[joey]

Hi everyone! I have put the finishing touches of the website for my design studio/portfolio. What does everyone think?

http://printedtheory.com/printedtheorydesign

[wheedwacker]

very simple, very nice.

[pgo]

Very nice.

I can tell the designer works primarily in print, though, because it could use a web designer's touch behind the scenes.

[hawken]

print is already dead.

print-outs will never die, though.

[Maerk]

I like chaparral pro myself, have found myself using it a fair bit recently, but maybe some more diversity in your portfolio?

Also you say our a lot, are you plural or is it a royal we for yourself?

Nice clean design though, not sure about how the work itself is shown though, but hard to judge with not much in it yet

[jaggedlines]

Thats a nice clean design, but I'd like to see how the content lays out when its more filled in.

[Intrinzik.v2]

Nice but as pgo could use a web designers "touch" (not in the weird pedo way but basically the same ideA). Ie; it needs more emphasis on certain parts to really get your message across. (also the code could use some overhauling)

But overall clear, clean and crisp

[joey]

Thanks everyone.

I admit, I did break the "we/our" rule, because as of now, it is a one man company (for now). Many disagree with using plural forms of people for something that is run by one person, but the purpose of the website is not be a personal portfolio, but a company portfolio. Of course when talking to potential clients, I will explain my position, which shouldn't be a problem. In the end, using 1st person for a professional portfolio will sound rather unprofessional, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by pgo

Very nice.

I can tell the designer works primarily in print, though, because it could use a web designer's touch behind the scenes.

To be honest, I wasn't too worried about how the code looked/was layed out as this is only a rough copy of the final draft. It might seem sloppy, but it's validated for both html and css.

[amitrampal]

Nice...

[Jack000]

ugh.. pro-life propaganda

[joey]

I'm sure many people will disagree with that project, but I'm not here to debate anyone or discuss the purpose of that.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by joey

I admit, I did break the "we/our" rule,

Nah I agree with you.

[ross_mcglocness]

I'm ok with the We/our thing too! Sometimes it just looks more "pro" to be a team thing!

I think I'm missing something with this design though, although you can tell you understand typography... the webpage isn't doing a great deal for me. But I've still got a lot to learn, I suppose.

[hawken]

Originally Posted by BlueSteel

Nah I agree with you.

we think it sounds worse to say "we" when you are a one man show. It's lies!

[Scott]

I'm not sure, saying "I" this and "I" that is a bit gay also. I suppose if things are reworded WE could avoid the we or I thing. Maybe replace it with the company name? or just avoid it all together.

[joey]

Technically anyone can write it in the third person, as if someone else is writing about the company. But that just sounds weird.

[Andy]

like it alot, very nice.
not keen on the photo of the 'No Baby Left Behind' website. looks a bit sketchy.

[joey]

The portfolio photos 'No Baby Left Behind' are only temporary. Taking pictures of an lcd monitor can be difficult. I'm still deciding on whether or not to just use screenshots.

Also, I've been considering another similar design as well:
http://printedtheory.com/printedtheo.../2/index1.html

[fetusface]

very un-California.....I like it.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by pgo

I can tell the designer works primarily in print, though, because it could use a web designer's touch behind the scenes.

indeed.

Not just for the coding but the image sizes aswell, that baby one is nearly 1mb in size.

Also Joey, just screen shot the website and have a play around with it. Saves taking photos of the screen and getting dodgy photos.