<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Michael Gracie &#187; design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelgracie.com/tag/design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelgracie.com</link>
	<description>Clever Tagline Unavailable At Publication Time</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Naysayers discount simplicity for headlines</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/06/22/naysayers-discount-simplicity-for-headlines/</link>
		<comments>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/06/22/naysayers-discount-simplicity-for-headlines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Office]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[business.com]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Craigslist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Kevin Ham]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Plentyoffish]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[simplicity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelgracie.com/naysayers-discount-simplicity-for-headlines/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal notes that the business.com domain could fetch $300 million for owners Jake Winebaum and Sky Dayton, on a $7.5 million initial investment.  Meanwhile, everyone is poo-pooing the thing.
Assuming what the Journal says is true and the site is pulling in roughly $15 million in EBITDA&#8230;
Techdirt says &#8220;At this point, there&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- sphereit start --><p>The Wall Street Journal notes that the business.com domain could <a href="http://http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB118248076104444461.html">fetch $300 million</a> for owners Jake Winebaum and Sky Dayton, on a $7.5 million initial investment.  Meanwhile, everyone is poo-pooing the thing.</p>
<p>Assuming what the Journal says is true and the site is pulling in roughly $15 million in EBITDA&#8230;</p>
<p><a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070622/065251.shtml">Techdirt</a> says &#8220;At this point, there&#8217;s a little more here than just a domain name, but it&#8217;s still hard to tell how much of a business business.com actually is.&#8221;</p>
<p>Meanwhile, a Wired reporter didn&#8217;t even seem to have read the story, when creating the title for criticism &#8220;<a href="http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/06/domain-madness-.html">Domain Madness: Business.com For $400 Million?</a>&#8220;.</p>
<p>The list of goes on, but the point is clear: if you don&#8217;t have fifty AJAX &#8220;widgets&#8221; scattered across the site a designer charged you $250,000 to create and/or just announced a &#8220;lucrative business development relationship&#8221; with someone who does (even if they&#8217;ve blown through tens of millions in VC money and still don&#8217;t have a dime of revenue to show for it), your business is not worth two-cents.  I will say that 20X EBITDA is a bit dear for a company growing 50% per annum, but still the context of the naysaying doesn&#8217;t get near this point.</p>
<p>You don&#8217;t have to look far to find simplicity hitting homers - <a href="http://www.craiglist.org">Craigslist</a>&#8230;<a href="http://www.plentyoffish.com">Plenty of Fish</a>; and if you still don&#8217;t get the idea, ask <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/06/01/100050989/index.htm">Kevin Ham</a> out for lunch. </p>
<p>Beauty is skin deep, and elegance eventually trips on the runway.  Meanwhile, ugly seems to be going to the bank.</p>
<p>UPDATE: Mike Arrington <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/21/businesscom-on-the-block/">chimes in</a> with a more credible tone, and a snack for thought.</p>
<!-- sphereit end -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/06/22/naysayers-discount-simplicity-for-headlines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I&#8217;ll get all posts in here sooner or later</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/05/03/ill-get-all-posts-in-here-sooner-or-later/</link>
		<comments>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/05/03/ill-get-all-posts-in-here-sooner-or-later/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 20:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Office]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[import]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[minimalist]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[widgets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelgracie.com/?p=3</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This website will eventually contain select contents of the previous Spamroll.com and Thoughtmarket.com blogs (the moment I find someone who really knows how to import the stuff), as well as all future goings on.
Meanwhile, I&#8217;ve chosen a sparse design for which tweaking will be kept to a minimum.  The reasoning - many sites have [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- sphereit start --><p>This website will eventually contain select contents of the previous Spamroll.com and Thoughtmarket.com blogs (the moment I find someone who really knows how to import the stuff), as well as all future goings on.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I&#8217;ve chosen a sparse design for which tweaking will be kept to a minimum.  The reasoning - many sites have more in the way of graphics, widgets and what-have-you for most people&#8217;s tastes (and dialup connections), yet the virtual gadgets continue to proliferate at an alarming rate.  My question is&#8230;does anyone feel the glitter DOESN&#8217;T distract them from the content at hand?  Personally, I can&#8217;t read half a paragraph of most blog entries without being tempted to click on some link, picture, or flashing graphic - I almost never finish consuming the content.  But I guess it&#8217;s all good, if you own one of the companies making the bling.</p>
<p>Inspiration for the approach comes from the ideas of <a href="http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/">Edward Tufte</a>, styling examples from <a href="http://www.plaintxt.org/">plaintext.org</a>, and the timeless wonder <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0205313426?ie=UTF8&#038;tag=thoughtmarket-20&#038;linkCode=as2&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=9325&#038;creativeASIN=0205313426">The Elements of Style</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thoughtmarket-20&#038;l=as2&#038;o=1&#038;a=0205313426" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />.</p>
<p>UPDATE: One caveat - I reserve the right to throw some photos up.</p>
<!-- sphereit end -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/05/03/ill-get-all-posts-in-here-sooner-or-later/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
