jtnt://life/unedited

Via k10k.net, but it doesn't suck

This site is beautiful, and even though I found it via k10k.net, it does not contain any of the following:

• Text so small that it would be hard to read even if it wasn't put on a non-contrasting background.
• Iframes, iframes, iframes!
• Pixel art.
• A freakish attachment to the use of pixelated fonts.
• Unintuitive navigation icons.

Disclaimer: Yes, k10k contains all of these. Yes, I think k10k sucks. Big time. (There, I said it. Whew!) And yes, I know Scrivs has told us not to bust on the designs of web sites (only the content is open for opinion, apparently) in public.

k10k just deserves it too much. I've seen way too many people gush over and link to (but only to the home page) the unusable, unreadable, unbookmarkable, cacophony of iframes that somehow has been passed off to the world as the pinnacle of web design. Honestly, k10k is a case study waiting to happen.

I'm not maintaining that the designers behind k10k are talentless. Certainly, they have more design skills than this techie. Please don't think I am maintaining I have more skillz than they. I'm sure their billz are much better paid than mine.

They just didn't really turn it on for their own site. In fact, I think they must have designed the site during lent, having given up sound judgment. Moreover, they undoubtedly have an eye for great design. How else would I have been blessed with the five minutes I spent at the Arne Maynard Garden site?

---

Update: Sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to add to your frustration on the issue of critiques of web design. Indeed, I liked and agreed with what you had to say, and admittedly took your words out of context to make an exciting link. :-) I, too, blame my lack of communication skills and the impossibilities of getting sarcasm across in writing. These blogs can be dangerous things in the hands of us amateurs, huh?