absolutely disgusting.. [Archive]

26th June 2000, 18:10

just go here and read the review..
http://www.winamp.com/customize/detail.jhtml?componentId=14289

isn't it clear, just by looking at any part of this skin, that the creator has spent SO long making it?!?! it must have taken him a good few weeks.. perhaps months... and what does he get?.. one star... even though functionality might not be superb.. it really makes me sick to think that someone who put so much effort into a work to get one star... if that was me.. i wouldn't just sit back and let the 'reviewer' get away with that!.. tell me what you think!

old and quite mad

26th June 2000, 19:44

hahahahahahaha
We all love the skin reviewers. Oh yes we do.

I prefer mine lightly toasted, with a hint of paprika.

27th June 2000, 00:17

OMG!!!!

he's even used transparencies!!

that AT LEAST deserves 3 *s.. but.. oh well.. i'm not a frickin' rater!.. (even though i have the time, and eye to be one..)

http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/cool.gif

~Cruel Kindness~

iomegajaz

27th June 2000, 15:03

Guys, don't think I'm just playing devil's advocate for the fun of it, but I think the reviewer's got a point.

While the skin IS a work of considerable art, you still have to be able to recognise it as a music playing application.

Unfortunately, functionality DOES count.

I'm not saying the reviewer wasn't unduely harsh, he/she just wasn't harsh to the extent to which you elude.

Make sense? No? http://iomegajaz.cjb.net makes sense of it all. Not.

------------------
iomegajaz
live short and hack well

[This message has been edited by iomegajaz (edited June 27, 2000).]

old and quite mad

27th June 2000, 17:03

bah, a blind man could see it...........

old and quite mad

27th June 2000, 17:07

In fact, the more I look at this skin the more I like it.
Sure, it looks like hammered shit at first blush, but if you actually spend ALL OF THIRTY SECONDS PLAYING WITH IT, you will find it is certainly worth more than one lousy, godforsaken star.

old and quite mad

27th June 2000, 17:09

In fact, I'm gonna run this hideous bastard for the rest of the day. Buhahahahahahahaha.

And if I go blind as a result, then I'll be old, quite mad and blind.

PhotoFx

28th June 2000, 00:27

Isn't it lovely when you compare it to what I shall henceforth refer to as a "picture skin" with THE ORIGINAL WINAMP BUTTONS and no originality. isn't the 5 to 1 star comparison Exactly what you would have given each skin? (you all know what I'm talking about)

I think old and quite mad is living up to his name, thought he is a genius at times...

------------------
--PhotoFx <{8^)

"Free your Mind..."

hawk606

28th June 2000, 01:52

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CK:
OMG!!!!

he's even used transparencies!!

that AT LEAST deserves 3 *s.. but.. oh well.. i'm not a frickin' rater!.. (even though i have the time, and eye to be one..)

http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/cool.gif

~Cruel Kindness~<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you WERE a Winamp.com skin reviewer, i would have to stab you in the eye

old and quite mad

28th June 2000, 05:02

breebl bumz fzztpt**************

(old and quite mad sits in the corner mumbling to himself...)

iomegajaz

28th June 2000, 07:38

Transparencies? My second-ever skin used transparencies, and it took a week to make (unfortunately I didn't give enough time to myself for "crapness evaluation"), but it still only got one star. THAT'S BECAUSE IT REALLY SUCKED!! I (said with A LOT of emphasis on the "I") couldn't even find the CButtons!

Basically, apart from the slightly-lsee-crap nature of this skin, it's the same story here.

BTW - the crap skin? http://www.winamp.com/customize/detail.jhtml?componentId=10279

CORRECTION: (said in a hushed, modest tone) i actually got two stars, sorry. http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
iomegajaz
live short and hack well

28th June 2000, 22:54

hawk.. you don't think i have an eye for art?.. go to my website and check out my own..
http://www.zyworld.com/cruel_kindness

http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/cool.gif

~CK~

Zeruel

29th June 2000, 03:33

Oh boy....don't get me started on some of these mindless skin raters...

...those fu*kin' idiots.

