Blog Design
August 18, 2004 | 
33 Comments
Summary: It seems that many blogs share a similar layout and often it’s not seen as a good thing. If the layout works, original or not, it was probably the right way to go.
There have been quite a few interesting redesigns and posts about redesigns in the last few days. It seems like folks are experimenting with their designs, only to come back closer to what they had before. For a little background I’ll refer you to them, along with a few comments.
Three Redesigns
- Mezzoblue v5. No comments here, but I’ll add my own. It’s new, it’s blue again, it’s nice. It does seem more blog-like than his last. I like it.
- Design By Fire v3. A big improvement in my mind. Not as “unique”, but it’s easier to use and to read. It still has Andrei’s style and that’s great. Looks more like a blog.
- The Weekly Standards. I like it. He went fixed width.
These three blogs were redesigned for various reasons; just because, ease of maintenance, ease of use, branding, etc. There was lots of discussion generated on various topics; fixed vs. liquid, readability, use of Flash and more.
There was also talk about blog design, and how blogs tend to share a common layout. I’d like to concentrate on that as I find it interesting.
Blogs look similar? So what.
Mike Davidson said in a comment on Andrei’s newest design:
I like the new design quite a bit. I don’t care if it looks like a blog. It is a blog, no? I look like a guy, and I’m pretty happy about that. Why? Because I am a guy.
Why do should we care if blog sites share a similar layout? I sure as heck don’t. I think it’s just fine to share a similar layout with other bloggers. It’s in your visual elements, in the details and in your content where you can differentiate yourself.
For example; beer, soda and juice all taste different and you’d not confuse a can of Coke with a can of Bud. Yet they both come in cans.
I’ve not redesigned for a bit and I don’t plan to. A full redesign is a lot of work, and right now, I don’t need one. My layout is working just fine, even if it is pretty run-of-the-mill. It meets my goals. Why change it? I am going to rework some of the visual elements, but the site’s structure will stay pretty much the same.
I’m going to re-design, not re-layout, if that makes any sense?
I’ll try to differentiate with things that matter more to me. Brand, design details, content, and lively discussion. Look at what Dave did with Mezzoblue. Brought his brand back home with the blue and he did it by design. His layout is similar to some others, but his design (to my eyes anyway) is all his own.
The “Feed” Factor
There are those out there who might wonder what need a blog has for design in the first place. With the rise in popularity of news feeds and the fact that many blogs are little more than quick news bursts, some blogs might be wondering if they need a “Web site” at all. I think this is a valid question, although it really depends quite a bit on the content of the blog.
A blog like Asterisk I think needs to have a Web site, and thus needs to be designed. Much of my content I write to be permanent. For someone like Scoble the idea of a “permalink” is probably less relevant and therefore he might not feel he needs a Web site at all.
This poses problems, but I can see where RSS might change the way many content driven sites work. I don’t have any answers, but it’s something to think about.
So, let’s assume you are like me and you consider your blog a Web site.
Are there any rules for blog design?
Nope, I don’t think so, at least not specific to blogs anyway. You’d want your blog to be readable, usable, accessible, etc. — just like any other site. I think the main thing that sets blogs apart is that they are so heavily content focused. It’s one of the reasons why they tend to look alike.
This is probably because, as folks are finding out, that common layout you see all the time tends to work well.
You’ve got bloggers and Web designers, who know what they are doing, applying design fundamentals and best practices to their sites. There are thousands of talented Web designers out there and there is no commodity on best practices, so you’re bound to have people reaching the same conclusions.
Fixed vs. Liquid
Haha…Just kidding. I’m not even going to go there.
So what about innovation and originality?
Originality, while great for a design community and lots of fun, it’s always what works best. I think Andrei will attest to that. Does that mean we should stop moving the medium forward with our designs?
Hell no. It could be that, depending on your goals, you blogs aren’t the place to do it. But then again, they might be. It depends on what you want to do with your site!
If you want to create a site who’s goal is to experiment with blog design, then, yes, you might want something that breaks the mold, but if you want people to read your content you might want to go with something that’s been proven to work.
(Just like if you want to showcase your designer’s Flash talent you go with an all-Flash site. But that’s another post.)
There is no right answer, it depends on your goals and focus.
My focus right now is content and discussion, therefore I don’t want to experiment too much with the layout of Asterisk. It’s one of the reasons why I started my Designing The Band project.
I’ll do my design experimenting elsewhere, find out what works and roll that into Asterisk.
Conclusion
As with most things on the Web it comes down to goals and doing what is best for your own situation. For some using a common layout for content heavy sites like blogs, is a good thing that will ensure readability, usability and ease of maintenance. If that meets the goals of the site then it’s the right way to go.
For others it might help the creative juices to constantly redesign and try and experiment. This is good for all of us and is worth the effort.
As I said in my last, ill-fated, post, “A quality “real world” Web design is what it needs to be.”
Last time I checked, this goes for blogs as well.
Filed under: Web Design
Comments
1. Donny said:
Well said. Whatever fits your needs go for it. I called mine Restyling instead of redesigning.
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:01 PM | #
2. Keith said:
Donny – Ahh “restyling”, I like that. Oh and it looks like you’ve done a nice job, by the way.
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:06 PM | #
3. Adam said:
You’re being somewhat liberal in your definition of redesign - all I did was multiply by 16 a whole bunch of times :)
I think there are possibly a few signs here and there that maybe a few folks (preface that enough?) are starting to realize that breaking the mold every time just isn’t beneficial from a production standpoint. Back when personal sites were nothing more than multi-page Flash intros, being defiant and crazy with a design was fine. But now, let’s be realistic, you’ve got your readers, your content, accessibility, and on and on …
Tweaking here and there is just starting to make more sense.
And as I said in my entry yesterday regarding people’s aversion towards the “blog look” - If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it’s probably a weblog.
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:08 PM | #
4. Nick Finck said:
Well stated Keith. You made my heart miss a beat with that liquid vs. fixed title… glad you didn’t go there. ;) Anyway, I totally agree, blogs are content focused and last time I checked even the non blog content focused web sites shared a lot of similarities.
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:22 PM | #
5. Donny said:
Thanks Keith.
Although we (bloggers/designers) share similar layouts, our design makes up our individuality. As we all are human beings but our characteristics (black, white, yellow) and our features make us unique. In a sense, I think this will help increase usability if the layouts are somewhat standards. Users will be familiar as they go from one site to the next with similar structures. I don’t think there is anything wrong wih that.
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:36 PM | #
6. Gabriel Mihalache said:
Nothing says “original” more than a site 100% done with patterns from The Inspiration Gallery, like mine. But hey, J. Zeldman gave us that link, so in a twisted way, it’s his fault ;-)
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:46 PM | #
7. Jeff Croft said:
As for “looking like a blog…”
I, too, once had a site design that was pretty “out of the box” for a blog. Now, I’m back to a fairly traditional, two-column, fixed-width layout. Why? Because it works.
Various layouts (and other design concepts) work well for specific types of content. Most blogs have very similar content. We’re all writing semi-daily posts, allowing for comments, posting some recent finds in our sidebar, maybe having a blogroll, etc. The typical “looks like a blog” layout is what it is because it works. People have been blogging for years, and over time we’ve gradually figured out that this layout makes the most sense for this type of content. Period.
I’m all for out-of-the-box thinking, and I love when people try to do something different with their blogs. Often times, it doesn’t work, but sometimes it does. We should keep trying. But we should also reazlie that the standard for what a blog typically “looks like” is there for a reason – because it works well.
Why do most cars have four wheels, a hood, a trunk, doors, windows, and windshield? Because it works. Why do most rock bands have drums, bass, guitar, and vocals? Because it works.
You get the point.
Posted on August 18, 2004 12:47 PM | #
8. Sean said:
Hey Keith,
What with all this super-fly bloggin going on, when do you work?
Ha!
Sean
Posted on August 18, 2004 02:22 PM | #
9. Keith said:
Sean – good question. The answer is I stock pile articles and posts when I’ve got a time to write them. I take advantage of creative highs and I’ve got draft posts up the yin-yang. Then I adjust them to make them timely.
Plus I tend to write really fast, as you can probably see at times, ahem, like yesterday.
I’ve got a whole publication plan and schedule. I do plan on sharing that with y’all as part of my re-branding exercise, so look for that sometime soon.
Posted on August 18, 2004 02:42 PM | #
10. Matt said:
Keith, that’s really interesting. I’d always wondered how you kept up such a vigorous schedule.
