Closed nmorduch closed 8 years ago
Technically everything here looks good. I have some minor design concerns that I'm happy to be overridden on, mostly.
At least with the content we have in the DB currently, the list of services looks pretty dense and unfriendly in this design. The solution might not be part of this PR and might be just to have more human-friendly names for the services ("Custom CMS" instead of "Backend Development" and "Frontend Development") but I also feel like part of the trouble is that the all capsing and heavier font weight makes it feel like these are more important than the description. I think they're more like tags; they should be available to refer to but not begging to be read.
This is a lot of type treatments in three lines and the spacing is a little weird. The second line feels closer to the third than the first, should be more equidistant. Do we need all three headings though? Maybe just one of the headings and the client name is enough?
Same issue as the listing on the list page. Also we might need a "Technologies" label because otherwise this will look like a confusing gibberish list to most users. Also the bird is too close.
I'm happy to take a stab at some fixes myself, if there's agreement on my assessment. It might take me a minute to get around to though.
I think the "fun" description was supposed to be displayed as the caption for the image on the detail page.
@melinath after looking at it, this seemed to work better. open for discussion tho
@harrislapiroff:
this was definitely one i wanted your design eye on, v much appreciating feeback.
👍 to all @harrislapiroff
Ok try again :)
It looks fairly strange with just single items, but maybe that won't be a real-world issue.
Good enough for government work, though.
(Just kidding, we can't get government work)
Show services and technologies on work page and individual case studies.