Quality Standards? |
Quality Standards? |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Adobe Addict ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 1,237 Joined: Mar 2005 Member No: 113,043 ![]() |
Alright. I have nothing personal against these designs, or their designers. In fact, some of these designers have other great layouts. However, I think that the ones on this list are EITHER...
A. Too simple for a DIV layout (not much content either) B. Too simple for a Standard layout (no banners or contact tables...) C. Low image quality D. Inadequate designing Granted, some are better or worse than others. Are we adhering to what was discussed ealier about slightly raising quality standards as we go? I know that was a topic that all of us agreed on before I stepped down. Whether or not the mods are, it seems as if the quality of some layouts accepted is below the standards that we had. http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25363 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25268 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25263 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25262 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25260 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25294 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25273 http://www.createblog.com/layouts/code.php?id=25215 Take it or leave it, but that's what I think. Does the community feels the same way I do? *NOTE: I paid no attention to who accepted these. |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() i did your boyfriend ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Official Designer Posts: 3,335 Joined: Feb 2004 Member No: 4,071 ![]() |
just back to check on things before i gotta go again:
QUOTE i understand that we had gotten new admins and such. i'm just curious as to what is going to be done about the ones that are not really up to cb standards? as admins (or do you mean design staffers?) we have the highest standards that cb has had in a long while. those layouts arent all that bad (except for the first one which has some rigid lines and will be rejected shortly). just because they're simple does not mean that they are sub par. that's the style of the layout. i have to repeat what Whitney just sad: If you think those are bad, you should see the ones that we do reject. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |