Where the design community meets.
Joined about 3 years ago
Eric hasn't posted any stories yet.
Hmmm. Not sure why you wouldn't just use the final image, since that seems to be the effect you want . . . .
Anyhow, going the route of #1 need not be complicated. First, the background image doesn't need to be .svg—it could be any acceptable image format. Then, you'd use background-image: url(path/to/the/shield/image.png); in your css and put your avatar image in the html. That's all.
For route #2, you can use the clip-path and z-index properties to achieve what you want.
But, again, those seem like overkill. Why not just use the final image as you have it?
Anyhow, best of luck.
I teach UX, so I rely on criteria a lot. Here are the five categories I use. If you rate each criterion on a 4-point scale, you could calculate a percentage score for each portfolio by adding up the total and multiplying it by five.
Context: There is enough information for me to understand what I'm looking at. Things have titles and headings, with more details to be had. Project listings explain roles, time spent, links to outside content etc. All in all, I get the sense, when looking, that the person who made it thought about what I knew and didn't know and tried to help their readers.
Substance: The quality of the text and visuals is high. Relevant projects are presented clearly and effectively. There are enough projects for me make a judgement about various skills. Other site content is high quality. All in all, I get the sense that the site has real substance: the things in it matter.
Organization: The sequencing of the content makes sense for different kinds of readers. Pages/content bits are "close together. Each section has clear focus, and different sections cohere together. All in all, I get the sense that the content has been organized with the user in mind and that it all fits nicely together.
Style: The design and writing strikes the right balance between formal and informal. There are no visible errors in writing or UX. Normal conventions are followed except with good reason. All in all, I get the sense that style is effortless and almost invisible unless I look for it.
Delivery: The site makes the right moves in presenting itself to users. It is polished, performant, and lightweight. Code is largely clean and readable (behind the minification, if there is any). It works in different browsers and on different devices in different conditions. All in all, I get the sense that the site has been through its paces many times and knows the ropes.
hahahahahaha good one
Just wondering from the folks who say dev people don't want to give access to the repo, what is the rationale they supply for that?
Try a font pair that complements one another, rather than two that fill the same niche.
That's a joke, right?
Hi there. Brave of you to ask for feedback like this. Well, you are right there are issues. Certainly there are things to be happy about, but you asked, so here's my list. Overall, I'd say you have a start here, but need to keep iterating until you have an actual design. Remember, design is a process, not something you do once and be done with.
Good luck and keep at it. You're not a bad designer, just need to keep iterating and iterating and iterating until you refine it. Look at models. Try on different ideas, even if you have no time and no budget. Strategize a way to get it done.
(More on iteration: The ease with which we can change a design corresponds with our willingness to do so. That's why its essential we iterate with materials we can quickly manipulate, like post-it notes and paper sketches, so that we can iterate better and reach clarity faster.)
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.