Posted on August 18, 2004 02:58 PM | #
11. Adrian said:
It’s funny that you’d bring this up because I just re-did my web log as well (or restyled it as Donny said).
After implementing it, I’ve decided that I need to do some minor graphics re-working, and some CSS/Layout tweaks here and there, but it’s pretty close to what I had in mind when I set out to change things up again.
This will be my forth time I’ve completely redone things in less than a year (including changing blogging tools twice).
I like what you’ve touched on here, but I don’t think the design/layout/styling cues should remain largely static over time. I’m not saying that large changes constantly is a good thing, because a blog should be usable first and foremost, but implementing ever changing styling and design cues is something that should happen on a fairly regular basis. It shouldn’t be an experimentation platform, but I feel that it should change just enough to keep things interesting because I don’t feel that content alone can carry a blog.
re: liquid vs. fixed… I used to do liquid a lot in my earlier web design days (years and years ago). Some of my stuff still is liquid, but I think fixed is a lot better for ease of working with and maintenance. There is a place for both types. I just can’t stand it when someone trys to do liquid where fixed works best and vice versa. Ugh…
Posted on August 18, 2004 03:11 PM | #
12. Niket said:
Has someone implemented some kind of cusp between elastic and fixed width design.
What I mean is that one aims to start with an elastic design: all font sizes are in ems, all widths, margins, paddings are in ems. Basically its an elastic design for all practical purposes. Then, in order to gain “control” over the design, you add:
body {font-size: 16px;}
That makes the entire design fixed… coz you rely on this specified size.
I did this on my online vita. Has someone applied similar ideas to an entire site?
Posted on August 18, 2004 04:07 PM | #
13. Justin French said:
Whilst I generally liked the older (non-bloggy) DxF, the reality is that it was confusing and unfamiliar to use. Why? Because it was different.
Different may give the designer a warm fuzzy feeling, but familiar will always win with users. In other words, it’s probably a great idea for a blog to look like a blog, and I for one really like the new DxF – it feels a lot more comfortable.
Posted on August 18, 2004 06:00 PM | #
14. Donna Maurer said:
There are entirely good reasons for blogs looking like blogs. There is some interesting academic research that shows that when we look at something, we learn as much from the form or the shape of the information as we do from the content, and that we recognise it faster. When searching, you might want to know a definitive, right answer or you might want to see what other people think about the topic. It is a lot easier to figure out if a page will help you if you can quickly understand its shape.
The fact that something is a blog usually means that it has personal experiences and opinions. If it looks like a blog, people will be able to determine more easily whether it will help them.
Does this make sense…if not, there’s some stuff here:
http://iawiki.net/ShapeOfInformation
Posted on August 18, 2004 09:12 PM | #
15. Adam Bramwell said:
Perhaps the key is to do try different approaches to start with, like Crofty, Hicks + Andrei. Then temper it into something maintainable when your designer doodling tendencies ease into writing urges..
Posted on August 18, 2004 09:24 PM | #
16. Andrew K. said:
Familiarity adds to usability.
Experimentation is the key to creative evolution.
Standards develop for a reason.
Piecing it all together is what makes great design.
Posted on August 19, 2004 04:18 AM | #
17. Mike P. said:
I’ve said this before elsewhere… I think the innovation is coming in little funtional UI widgets and ideas that push the “Blog Format” to the next level. Here are some examples:
Besides this type of stuff, innovative content is a great way to push all blogs to the next level. In our webdev community, the SimpleQuiz and your Designing the Band are great examples of this.
Posted on August 19, 2004 04:20 AM | #
18. Daryl said:
Regarding whether or not blogs even need to be designed, I never woulda thunk it (being a programmer and generally rather skeptical about the importance of design!), but I actually find design to be sort of important in the blogs I read. I keep track of them all in a nice aggregator called RSSOwl that presents a stripped-down HTML version of the feed content (basically, text with line breaks, links, and bold text where applicable). I can click through to a post and view it as designed in my aggregator’s top frame if I want to. And in spite of my skepticism about the importance of design, I more often than not find myself starting to read the plain version and then clicking through to the site itself because the content feels more at home within its proper designed layout. Moreover, I most often wind up firing up a Web browser and viewing the site fullscreen rather than settling for the top frame of my aggregator. The aggregator’s great for determining whether or not I want to read a given post, but my user experience is much better if I click through to the site in question to actually read it. Something about context, I guess.
