Login or Register

Login, Buttercup!


Are you looking to grow as a designer and developer? Tired of going to places that don't offer any valuable discussion and content? Well Drawar is here for you. You control the content and seeing as how you are the type of person that thrives on writing great stuff this site is only going to get better after you join.

 

Any design galleries worth visiting anymore?

When I created CSSVault I used it as a place for inspiration and to show the world that beautiful design could be done with CSS. Over the years I don't think the world needs to be hammered with that point and although we can't ignore Web Standards, more emphasis can get placed back on the actual design of a site. With that being said, why are most of the website galleries out there horrendous to look?

If you are going to create another run of the mill gallery, then shouldn't you at least try to make it look presentable so people enjoy going to it? Unmatchedstyle is really the only site gallery (based on CSS) that I go to daily because I like what they are doing there. It doesn't seem as though they are trying to include every design known to man to get a leg up on the competition and they try to present the user with a pleasant design.

They also do video reviews and a weekly show where the analyze a couple of sites. I kid you not when I say there are 50+ CSS galleries out there now and 49 of them are the same. Funny thing is, if you told the owner their site is no different than site X they would argue and say they have ratings or include the color scheme of a site.

I'm proud to have started the CSSVault, but am ashamed that I created a niche where there is no innovation and copycats are dominant. It's my own fault because at the end of the day ANYONE can create a site where they upload an image and put it on a page. I created Drawar as an evolution of what I created 5 years ago and I hope that I get things right this time.

Are there any other site galleries out there that you feel are worth my time to visit. Try to give me some reasoning besides the fact you are subscribed to the feed.

 

Discussion (26)

My gallery is different, it pulls all the sites from the other galleries and makes a aggregated & filtered list from them :) Galleries are still a good way to spot trends and see what other people are up too, but I think people are replying on them less and less for inspiration. I look forward to seeing how you evolve the genre.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Scrivs.... first of all i am glad you return to the showcase "thingie". I run CSS Mania, and we have always admired when you started (and you are mentioned in our about section within cssmania.com ) ... and i totally agree with all what you say in the post, except...:

"The original the CSSVault was built on top of MovableType so there was very little room for pushing the site forward."

cssmania.com is running MT since 2004, and there is enough room to push the site forward.

My opinion (as of today), is that... you should've waited a little bit more, be more constant in updating, and those $$$ you got from cssvault (most of it due to PR) would have been 10 times what you got then.

We have always admired your job in 9rules, and we will always do.

 

@gabilondo: Yeah I saw how I was mentioned in your about section last week after checking you guys out (I frequent your site from time to time) and must say I smiled greatly. Back in 2004 MT couldn't be pushed that far unless you knew about perl, today might be a different case.

Indeed if I had kept the site I probably would've been making a healthy sum of money, but I sold it at the right time for myself because it would've gotten stale. I envy you guys for being consistent for over 5 years! That is truly a tough thing to find on today's web.

Thank you for the props with regards to 9rules.

 

This is both a brain fart and reply to 'Why am I creating Drawar', The Smashing Mag entry and this thread. Hopefully it's also food for thought.

Good/great gallery = best list of awesome designs?

What is good/great design? Design that does the thinking for the user (like many of the Zurb sites) or just pretty sites or sites pushing the limits (crazy or not).

What is a great gallery? To me a great gallery is what Smashing Mag is to Abduzeedo. SM certainly have great, good lists as well and several of their lists do educate or do explain why a design has been selected. For a while I thought Noupe was doing fine and was a good list *incubator*. A great gallery should not only have *that something* more than other galleries but also make me think. And guide me when I don't see 'why'.

The problem with most galleries and list incubators: overload. At some point most galleries and list sites will turn in to noise (Mashable 3 years ago, mega list incubator) or become nothing more than a collection of pretty images (That's what I visit flickr for).

I do not ask that every entry in a gallery becomes a design deconstructs like Zurb does with their deconstructs, I love to think for myself, but often galleries, especially when viewed in a feed reader, are nothing more than pretty images without anything more.

It all boils down to the same: gallery = list. A good list explains and educates otherwise it's a Flickr gallery. Right now I think that Christian Watson's design showcases some of the best design galleries are, they make me think and I do understand why entries are listed to the galleries.

 

I think http://cssbeauty.com/ looks presentable still :-) but I'm bias.

Back in 04 when I launched the site I did try to improve on the concept. If I'm not mistaken it was the 2nd ever CSS Gallery. It was the first to add browsable categories, added a news section, a forum (which was pretty popular and useful for a while), a job board, tags, all built on MT and still running on it (which I agree is a big pain in the ass to work with).

It was my first CSS based site ever, and it was my way to stay up with what was going on and to give something back to the community.

