Jun. 1st, 2002 06:47 am
Weird stuff on LJ
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andysocialSo there's this community, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
ljreview, which is devoted to "objective" reviews of the quality of design and content of individual journals. Why?
A journal is an individualized form of expression, it's not a piece of performance art (except for those folks who create things like![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
billiam of course). And, why would you want some stranger to review your journal? You aren't allowed by the TOS to make money on your journal, so it's just some ego thing?
I find it interesting that some of the journals the reviewers seem to love have horrible layouts that go against WorldWide Web Consortium standards for well-formed HTML. Itty-bitty non-resizable fonts in tiny little text boxes, with enormous background graphics? WTF?
My final point - the style used for the mainljreview pages sucks ass in the first place. Sure, it's decent HTML, but it has proprietary style codes, which only work in IE. And, who wants their damned cursor to look like a crosshair the entire time they're on a web page? A crosshair is harder to see, isn't it? Not to mention the colors and the "trendy" color-shifted scrollbar are putrid. Go look at a comlementary color chart and come back, ok? ;-)
ljreview, which is devoted to "objective" reviews of the quality of design and content of individual journals. Why?A journal is an individualized form of expression, it's not a piece of performance art (except for those folks who create things like
billiam of course). And, why would you want some stranger to review your journal? You aren't allowed by the TOS to make money on your journal, so it's just some ego thing?I find it interesting that some of the journals the reviewers seem to love have horrible layouts that go against WorldWide Web Consortium standards for well-formed HTML. Itty-bitty non-resizable fonts in tiny little text boxes, with enormous background graphics? WTF?
My final point - the style used for the main
ljreview pages sucks ass in the first place. Sure, it's decent HTML, but it has proprietary style codes, which only work in IE. And, who wants their damned cursor to look like a crosshair the entire time they're on a web page? A crosshair is harder to see, isn't it? Not to mention the colors and the "trendy" color-shifted scrollbar are putrid. Go look at a comlementary color chart and come back, ok? ;-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Then again, pretty much everyone calls themselves "web designers", which is a so call automatic qualifier for judging other people's work.
And you're right...the colours used are...um...well.... No comment ;)
Web Designers