Posted on August 19, 2004 04:46 AM | #
19. Taco John said:
If you’re a blogger who has pride is his design, as much as your content, why not send out a feed with just excerpts? That way, your readers can keep track of the posts, and new readers who watch the feed can get a feel for what you’re writing, but have to apperciate (or put up with) your design to get the full experience.
As for blogs looking like blogs, I think you could see that change. It’s changing all the time. I’m sure someone though “Wait, a blog of just pictures taken from a cell phone? That’s stupid, who would want to see that?” Yet moblogging is taking off. The content is changing, and the designs will too. There’s a tried and true forumla, and some basic principles that need to be followed when establishing a blog design, but someone will think of something either revolutionary or evolutionary and change the game.
Posted on August 19, 2004 06:47 AM | #
20. Keith said:
Taco John – Sending out feeds as exerpts is pretty common, I know Mike Davidson is all for that approach, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. I just prefer to give my readers a choice is all.
I also agree that we could see some change in design as the content of blogs change. A photo blog is a good example. What’s next a Flash intro blog? Can’t wait to see it.
Posted on August 19, 2004 10:05 AM | #
21. Matthew Pennell said:
“Hey, Dave.”
“Hey, Keith.”
“How’s 2010 treating you?”
“Not bad - just redesigned the old blog again.”
“Cool. Hey, remember 2004?”
“You mean - ‘The Year We Gave Up Redesigning’?”
“Yeah - what were we thinking? Resigning ourselves to stick to a fixed-width, right-hand sidebar blog layout for ever after; we almost convinced ourselves that change was BAD!”
“I know - dangerous times, man, dangerous times…”
</devils advocate>
Posted on August 20, 2004 12:37 AM | #
22. Keith said:
Matthew – That’s the beauty, if all else fails, there’s always the redesign. (even if it is a few years too late!)
:)
Nicely done.
Posted on August 20, 2004 05:02 AM | #
23. Matthew Pennell said:
:)
In all seriousness, it does strike me as damaging when the so-called “leading lights” of the community effectively begin advocating complacency and a one-size-fits-all mentality:
Or to put it another way, if you want traffic like us, design it like us.
The implication is that we have reached the pinnacle of blog design - don’t f**k with the layout, ‘cos it’s working for everyone else. I believe that’s a damaging path to go down, particularly for those new to the ‘blogosphere’ (ack!) who should be the ones pushing the envelope (or insert your own lame-ass cliche here).
Why are you up so early, anyways? Checking your blog at 5am can’t be healthy… ;)
Posted on August 20, 2004 05:18 AM | #
24. Keith said:
Matthew – Come on man. Read between the lines…It really depends on what you want to do and what the goals for your site (in this case blog) are.
If you’re going to paraphrase me, get it right. Traffic isn’t the end all be all…Goals for a successful site can be a whole host of things…
And who said a damn thing about complacency? I know I’m not slackin…
I think I get where you’re coming from, but a message like “innovate at any cost” is just as bad, if not worse than, “design like us.”
Nobody said we’d reached any kind of pinnacle and by all means push the envelope…I think that’s great, I might even join you if I decide to take a break from writing about it.
Posted on August 20, 2004 05:31 AM | #
25. Matthew Pennell said:
Now who’s paraphrasing? ;)
It just feels recently that for every one step forward we’re taking two steps back, but not only that, we’re also beginning to accept this patented SimpleBits-esque layout as “written in stone” best practice for blog design.
Of course I’m aware of the cognitive and behavioural basis for design decisions, but throughout history ‘art’ has always had to evolve and new paradigms be established. In fact, not just art - look at how psychologists have influenced shopfloor layouts in the last 20-30 years; who’s to say that in another 20 years shops will be arranged in a completely new, better, way - and blogs too? (although 20 months, or even weeks, would probably be a better estimate in the world of web design)
Posted on August 20, 2004 05:54 AM | #
26. Robert Lofthouse said:
I don’t get the obsession with continually pushing design boundaries when the point of the web is content. Newspapers all follow the same layout, you can recognise a newspaper when you see one, but they all contain different content and the content is what people go to newspapers for.