The funny part is, the site became successful (if you can call it that) later on not because of gallery entries, but because of the news/resources I was posting daily. The news section remains the most popular section traffic wise on the site, people seem to like what I post.

It had it's moment.

Is it worth visiting anymore? Who knows, who cares. The site continues to be my personal playground (even if I don't do shit with it) and will continue to be so until I decide to close it (which I've contemplated doing).

It should be left to each individual to decide if a site is valuable to them or not, be it a gallery site, or a blog or whatever. Make your own damn mind up! Don't wait for somebody to blog about how galleries aren't valuable anymore, or how list blogs are killing the community, if you as a designer are on top of your shit, you probably moved on a long time ago.

 

Your's is one of the few galleries that I still do visit and as you say it is mostly for the resources and news that you post. So glad that you have stayed with it for this long and it would be a shame to see it die out, but I know the feeling when you just don't have the passion for something anymore. I'm amazed what you were able to make MT do.

Of course it is up to the individual to decide what is valuable to them, but how can I decide if I don't know what is out there? ;-) So that is why I ask individuals.

But yes, please don't way for me to rant or offer an opinion on something if you are already thinking the same thing, get out there and write about it yourself.

 

I read by Neil today about hiring designers and programmers. In it, he mentions using CSS galleries as a way to find designers. I suppose that is one valid use for them.

Otherwise, I don't like the ones I am about to describe.

Ever walk into an art museum and you see the pretty paintings, then you come across one that looks like a kid threw a wet paintbrush at the canvas? You stand there wondering why that painting is there...you could have done it. Then some art enthusiast walks by and mentions how the painting is actually millions of dots made to look like splashed paint. You might wonder why someone would create a piece of art like that but you understand WHY the painting is there.

I don't get that with CSS galleries. To me they are "sites the owner likes" galleries. There is nothing to justify the site is good except opinion. Some of them don't validate - how is it a good site if it isn't coded by the standards the community set? What makes the site good enough to be in a gallery? It just seems too easy to say, "I like it" and that's the end of that. How easy it is to browse the web, take screenshots, and post them with no explanation, no consequence. No one is going to say, "WTF?" because it is all subjective.

EXCEPTION: sites like unmatchedstyle. For example, I was curious why this site was in the gallery. The description gives me insight as to what is "good" and gives me incentive to click over and check it out. The description caused me to browse the site, not the look of the site.

 

Then some art enthusiast walks by and mentions how the painting is actually millions of dots made to look like splashed paint.

Haha or maybe the "art enthusiast" really is just a snob trying to sound smart and the artist really did just throw paint on there. Even if it is a million dots it still doesn't explain why the painting is in there. To me artists get in museums because the museums like the painting or the artist.

So you go to a museum, don't like the painting and then just say it's okay for it to be in there because there are a million dots?

It is just as easy for a CSS gallery (or any site gallery) to come up with BS reasonings of why they let a site in. "The compliance to a 16x16 grid, matched with a soothing color scheme, make this site a winner."

If anything I'm even more confused as to why a painting might be in a museum considering they PAID for it to be in there.

Also I think you might be pushing it with the validating issue. Because a gallery is looking for CSS sites doesn't mean it only accepts sites that validate. There are many times there is a good reason why a site won't validate and there are also bad reasons why a site won't validate. With the CSSVault I never checked validation, but I did check for tables and if they were used for anything besides tabular data a site wouldn't make it.

Yes it is easy to just browse the web, take screenshots and post them without any explanation, but there is definitely a consequence. If you don't differentiate yourself or show some standard of quality nobody will come. That is the greatest consequence of all.

From your unmatchedstyle link:

This is a beautiful design, I love the dark background with the ever so subtle graphic peeking through. The coloring is very unique and almost everything about this site is memorable to me in some way. I particularly like the way the search is done, thats clever.

 

(I cut myself off and pressed the submit button)

That description from Unmatchedstyle doesn't explain anything. A dark background? Okay we can see that. Coloring is unique? Okay we don't see that all the time. But those make the site worthy? Reading that is even more frustrating than not seeing anything at all. I love Umatchedstyle, but I'm not sure how that is anymore helpful to you in trying to understand why a design is gallery worthy.

You want a design critique gallery, while most galleries that I know of are inspiration galleries.

 
 

With most galleries I'd be happy to see what they are looking for in sites they include, even if they don't take the time to review each one. A general indication of their selection criteria so you get a sense of what they are including and why, but most sites are lacking that (I'm missing that on a couple my sites, time to get updating ;-) )

I really liked the posts on web.without.words but a site like that takes a really long time to build content for.

I know money is not always the primary factor for building these kind of galleries, but time is money and I doubt a site like that would generate much revenue for the writers.

