are compared to Apple based on use of white space and large visuals. But I don’t think that’s enough to consider a highly usable and well trafficked site a poor redesign contender. I think the criteria you’re using should be included with your commentary so that you’ll actually get constructive engagement from your readership. Or consider taking a positive view towards redesigns so that you can highlight what works instead of being negative. I’m definitely a bit confused as to why ConceptShare is on this list. Those guys have been making an incredibly popular and useful product for years and over time they’ve added more “fresh air” to their designs as their feature set grew. I often see how clean sites are compared to Apple based on use of white space and large visuals. But I don’t think that’s enough to consider a highly usable and well trafficked site a poor redesign contender. I think the criteria you’re using should be included with your commentary so that you’ll actually get constructive engagement from your readership. Or consider taking a positive view towards redesigns so that you can highlight what works instead of being negative.

]]> By: Andy Gongea http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/#comment-175 Andy Gongea Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:57:50 +0000 http://www.graphicrating.com/?p=1260#comment-175 That is a new terrible logo, I agree. But this year we will have just these nominees and next year we will have a proposal section as well. That is a new terrible logo, I agree. But this year we will have just these nominees and next year we will have a proposal section as well.

]]> By: vbk http://www.graphicrating.com/2008/12/08/gratings-2008-worst-redesign/#comment-174 vbk Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:17:37 +0000 http://www.graphicrating.com/?p=1260#comment-174 I would vote for the new Intuit logo. They replaced a fairly terrible logo with an even worse one. I would vote for the new Intuit logo. They replaced a fairly terrible logo with an even worse one.

]]>