October 1st, 2008
Categories: General

End of Web 2.0 Design?

 

A little thought, a controversial thought, and a shot accross the bows here.

A few weeks ago, I created a new affiliate site. Contrary to what Jem said a few posts ago, affiliate income is making me a substansial amount. Not enough to quit my job and live in Nice, but enough to make it worthwhile. This site will target a niche that I’ve researched, understand and – more importantly – like.

Now, I do web design all day, and I really couldn’t be bothered designing a whole new website, so I went onto a popular webmaster forum and asked for some help. Nothing much, just a design (with logo) for a small budget.

In the end I got a response which was fairly good, and I commissioned a guy to do it. He was cheap, like barrel scraping cheap.

In the end, whilst I was actually happy with what he did, I wasn’t totally settled.

You see, he designed it in a web 2.0 stylee, and it just didn’t seem right.

The site in question was a BANS site. BANS – or Build a Niche Store – is a funky little script that can put an store on any domain using ebay listings. It’s made me a bit of money so far, and I’m planning on expanding it into one or two more “stores”.

They are affiliate sites, but what I find works with them is making them look like real shops, with added information. I spent a good weekend adding information to it. I’ve never really seen a shop that looks web 2.0.

On top of that, I did think when I opened it, I thought “damn, another web 2.0 design!”.

I do think we’re approaching the end of web 2.0 design with the reflections, pastels and gradients being the dominant force of web design. I’m not saying they’ll never be used again, but I’ve begun seeing blogs move away from then, and onto more neutral, plain colours with not overly dominant header graphics.

What do you think?

Comments: 6 Comments

 

Related Posts


    Fatal error: Call to undefined function related_posts() in /home/gospelrh/public_html/wp-content/themes/mergerofjuneandjuly/single.php on line 28