 

Before I delve into a response, I realize that you had CSS Vault and you have a gallery on your site but in my response, I wasn't thinking of you. You probably know that but for anyone else reading (ie: who doesn't know me) my curiosity in CSS Vault or in browsing the gallery on Drawar would come from KNOWING Scrivs and looking at the site from his perspective. Removing Scrivs from the equation, I normally do not find value in visiting gallery sites.

Gallery sites were the first copycat behavior I noticed in the design community. You created one, then there were tons of them. Most of them failed. Many of the list entries you've criticized do the same thing gallery sites do - throw a bunch of stuff together, no explanation. No description on quality standards. Nothing.

The gallery owner critiqued the site when he/she picked one site over another. A judgment call was made. Considering most people aren't designers, why would anyone but a designer/developer go to one, unless they needed to show examples of a site they'd like for a design? There is nothing for the average person to connect to. How are the copycats supposed to differentiate themselves when they are copying? Again, remove yourself from the equation because with my response to your question, I'd visit your gallery because it is yours.

With the unmatchedstyle entry, I picked a random one. The site he picked does have an interesting way of displaying search so I could see why he picked that site to bring awareness and perhaps it might inspire someone to take it to another level. If he had not mentioned the search feature, it would have gone unnoticed by me because I would not have clicked around on the site. It being black and unique coloring - I don't think so (black and gold, really?) but that was his opinion and at least I had "something" to help me understand why that site (out of millions) was in the gallery.

But I guess the true irony here is that you and Mike laid the foundation for my interest in design. Mike and I used to geek out late at night and he'd teach me about different design aspects. I will always be grateful for that because I learned a lot. We'd surf and he'd point out a site and rip it apart design wise (or praise it to death - depended on the site). But he'd tell me WHY a design sucked and WHY a design was good (in his opinion). Hell, our very first conversation together what happened? He pointed out the screw ups in my design, remember? Improper navigation...it started, from the very beginning, as a learning experience.

So maybe I have a higher expectation than I should because I was privileged to have learned things from two people who innovated a movement within the design community. And who always practiced quality, higher standard...you know the 9rules way. Every site I rejected I could tell why...I just never did publicly.

I am not saying galleries need to change or that they are bad. You asked if they were worth visiting. I said no and explained why.

Which is more than most galleries do.

 

You could've saved yourself some writing if you said this the first time. This makes more sense. I wasn't worried about if you were talking about me because I know my reasoning for creating the gallery here. I just found it odd from your reasoning in the first response and had to question it.

I think your frustration comes from an intellectual curiosity. You want to learn and understand and these galleries aren't giving you the opportunity to do so. design|snips doesn't go into detail as to why sites were chose, but at the very least there are detailed categories to somewhat justify their inclusion.

Again, I would be surprised if someone came across this thread and didn't see a great opportunity to run with this idea and produce a site or a new feature on their blog that goes into detail on what makes a design great.

As mentioned, my goal with the Drawar gallery was to have a place to save designs that I liked and could keep in one place. It doesn't align with the goals of people like yourself that wish to have a deeper perspective as to why they are included, but hopefully it happens eventually somewhere. I would bookmark it and visit it all the time.

 

I agree with Tyme. Most galleries are nothing more than a list. The gallery owners need to explain why an entry is added, relying on the visitor's brain to discover a certain style, selection criterium, in a gallery is not compatible with the smallest common factor.

Some sites are ace but you might not discover their aceness in a thumbnail/screenshot. One of these sites is www.skysports.com. I remember having criticised the design when launched (on Wisdump out of all places!) but nowadays although they only added/changed the improved footer compared to when I reviewed the design 2 years ago, I have come to love the design. Why? Because it's one of those designs that go further, deeper than the first impression. It's a platform wide design and that doesn't always become apparent on first visit, let alone in a screenshot. Admitted the blogs, videos and special sites for events could be improved but they were added after the design was launched. It's a site visitors spend several hours/month on but barely any gallery will take that in consideration. As you use the site more you will notice consistency in design and navigation. Recognition and usability, even if often poor when speaking about really huge CMS based sites, go far and can highly improve the experience.

If a (new) gallery is created it's down to the owner/contributor to explain why a site/design is added. Otherwise it's nothing more than a lazy list for 99.8% of the visitors.

 

@scrivs:

Again, I would be surprised if someone came across this thread and didn't see a great opportunity to run with this idea and produce a site or a new feature on their blog that goes into detail on what makes a design great.

I would be surprised if that happened, from someone within the design community that is.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Respond To This Post

You need to Login or Register to comment. Become a member of this great community because you like to be a rebel and actually learn on a website.

Recent Posts

Title Last Reply Replies
 

© Emersian // About // Pimped out hosting by (mt)