If I wanted to see some whacky design that’s pushing the boundaries, i’d go to a flash exhibition or an art exhibition, where in most cases their messages are visual not text-based.
This anti-blog layout thing is going too far and a lot of people seem to be losing sight of why people use the internet in the first place.
Just because someone uses a blog layout doesn’t mean their design isn’t original and the content is boring.
As for the elastic vs fixed issue: Please… My friend is dyspraxic and has very bad eyesight. Quite a few years ago when we were doing an IT exam together in college, the examiners gave him an exam paper that they “thought” met his needs. They gave him an exam paper that was 5 times the size of everyone elses, the font-size was 5 times the size of the normal font size and it was impossible for him to turn the pages and work on. He had to complain to the examiners just to get a normal size copy so that he could actually take the exam.
I’m basically saying that just because you “think” something is benefiting the world, it doesn’t mean it is. Just because you think expanding certain elements is helping everyone, doesn’t mean it actually is. In most cases elastic design pisses me and my dyspraxic friend off, because of the huge amounts of trapped whitespace in most designs.
Those who do want to keep pushing the design boundaries in a modern art type way. Why not create a blog with a black background and black text and call it: “The expansion of the black hole” or other such random nonsense.
Matthew: Correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t your web site in standard blog format? It’s a bit strange having someone preaching at people for using a standard blog format, when the preacher is using the same format. Maybe you should consider trying to back yourself up by bringing out a revolutionary layout? You say on you’re blog that the reason you use a standard fixed width template is because you’re not an “uber designer”. What’s being a good designer got to do with constructing a different layout that’s elasticated? Not having a go at you, I just don’t understand your excuse.
I agree with Keith, it all depends on the situation. I’m not going to hound people on blogs telling them to use fixed width, when there might be a reason the person used elastic design.
Sorry for the rant, but until my blog design gets finished you will have to put up with me venting via other web sites :P
Posted on August 20, 2004 09:36 AM | #
27. Andrei Herasimchuk said:
Matthew,
You might be reading far too much into redesigns, at least my own. Quite simply, I was having a hell of a time getting Internet Explorer on Windows to play nice with the things I wantd to do to make the elastic design I was attempting work. I was seeing all sorts of gaps, font-size values were inconsistent making it hard to line-up visual elements, etc. In doing so, I was spending all my free time fiddling with code all day rather than writing or designing.
After three weeks, I got really bored trying to figure out CSS hacks or ways to make IE play nice. So I threw in the towel to fight that fight another day. (And yes, I will fight it another day, just not today.)
Further, I do have a life and new company I have to start.
I don’t create my blog to set some sort of standard. I created the blog so I could share my experience with other designers in the high-tech field. I feel like I have something to contribute that could be helpful to others, so I made a spot on the web in the hopes to do that. The design for me only has to be more functional and visually pleasing than ground-breaking for my goals.
Now… if every reader of DxF wanted to pay a $100 yearly subscription fee, I guarantee you I’d bust out some innovative design in a month or two month long redesign project. I’d work the problem until I solved it. But DxF is free right now, so you’ll get what I have time to give for it right now. And that will just have to do. 8^)
As a postscript, I hardly think the DxF v3 is a step back. I think that’s being overly harsh. To me, the header plus the pieces above the fold have a nice simplistic elegance to them. I was attempting to do more with less. That’s just my opinion. Further, I didn’t create the design thinking it was “best practices.” It just worked well enough for my purposes so I did it. There is no conspiracy.
Posted on August 20, 2004 10:17 AM | #
28. Keith said:
Matthew – I understand your point of view, but I think it might be a bit misguided. Let me put it this way–compare Web design to architecture, ok? Now obviously when you are designing a building or house there is a whole lot of room for interpretation, right? But in general most houses look the same. They all have a bathroom, a kitchen, etc. You’d not radically change the way a house is designed just because you want to innovate. I know it’s not really a relevant example, but a house is a house, is a house, and it’s that way for a reason.
In architecture, a field much older than Web design, along the way guidelines became rules and at the end of the day a successful house is one you can live in. It’s not the physical form that’s the most important…it’s the detials.
My site has a fairly “common” layout out. It’s been similar since day one, over two years ago. Should I go changing it? I don’t think so, it doesn’t look like any other blog out there (except the handful that have copied it lock, stock and barrel) and it’s all mine. It works, so I’m sticking with it….I may change the details, but…anyway, I think you get the picture.
