Can we have an awsome website design thread? I fucking hate

>>267266
Too bad their product is a horrible, ugly, buggy piece of shit

File: Free-Minimal-Logo-11.jpg (14KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 720x540px

>>267266
Why do you hate minimal OP?

Pic not web design but still minimal.

http://adventurega.me/bootstrap/#

>>267277
didnt u post this in a logo/crit thread

OP: I don't think I can name the whole "design", but some key things you should look out for to emulate it is a call to action (centered, quick-to-read starter instructions for a visitor) that's white text over a pretty photo or video, ghost buttons, video jumbtrons, and designs with most content beneath the fold. I think they're very appealing if done right and even though they're overdone, it's good enough for a lot of industries that don't need to be cutting edge and demo their products well with simple video or attractive photos. A web design firm, for example, no... but a mattress company or PCB manufacturer, why not lol

It was an incredibly popular bootstrap design logic for a while, it's still around in various forms but it's so transparently bootstrap nowadays that it isn't as common. But big pleasing photos and nice typography will always do well. Video is harder to guarantee it won't fuck up on someone's computer.

Parallax scrolling often comes hand in hand with a lot of similar things but isn't always present. It just became really trendy at the same time. However, it is the devil, you'd do well to never use it

>>267279

Look I get the point of this is to point out how played out this shit is, but is there a template for this, is it easy to make your own?

OP I don't know what fucking drug you're on but I sure want some. This website is not minimal at all, it has absolutely no original element, and on top of that it's ugly as shit and terrible to navigate. Basically a case study of what NOT to do when adding javascript to a website. lmao I just realized this shit isn't even responsive ?! Like it doesn't even have one CSS breakpoint ?! I would lose my job if I showed this to a client.

>>267323
same poster I just keep looking at the website and laughing my ass off. It's like the designer tried on purpose to make a bad website. Some of the funnier stuff:

>I have to click on the top bar to open the drop down menu ?
>then I have to click again to close it ?! ON A DIFFERENT ICON ?!
>broken .js scrolling script ? really ?
>all these buttons
>a notification icon on the free trial button ? This is some russian-porn-website-malware level of user deception
>SO MANY BUTTONS
>the product page is the only one that's responsive AND it's completely broken, leading me to believe the developer only accidentally made it responsive
>OMG MOAR BUTTONS

I want to keep exploring but it's getting late

>>267279

I don't see what the problem with that is though, its responsive, clean and easy to read, yes it's not unique, but not every website needs to be. What is the point spending upwards of $3000 if you are a small business when you can just have something that looks great and works well like that.

http://feedmusic.com/

>>267325
>huge navbar but no padding on the actual fucking links
>broken hover animations at the bottom
>testimonial div overlayed by the one above
top kek, it's like they tried to make a generic wordpress theme and then even failed at that

>>267321
Follow Codecademy's tutorial on HTML & CSS which is basically a bootstrap tutorial and you'll know how to make it

Or just use a bootstrap template with ghost buttons