Speaking of improvement, as some people above me, I would love to have a general critique included in the Typesites’ posts. So not only what and why typography was used and how it works, but also, why this *design* in general works (i.e. what design choices have been made considering site’s desired audience, design style/conventions used, or even hardware or software limitations, etc., etc..

I love the ‘rushed’ design and I wouldn’t change a thing up front (sidebar/blog would clog things too much to me, but maybe if you put it in the footer…? - I am all for typographic techniques anyway), but I’d say the archives are - or will be soon - in need for a redesign. Maybe a multicolumn presentation of small thumbnails of reviewed sites?

cheers and good luck with the ‘realignment’ 
j

Keep up the great work, I love the site!

What do you love about Typesites?
I love the very anti-header* approach throughout the site, as well as the abundance of whitespace.

* = I’m still learning how to describe things without being completely at length, sorry. I was referring to the dark grey background for the article’s name & comments that instead of generically stretching to the full width of whatever div it occupies to instead merely fit a snug amount around the text. Along with that the navigation items that are connected with whitespace and repetition.

What do you dislike?
First off:
On an information design standpoint, I was confused at my first visit. I knew this site could only be one of two possibilities:

1. A site about typography on the web (with the subheading of how harshly limiting it is) and how to make the best of it.

2. A site about drooling over type.

It ended up being #2, although I still wasn’t completely sure from the main page. I decided to instead read the first article which pops up an extra element that explains what I should know before, not after navigating the site: “What is Typesites”.

Which brings up my second criticism: Redundancy.
This 1 liner explanation is present within all other pages except index, including the About page itself.

Thirdly, what is that image above the “What is Typesites” thing? Is this some sort of typographic image that I just don’t get because I’m still learning? Whenever I see it I just think “image broken” or “Filler.” I guess it’s like Comic Sans, the font that I’ve heard so many jokes about but have never seen it in use except as a joke. Must be a generational thing, I guess?

I’m sorry if I sound harsh, but those did come to mind when I visited. I hope you find it constructive.

How would you feel about a side-blog that spotlights web typography techniques?

I’d love it. Typography on the web is basically nonexistent for me as almost all of the work I’ve done so far has been in print. I’m also disgusted with the type on my online portfolio because I don’t know how to expand my capability with what little font choices there are. I enjoy the challenge, but I really think I’m missing something that I could do.

I enjoy it all, but especially benefit when the discussion covers context — ie, why some typefaces are (or are not) appropriate in the context of a particular style of website. Choice of typeface is a decision loaded with dozens of implications you may have never intended, so it’s valuable to hear what experienced designers think works, and in what context.

How would you feel about a side-blog that spotlights web typography techniques?

Sounds excellent.

Perhaps you need to define what reviewers should review a bit more clearly (i.e. what you mean by ‘typography’). Also, I think the reviews should be a critique of the site, rather than a simple example of good practice (although I appreciate most the reviews have a ‘criticism’ section): this is just as instructive. I’m thinking of reviewing the BBC home page, but there’s not too much good to say about it!

- i love the focus on typography; please don’t expand to web design in general. In fact, I would probably un-subscribe at that point - unless you had a feed specific to typography.

- “How would you feel about a side-blog that spotlights web typography techniques?” YES, YES, YES. That would be wonderful. It would be great for someone like - who, as a project manager - and isn’t a programmer or designer - needs to better understand the field - or the underlying assumptions you make within your reviews.

- The current site design is quite fine by me. I care about the content of your articles. And I think it’s attractive as is.

Thanks!

I love typesites “best of” approach. Examples of what not to do can be helpful, but I really appreciate that typesites showcases excellent design and typography done correctly, and explains why it’s excellent.

Mainstream and corporate reviews could be interesting, there is a lot to learn from “design that can inspire and teach.”

The quality of the writing and criticisms where what attracted me to typesites. It stumbles at times (see the last paragraph of the latest review) but if you can keep it up, I can see typesites being an excellent resource for designers.