There is a whole lot of room to get creative when it comes to designing blogs, as I pointed out, and depending on the focus of the content (which is the very reason for having a Web site of any kind in the first place, whether it be text, pictures, some kind of task helping app, etc.) you can totally innovate, but innovation for the sake of getting your creative rocks off isn’t really a good idea.
(Not saying that you’re saying that, sorry for misquoting you earlier)
If you design for a hobby, sure, knock yourself out. But if you want to provide a quality design that’s proven to work and place the focus on the content… the “patented SimpleBits-esque layout” might be a good place to start.
As with anything on the Web, nothing is written in stone. Not yet anyway, and I think I made that abundantly clear….
Posted on August 20, 2004 10:50 AM | #
29. Matthew Pennell said:
I’ve addressed the last three comments and expanded a little on my previous statements in my related blog post.
Posted on August 23, 2004 03:02 AM | #
30. Robert Lofthouse said:
Matthew:
It’s simple - familiarity. Familiarity is one of the key points in HCI. Users are used to this layout, it works and they usually know their way around it. Pretty much all blog designs are unique, but they choose this kind of layout because it works best at representing their content to people.
Again, usability and accessibility seem to be getting pushed to one side in the effort to be more “creative”. They should be equal and both have an equal part in each design.
No offence to Andrei, but his last design was a usability and accessibility nightmare. His new design is a lot better though, it suits his audience and the fact that it’s about content not the design.
A year ago I was experimenting with all sorts of weird layouts: swapping headers and footers, changing the shapes of the layout, putting things in random places and as much fun as that was, it would NEVER be accepted on the internet for a content based web site because it was just TOO different. If it’s about content, the design should be focused on the content. If you want to do something different, why not put your nav at the bottom of your web site then? or other such random things.
Once you learn every aspect of web site design/development, you start to realise WHY things are the way they are and WHY people choose a certain layout. A few years ago I thought the web looked boring, until I realised why everything looked “similar” just with unique designs and details.
My unfortunate strong opinion is that: Graphic designers should not be let lose on the web till they’ve had a good course in - IA, HCI, Standards and WCAG.
As much as I would like to agree with you about “newspaper layouts” being different, it’s quite obvious from those papers that they’re not. Every single one of them is split into two columns, one for the main story and one for the side story. They all have a header in the same place and they all have the main story header in bold font. They all follow a “standard format” that works well with people, but they customise it to make themselves unique.
For instance, the difference between the daily mail and the times is like the difference between simplebits and whitespace. Same layout, just customised to fit different audiences.
As for the typography on the papers - that’s just like the typography on different blogs, but most of them follow the same format when it comes to “layout”, you were picking on details again.
That’s like saying: “Is your latest entries section where my latest entries section is in my layout?”
A house consists of these things (standard):
Roof, main body (windows, doors), foundations.
The details within the house are what makes it unique, same way the details within a blog are what makes it unique.
This could go on forever.
Posted on August 23, 2004 04:37 AM | #
31. Matthew Pennell said:
Robert,
While I’m not an expert, I’d like to think I understand the basic concepts of HCI, and by and large I agree with what you’re saying.
My contention, though, is that these things are not fixed (pun not intended) but must evolve - newspapers are not the same as they were 100 years ago; neither are houses. The logical conclusion to what you are saying is that we have reached a pinnacle of design, which as Keith agreed is ridiculous.
Posted on August 23, 2004 05:29 AM | #
32. Robert Lofthouse said:
Not a pinnacle, but a comfort zone. This is the way blogs will remain till another layout is proved to be more efficient than the current one, which is the way everything works.
For the moment people are working on detail in code and detail in content while this “comfort zone” is there. In the end I believe that this produces a better web, because it allowes each individual element within a blog to evolve and grow before the next layout change hits it.
Everything needs time to grow, now content and details are getting their chance to catch up. Let this natural process take its course and i’m sure at some point you will see a change in the layout of blogs.
Posted on August 23, 2004 06:57 AM | #
33. Blog Design said:
No matter how similar blogs look, it’s ok to start out copying something that works for so many. I do however believe that once your blog really attracts visitors, it would be good to make a few good changes that can really make a difference to the human eye :)
Posted on September 1, 2005 10:31 PM | #
Comments are now closed