My wife got into a daily design challenge in March 2016, and she's been doing design practices every week day for the past 4 years.
I helped her set up this website to share her work and maybe generate some revenue if all goes well.
She uploaded the first 600 designs, currently at day 1059. Hoping to catch up with all the uploads for the official launch.
I’ll get back with some stats and numbers about this soft launch if you’re interested.
I figured it was an ad she made, not an ad ad.
Don't they track that your outbound click performance?
Either way please address it; it's not good for the planet.
Even just to get rid of the "Ad" circle image and add "advertisement" in small caps on the top or bottom of the block sounds nice. I think the Ad circle image is the source of deception.
Just curious, what do you use to manage the website’s content? Is it some form of a database or just a plain flat json file?
Also do you have plans to convert the designs to re-usable css ? Like the tailwindcss folks, this could be a big money maker if it was made up of easy to use plug and play components.
Since the website isn't finished, most of the content management is API based still. Postman API calls for 90% of stuff. The only administrative UI currently is a form for my wife to be able to upload designs. As far as storing data, the source files and designs are stored on disk, and everything else in a database (including ad images for example).
The tech stack is Typescript, Node, Mongo on Kubernetes.
For the blog I've set up Ghost as a CMS which is pretty cool btw, I would recommend it!
As far as CSS goes, I think you are 100% right and she's working on something similar together with some friends.
The project is called Flow UI (https://flow-ui.com/) I am not associated with it so I don't know more details :)
My context for asking the question was that I’m building https://boomadmin.com where I’m trying to make it super easy to build easy-to-use admin/content management interface for database backed apps.
Your detailed feedback is very helpful for me.
The source file content is served from disk, and everything else from the database.
As a programmer with no design skills, I maintain a folder of screenshots from various SaaS apps that I find helpful whenever I need inspiration for layouts, information presentation, multi-step interaction breakdowns, widget use, progressive drilling down, etc..
The about page encourages people to get in touch. I did, 20 days ago. Maybe its buried in her spam folder?
That might be so! I'll give her a heads up. Would you like me to give your contact to her?
Besides that, this looks really nice. Hope it gives some success! Simply as a list of pictures to scroll down and be inspired by it might be really helpful. Thanks for sharing!
One thing, IANAL, but it seems like the license page https://uidesigndaily.com/license (linking to 'Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported') says that it is okay to:
* "Not give credit . . ."
* "Distribute, sublicense . . ."
Whereas 'Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported' says:
* Must include copyright
* That you cannot Sublicense
As IANAL, I don't know how things stand legally when your license page says something, but the License it refers to says something else, but that might be something to look into?
Again great job both of you and especially your wife! :-)
Not knowing what "open-source design" meant, I visited the site and clicked the first design. I ended up on a page asking me to pay $60 for something. I closed to tab. I was really confused. Only after reading the comments here did I realize I must have done something wrong.Then I realized the first "design" isn't a design, it was a native ad. It looks like the designs but says ad instead of having a yellow gem. If I had just stumbled across this some other way and had the experience I would have closed the tab and never thought about it again. Sites that trick users into clicking ads are a red flag for me.
Ok, so I clicked another design that had a yellow gem. All it did was give me a blown up image of the thumbnail. I still wanted to know what the open source design actually was. I almost clicked something off to the right thinking it would be a preview or something. Before I did though I realized it was another ad. It wasn't even labeled though like the one on the main page.
The only thing left to do was click "download". I hovered over it to see what kind of file I was downloading. It didn't say since it's a button and not a link. So I clicked it. It was a ".sketch" file. Arggh! I knew that sketch was a Mac App and not open source. I don't have a Mac and I'm not using proprietary software unless I absolutely have to.
I went the the front page again because I realized that I must have missed something. I didn't see that these were sketch downloads. Then I discovered there are multiple formats you could filter by. The front page just happened to have only all Sketch format ones visible at the moment. I guess I was just supposed to know the logo was for Sketch. I assumed the yellow gem meant that it was actually a design and not an ad.
I had a hunch that the rest of the formats were proprietary to so I looked them up (by extension since the names of the apps are not mentioned anywhere, not even as title text on the images like they should be for accessibility). Yep, they where. It was at this point I closed the tab for good. My definition of open source is different from yours. If you can't open an open source file with open source software or if the file format is proprietary it's not open source IMO.
I didn't mean for that to be such a long rant. I'm sure your web site will be useful to a lot of other people. It would be nice if the people it's not useful for could determine that up front. Not knowing all the product logos, it was pretty much impossible for me to determine what your site was for without wasting time clicking around. You did trick me into clicking an so mention accomplished I guess. Your welcome.
Let's draw a parallel with open source software for instance. It just means you see the source, and have access to it. It might be written in a proprietary language, or using proprietary technology. That doesn't make it any less open source. Let's take Java for instance. It is a proprietary programming language, owned by Oracle - yet we have countless open source projects on GitHub written in Java...
I could go on and on about this topic, but there is no reason for that, I don't think it will change your opinion.
All I can say is I'm sorry if you feel tricked in any way, and on the bright side, the site contains open source designs that were made with free to use software as well. (Figma and XD)
Thanks for your feedback, even though we might disagree on certain points I think there were some valuable takeaways in your rant.