Zeruel

29th June 2000, 03:36

Yeah! And now take a look at this "5-star" skin. Ha.
http://www.winamp.com/customize/detail.jhtml?componentId=18967

Not only was it made with skinner, but other functions have the fu*king BASE SKIN buttons. Its ridiculous.

KP--You're fu*king dumb.

"Old and quite mad" knows what I'm talkin about.

(thanks for signin the guestbook too)

old and quite mad

29th June 2000, 03:41

Zeruel knows EXACTLY what he's talking about.

SexyLoserKitten

29th June 2000, 05:36

I don't get why such shitty skins get great fricking reviews and how great ones get 1 star.....if i made skins, i would be seriously pissed off as well...i mean, being an artist myself, i can understand on a certain level what it feels like to put all your time and effort into something that really really looks great only to have it thrashed by those who think they know so godamn much about it when they don't....in my opinion, i think they should have the winamp users rate the skins...like a vote kinda thing....but that's just me....at least the skins that deserve the 5 stars will get the 5 stars..

------------------
SexyLoserKitten1@aol.com

Sex without foreplay is like drinking without getting drunk...

iomegajaz

29th June 2000, 05:39

Now where did I leave that dead horse, I wanna keep beating it.

Zeruel, you've obviously borrowed it?

FACT: Skin raters sometimes let their own biases get the best of them.

FACT: So do you.

I will grant you that SOME of them are just plain dumb.

------------------
iomegajaz
live short and hack well

[Edited bit start]

I just had a look at the skin in question, and I have to say that it is pretty fucking shocking, to say the least.

[Edited bit end]

[This message has been edited by iomegajaz (edited June 28, 2000).]

hambone

30th June 2000, 08:59

damn that has alot of work whats wrong with the system

astralm

3rd July 2000, 01:32

Screw ALL of you.

If skins were based on EFFORT rather than ORIGINALITY and USABILITY, then the world would be sad and boring.

Let's see... if people found out Monet spent 15 minutes on his best work of art, would we commend him or condemn him?

And if we later found out that a god-awful piece took 30 years to complete, would we regard it as great, just because a lot of time was put into it?

WinAmp skins, of ALL things, HAVE to be simple and useable, otherwise there is no point using it. Using an illogical design that is not functional, it would suggest that you don't plan on using WinAmp, which is an insult. If you think a skin is artistic, take a screenshot and put it on your wallpaper.

I attempted using an "artistic" skin once... I got a headache while trying to use the damn thing since the playbuttons were so well hidden.

So here's the point. DO NOT rate skins on COMPLEXITY, because a complex, non-functional WinAmp skin is an OXYMORON! Also, do not rate skins on EFFORT, because it doesn't matter if somebody took 30 years or 15 minutes to make something--the point is if it WORKS and doesn't make you think hard to find out how to use it.

Could you imagine how many automobile accidents there would be if traffic signs had complex, artistic designs? (This is only meant as an exaggerated example of how complex designs compilcate life.)

Paul Seropian
creator of Nawa NW-U220: http://www.winamp.com/customize/detail.jhtml?componentId=8408

aaron

3rd July 2000, 02:14

a good point! and your skin is great!

------------------
aaron
aisotton@inwind.it (no winamp support)
visit my homepage! (http://www.aisotton.atfreeweb.com)

astralm

3rd July 2000, 06:36

thanks! http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

iomegajaz

3rd July 2000, 16:17

Hooray for exclamation marks!

Hooray!

:/

Good point though.

------------------
iomegajaz
live short and hack well

[Hmm.]

[This message has been edited by iomegajaz (edited July 03, 2000).]

Silver_silk

4th July 2000, 00:48

[QUOTE]Originally posted by astralm:
If skins were based on EFFORT rather than ORIGINALITY and USABILITY, then the world would be sad and boring.

I totally agree with you about the "originality and usability" part. I think
what people really care is a "steady",fair
rating system. There are enough 3-D stuff
occupying in "best-skin" section. (sorry to
say it) I think the best way is to let different people rate different directories.
(or, let users vote.) There are about the same numbers of skins in anime section and
3-D section. However, how many best skins are
from anime section (compare w/ 3D). There is an obvious preference of 3-D over anime(or other picture skins).

