7 ms·

JPEG artifacts on the logo, The arrow images left to "Cloud", "Open", "Social" and "Secure" are not antialiased. The arrow in the search box is below the center

by tryeng 16y ago

JPEG artifacts on the logo, The arrow images left to "Cloud", "Open", "Social" and "Secure" are not antialiased. The arrow in the search box is below the center of the box, and lots of other minor issues that makes it look really awful.

uast23 16y ago
Kudos for having an eye for detail, and I agree on the anti-aliasing part. Much appreciated. But aesthetic details are just a subset of professionalism, its not professionalism all by itself. The site has different section for intro, pricing, faq, blog and moreover they have a well done short video explaining what Database.com is about. These details are professional enough for a user to stick.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Are they? Like the OP of this thread, my immediate impression was that I was at the wrong site. It just feels like a domain squatting site, really (especially the "database.com" in the upper left. Here in the 20xxs it just isn't that impressive that you got a dictionary word domain, so stop being so impressed with it).
  - uast23 16y ago
    Seriously? Which domain squatting site has so much of information and a video which explains it's service! Just because it's 2010, does not mean that no one can have a dictionary word domain. They probably had lot of money to spend so they got it. I am not hugely impressed by the artwork of the site but it is definitely not the worst site that I have seen
    - notahacker 16y ago
      Many spammers know how to embed a YouTube video (it uses the YouTube player...), and I'm not going to click through to the other information if I think I'm on a cybersquatter page. They presumably spent at least a mid six figure sum* on the domain back in July, which makes the amateurish landing page even more embarrasing. It's not the worst site I've seen, but I've seen better landing pages designed as weekend projects by people who then post on here with all the appropriate "I'm not a designer...can you give me some help please" questions and get advised to commission a freelancer who knows a bit about colour schemes as well as having the time and skill to add polish. For a major launch from a massive corporation whose products are (theoretically) driven by good UI and a consistent corporate image http://www.salesforce.com/assets/pdf/misc/SFDC_StyleGuide1206.pdf http://www.salesforce.com/assets/pdf/misc/SFDC_StyleGuide120... it's quite shameful. *reserve price if you wanted to buy at auction earlier in the year was $800,000

by tryeng 16y ago

uast23 16y ago

Kudos for having an eye for detail, and I agree on the anti-aliasing part. Much appreciated. But aesthetic details are just a subset of professionalism, its not professionalism all by itself. The site has different section for intro, pricing, faq, blog and moreover they have a well done short video explaining what Database.com is about. These details are professional enough for a user to stick.

ergo98 16y ago
Are they? Like the OP of this thread, my immediate impression was that I was at the wrong site. It just feels like a domain squatting site, really (especially the "database.com" in the upper left. Here in the 20xxs it just isn't that impressive that you got a dictionary word domain, so stop being so impressed with it).
- uast23 16y ago
  Seriously? Which domain squatting site has so much of information and a video which explains it's service! Just because it's 2010, does not mean that no one can have a dictionary word domain. They probably had lot of money to spend so they got it. I am not hugely impressed by the artwork of the site but it is definitely not the worst site that I have seen
  - notahacker 16y ago
    Many spammers know how to embed a YouTube video (it uses the YouTube player...), and I'm not going to click through to the other information if I think I'm on a cybersquatter page. They presumably spent at least a mid six figure sum* on the domain back in July, which makes the amateurish landing page even more embarrasing. It's not the worst site I've seen, but I've seen better landing pages designed as weekend projects by people who then post on here with all the appropriate "I'm not a designer...can you give me some help please" questions and get advised to commission a freelancer who knows a bit about colour schemes as well as having the time and skill to add polish. For a major launch from a massive corporation whose products are (theoretically) driven by good UI and a consistent corporate image http://www.salesforce.com/assets/pdf/misc/SFDC_StyleGuide1206.pdf http://www.salesforce.com/assets/pdf/misc/SFDC_StyleGuide120... it's quite shameful. *reserve price if you wanted to buy at auction earlier in the year was $800,000