You really didn’t expect a happy reaction did you?I knew some people might get offended, and I tried to make it clear. I wasn’t calling anyone out. If you did it with your photography site why can’t others, but whatever.
Well unfortunately that file isn’t a big seller. I do think there are a lot of “dark” based templates which is one of the reasons P&K do so well I think.
Well unfortunately that file isn’t a big seller. I do think there are a lot of “dark” based templates which is one of the reasons P&K do so well I think.You really didn’t expect a happy reaction did you?I knew some people might get offended, and I tried to make it clear. I wasn’t calling anyone out. If you did it with your photography site why can’t others, but whatever.
Maybe one day I’ll try to break the mold one day. Thanks for your input.
If you took more than 30 seconds to look at my template you would see that its unique, in the way it displays ‘new’ content and in fact in more or less any other way. the only thing that could be said is similar is the fact the menu is at the top, the footer is at the bottom and the content is in the middle.
I agree, if we all had to come up with completely different designs, there would be 20 files on this site. In my opinion the most readily available way to show your creativity on this site is with transitions. I looked at the post before the links were removed and the files seemed to be pretty distinct to me.
Beyond that, the people that purchase these files are either web developers or people that want to have a unique cool site. Of course they’re going to customize, but shouldn’t you be able to pay for transitions that “fly in from the left” as opposed to “fade in from black”? If you want something specific, why should you settle for something that’s 80% of what you want? By allowing templates to be “similar” (and I use that “term” loosely), we have the opportunity to find 90% of what we want, and we can customize the other 10% ourselves.
I would say yes, those files where in the same “family” of fullscreen, fluidly moving, flash sites. But who’s to say that there shouldn’t be 100 options when I’m shopping for a fullscreen, fluidly moving, flash site? Let the best fullscreen, fluidly moving, flash site win.
I may want a red 2010 Camaro, you may want a red 2010 Mustang. The body styles are similar, but they are not the same thing.
Just my 161 cents…
I agree, if we all had to come up with completely different designs, there would be 20 files on this site.
Can I disagree? Without considering the templates linked in this post, there are infinite ways to build templates with original layouts, components etc… it’s all about the designer creativity…
I guess I was more or less speaking to the places you can put the menus, footers, etc, and families of sites. To the layman, they will see “Menu on the Left/Top/Right”, “Accordion Style”, “Centered Content”, etc.
The point I was making is there are two different type of observers. Where my grandmother may listen to “My Chemical Romance” and “Metallica”, and say, “hey that’s just Rock, its all the same”. I would say their styles are totally different. So my grandmother may say there are only 3 types of music, Gospel, Jazz, and that Young Stuff! I’d disagree and say there’s Adult Contemporary, Electric Jazz, Techo, Hip-Hop, etc.
I guess was humoring PJ with that statement, and comparing him to my grandmother in a sense, lol. But in actuality I’ll give you that, I agree there are infinite ways to format your site. But the that diversity comes from elements and nuances that I, as a designer, appreciate.