The usability of skins sometimes
depends on the resolution of the screen as well. A skin designed for 800x600 might look
messy in 1280x1024.

aaron

4th July 2000, 01:38

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The usability of skins sometimes
depends on the resolution of the screen as well. A skin designed for 800x600 might look
messy in 1280x1024.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
a good skin looks good at all resolutions. a skin only looking great at 800x600 is not a great skin.

------------------
aaron
aisotton@inwind.it (no winamp support)
visit my homepage! (http://www.aisotton.atfreeweb.com)

Silver_silk

4th July 2000, 02:51

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron:
a good skin looks good at all resolutions. a skin only looking great at 800x600 is not a great skin.

theoretically it's correct. However, in
1280x1024, a 11x11 (pixel) icon wil be not
larger than 3x3 mm^2. What kind of design
do you expect to see in a 6cm x 5cm pic (should be 6cm x 3.5cm, despite the EQ bar part)? So (in conclusion) we should try to make skins w/ only bottons or put a big "play" botton on people's nose. eh?

P.S. However, I agree your opinion. I will revise my stuff according to this standard

aaron

5th July 2000, 01:59

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Silver_silk:
theoretically it's correct. However, in
1280x1024, a 11x11 (pixel) icon wil be not
larger than 3x3 mm^2. What kind of design
do you expect to see in a 6cm x 5cm pic (should be 6cm x 3.5cm, despite the EQ bar part)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes, but 11x11 pixels are 121 both at 640x480 and at 2048x1536. at 640x480 you just can count them. i admit, i am running at 1152x864 on a 15" monitor, so stuff is quite small, but skins looking bad at this resolution usually dont get art when i switch to 640x480. looking at the skin CK refers to in the first post of this thread (no offense) you just dont find the buttons no matter of how big it is.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So (in conclusion) we should try to make skins w/ only bottons or put a big "play" botton on people's nose. eh?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
have a look at "philips amp" or at "vacuum tube amp". theyre detailed and anyway very easy-to use and clear.

------------------
aaron
aisotton@inwind.it (no winamp support)
visit my homepage! (http://www.aisotton.atfreeweb.com)

Ice

5th July 2000, 04:01

It's pretty obvious where the buttons are no matter what your resolution... it's mostly the contrast. Black and white: Easy to see. Dark Blue and Black: Hard to see.

I run at 1280x1040 on a 17 inch monitor... and i can still see (whatever is left of my vision) all the stuff on winamp.. it's usually the playlist that gets to me.. people just can't make the colors readable.

iomegajaz

5th July 2000, 12:48

Ooh, that sounds like a challenge Ice.

Check out Too Easy v1-2 from my homepage.

I do so hate to blow my own trumpet http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
iomegajaz
live short and hack well

aaron

5th July 2000, 13:07

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ice:
it's usually the playlist that gets to me.. people just can't make the colors readable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
to me, its the eq/playlist buttons in the main window. some guys seem to forget them...

------------------
aaron
aisotton@inwind.it (no winamp support)
visit my homepage! (http://www.aisotton.atfreeweb.com)

iomegajaz

5th July 2000, 17:15

Nah, what I love is when they forget that the kHz and kbps fields actually exist, and skin as if they don't. Oooooh, sexy black rectangles on a predominantly light-colourted skin, now that's the stuff dreams are made of. http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
iomegajaz
live short and hack well
http://iomegajaz.cjb.net

Xerxes

7th July 2000, 11:45

OK While I don;t intend to bash anyone, this
"good effort" type of thinking is what they
do now at little league games.... its all
about the effort... at leas you tried...

When in reality, it is results and only
results that achieve anything. A company
that "tries" and has "good effort"is going
to have low stock shares because it amonts
to-

utter zilch.

