I really like this design. The navigation is well done, the photography is nice and the overall look is high-end and well done. Lots of white space and the grid layout makes this design stellar.
I really like this design. The navigation is well done, the photography is nice and the overall look is high-end and well done. Lots of white space and the grid layout makes this design stellar.
Large, close targets are faster to hit than small, distant ones, that’s Fitts’s Law. A look at the 1954 rule behind buttons, prime and magic pixels, thumb zones, and dark patterns.
Your working memory holds about four things, not seven. Chunking groups loose information into meaningful units that slip past that limit, the psychology behind phone numbers, scannable pages, multi-step forms, and grouped navigation.
The Call to Action hasn’t changed in a decade, but the bar has. A fresh look at prominence, copy, mobile tap targets, and accessibility, with lessons from three major design systems.
I’m not really a big fan of this site. Yes it follows a grid but what i dislike about it is:
–header has a lot of wasted space
–sections like “photo gallery” looses my attention when I can’t see to view any photos
–global navigation and top level navigation and side bar level 2 navigation all has the same wight and doesnt stand out to me.
–over all look and feel reminds me of a blog more than anything else.
–Feels top heavy
–i’m not a fan of having it left justified it doesnt look great when I have it full screen.
Blah or riffic.
🙂
Actually it reminds me of the arctic, where they do their tours/expeditions I think.
It definately looks like a blog more than a “regular” website, but I like the use of white space. It’s OK to me.
I think it is a great site too but the navigation is bad usability. It is to difficult to get an overview…
/ Henrik
It’s very beutifull. I like the mix of large images and some white space.
Very cool. thumbs up