Huh. I don’t know anything at all about design or branding but I thought the EAG website made a step toward minimalism this year. The about page seems pretty minimalist at least. http://eaglobal.org/about
If it’s easy to describe, I’d be curious about what aspects of the page were not minimalist. Is it primarily the pictures?
For one thing, minimalism isn’t normal and this isn’t a criticism but just a suggestion. Very few brands are minimalist, and with reason. This is less about specific picture choices, more about the use of color and the presence of pictures.
You’re right that that one page is somewhat minimalist, but other pages and design elements are less so. (like the home page, and others with maps and globes and the universe in the background).
The banners and logos definitely didn’t seem particularly minimalist.
Among other things I was the person who designed the website, so am really happy about feedback on this.
When it comes to classifying the design-language that I used for EA Global, I think minimalist fits quite well. I don’t think using basic background imagery, especially if it’s the only visual element on the page and is clearly related to the brand identity, would count much against a minimalist style. In general the usage of images is limited, and the whole style is monochromatic (with some very exceptions) to put full focus on the UI elements.
In particular, if you scroll down on any of the content pages, you will find a complete minimalist style, with a complete absence of distracting elements and a strong focus on content.
Is there actually anything that you would change about the website? In particular the comparison with .impact doesn’t really work, since that page doesn’t really have much content, and also kind-of fails in its navigation because of the absence of a navbar or any other classical navigation element
(e.g. I definitely didn’t expect the team link to actually go somewhere on the .impact page, but expected it to be an external link, since the page itself communicated a one-page design without any hierarchical structure. This is added to by the absence of breadcrumbs or other hierarchical context element on the teams page and other sub-pages. I feel like in this case someone took the minimalist idea too far and actually removed important UI elements from the page.)
Huh. I don’t know anything at all about design or branding but I thought the EAG website made a step toward minimalism this year. The about page seems pretty minimalist at least. http://eaglobal.org/about
If it’s easy to describe, I’d be curious about what aspects of the page were not minimalist. Is it primarily the pictures?
For one thing, minimalism isn’t normal and this isn’t a criticism but just a suggestion. Very few brands are minimalist, and with reason. This is less about specific picture choices, more about the use of color and the presence of pictures.
You’re right that that one page is somewhat minimalist, but other pages and design elements are less so. (like the home page, and others with maps and globes and the universe in the background).
The banners and logos definitely didn’t seem particularly minimalist.
These guys have something I would consider a minimalist brand (which is fitting for them): http://www.theminimalists.com/
Among other things I was the person who designed the website, so am really happy about feedback on this.
When it comes to classifying the design-language that I used for EA Global, I think minimalist fits quite well. I don’t think using basic background imagery, especially if it’s the only visual element on the page and is clearly related to the brand identity, would count much against a minimalist style. In general the usage of images is limited, and the whole style is monochromatic (with some very exceptions) to put full focus on the UI elements.
In particular, if you scroll down on any of the content pages, you will find a complete minimalist style, with a complete absence of distracting elements and a strong focus on content.
Is there actually anything that you would change about the website? In particular the comparison with .impact doesn’t really work, since that page doesn’t really have much content, and also kind-of fails in its navigation because of the absence of a navbar or any other classical navigation element
(e.g. I definitely didn’t expect the team link to actually go somewhere on the .impact page, but expected it to be an external link, since the page itself communicated a one-page design without any hierarchical structure. This is added to by the absence of breadcrumbs or other hierarchical context element on the teams page and other sub-pages. I feel like in this case someone took the minimalist idea too far and actually removed important UI elements from the page.)
Thanks. That helps. I think I agree with you.
I didn’t take your post as a criticism of the website but thanks for clarifying!