Or as the SNL motivational speaker who "Lives in a van down by the river"
would say-

it amounts to- JACK... SQUAT!

or as Yoda would say

Do or Do not- there is no try

And on the other subject

And I have said it before about the skin
reviewers- some of them are OK, but I really
think they are locked into one view about
what a skin "should" look like and are not
open to designs that are not metallic or
futuristic. Ah, there's the rub- since
skin makers EXCEL at making those types of
skins, is it any wonder that we see lots
of skins that COME out of skin makers...

http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/eek.gif Xerxes http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/eek.gif

You, are a fish monger.
-Hamlet

Silver_silk

9th July 2000, 04:02

What you said is cruel but so true http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/tongue.gif
Since there are already some people picking up examples (which are way under-qualified for best-skin), will there be anything ppl can do about it? or we should learn try not to take rating too seriously (meanwhile skins in each catogories should be listed according to their uploaded dates)?

P.S. How much do those reviewers get paid? I am just curious. http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
P.P.S. I just learned a lesson of contract. ouch! I need to improve my works on this a lot!! http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by Silver_silk (edited July 08, 2000).]

MamiyaOtaru

12th July 2000, 23:41

I notice some stuff written about functionality on this thread. Doeas functionality necessarily mean you have to be able to see the buttons and what each one does? take a look at this 5 star skin and its review and the answer is obvious. http://winamp.com/customize/detail.jhtml?componentId=22101

[This message has been edited by MamiyaOtaru (edited July 12, 2000).]

Xerxes

13th July 2000, 10:26

A word on functionality.

When designing a serious skin-
first and foremost you are not just designing
a "mask" or a "costume" for winamp-
you must remember you are designing an
interface.

Break down the word-
"inter" is used in interpersonal, interactive. In all words it is used in,
two entities are involved- and the word
describes a relationship between them.

"face" is used in typeface, and by itself
means the front end of an object. In most
cases- it is the visual component of
an object being described.

Put it together- and you have A relationship
between two entities (In this case the user
and the machine) FACILITATED by a visual aid.

The key to any good relationship is
communication- an interface is no different.

You must make the interface intuitive- and
it has to communicate it's intentions well.

So WHILE having the buttons be bigger and
have big text is one way (The most obvious)
to communicate the intention clearly- there
are other more subtle ways to do so.

I find Yellow Submarine Amp (Dont have the
link just search for it) to be a good example
of creating an instant ease with the user.

Any other one's people know of that have
inventive ideas for user friendliness?

http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/eek.gif Xerxes http://forums.winamp.com/ubb/eek.gif

And earthly power doth show likest gods;
When mercy seasons justice.
-The Merchant of Venice

bwentink

19th July 2000, 20:19

It's UGLY AS SIN and you can't find any buttons in all the clutter. What's everyone's problem with one star for that?? I might have given it 2 stars myself if I was in an extremely good modd, but no more than that...

DarkTower

19th July 2000, 22:37

I personally liked makeshift....There are worse in the functionality department

------------------
-DarkTower

drop_point

22nd July 2000, 04:28

I have to go at least halfway on this one. This person DID put alot of time into this skin. At least a three. But I also have to agree with the reviewer. Winamp is like a stereo. You gotta see the buttons man! I don't want to have to search all over the place for 'em. As for the Shi' skin, I can see the buttons, but they're the same damn buttons with a little color change. To me, a two at best. I checked out a skin at sumea.com. I wasn't very impressed but it was totally fresh. Everything was changed. And IT WAS STILL A WINAMP PLAYER. Buttons and all. I think this is what those llama guys are lookking for. Some guys like sheep.Some like llamas. Go figure.
I prefer women myself.
HEH!

bwentink

23rd July 2000, 00:44

Funny that you should mention Makeshift, Mamiya... I DLed it because I thought it was intensely cool, it's a work of art... until I tried using it! I hated it, it's pretty, but it's utterly useless! The guy should get credit for making something that's pretty and creative, but a 5 star skin should be something that you would put on your WinAmp and leave it there because it is not only utterly cool (which Makeshift is) but also a breeze to use! I stopped using the highly touted and frequently ripped 5 star Mercury skin for the same reason. In the case of Mercury it's the playlist buttons that are completely impossible to read when they're pressed.