Sara R.
So no big surprise that the choice portfolio for web designers is, well, a website. But what surprising is how many of them show off their work the exact same BORING way. Generally, people show a thumbnail that's like 200x60 with some blurb about what site they worked on and the piece they designed. Most of them don't say anything about what they USED to design it, and that kind of bugged me.

There was one guy, Brad someoneorother [will add link at home], who actually had thumbnails of the various adobe products next to each of his projects. The softwares he used were bright, and the ones he didn't were greyed out, but still there. I thought that was kind of nice - showed the skills he COULD use, AND identified that he uses multiple softwares for each project.

But what I thought was funny is that the Woork blog, which is one of the blogs I added for this class, posted their 10 gorgeous portfolio websites, and I hated almost all of them.

Brynn Shepherd's site was nice, well, for the rollover thumbnails, but she didn't really have any content to speak of. Matt Bango's work showed his work the same way like 90% of other designers showed their work. BORING.

The sites I liked were, not surprisingly, the messy ones, the ones that had some color and some texture and some childish elements. I even loved some very stylized sites, like the Peepshow graphic design portfolio and But my top 2? The Things We Make and the Doghouse Design Studio.

The elements that everyone included were thumbnails of their work, links to their sites that were still live, and of course, a little blurb about each. That was pretty much it. Almost all of them had some nice references to their resume and other artwork.
0 Responses

Post a Comment