The biggest take away here is the iterative process they went through each day to get to where they are today. Imagine if I showed you the old 2000 homepage and today and said in 11 years they were going to have had a board seat on the fastest growing company ever, be making millions, and be the darling of every bootstrapped in the world.
The point start today and in eleven years you'll be some where.
Especially when you compare it to the best designed websites of the time.
Granted, going minimalist was a very wise choice; IE6 was far and away the most advanced browser of the time, and the real thorn in every web designer's side was Netscape 4. But the bottom line is that the design holds up, which is remarkable regardless of which design direction you take.
The one I always enjoyed the most was from http://37signals.com/28:
Trends are temporary. Don't just do something because everyone else is doing it – do something because it makes sense.
I know I sound curt, but don't you find the bit about trends you quoted a tad ironic here on HN?
I mean, what's more trendy in Web3.0 than web apps with landing pages featuring a few bands of color for a background, drop shadows, Apple-like icons, 2 short sentences, and a request to signup?
> Don't just do something because everyone else is
> doing it – do something because it makes sense.
I can't speak for the particulars of gradients or drop-shadows, but if two-sentence landing pages with an obvious call to action get signups, then it makes sense to do things that way.
I guess the inverse of the advice is "Don't refuse to do something just because it's trendy -- base your choice on whether or not it makes sense."
However, I want to note that by following an effective trend, the "two-sentence landing pages with an obvious call to action" in this case, isn't there a chance that one might be missing an even more effective/efficient way of doing things? Sure it works, but does it work the best?
>I guess the inverse of the advice is "Don't refuse to do something
>just because it's trendy -- base your choice on whether or not it
>makes sense."
Also couldn't agree more, I think there is a really fine line between innovating because you think you can do better and innovating because you want to avoid the trend.
I do find it ironic actually and that is why I like that one. It is very easy to be trendy and I think you know you are onto something big when it easily breaks them.
"Mankind constantly analyzes radio waves from outer space in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Since this analysis started, almost all of the signal sources have been identified. 37 signals, however, remain unexplained."
...a little more out there than I would have thought.
That would also explain their link to the SETI project at http://37signals.com/37.
Edit: just noticed that it's also on 37th page of the site. Delightful.
DHH is a force of nature. Usually appears around topics that are part of Enterprise folklore and causes combustion of said topic.
DHH also caused Rails to happen. With it the DHH spawned another force of nature called the Rails community. The rails community acts very much like DHH and also causes various combustions of various topics. The Rails community also closely monitors DHH activities and should some threat to DHH arise, the Rails community spawns instantly to protect the pure essence of 37 signals idea that is DHH. Oh and Rails community also buys books that DHH has materialized.
"Piling on" downvoting of someone who was sincerely answering a question is not nice. Think the answer is wrong or unhelpful or something? Vote it to 0 or -1 and leave it at that. Or don't bother...
I think the question should be downvoted because anyone who's got a web browser to visit HN also has Google and a web search widget just a click away. And Mr. Rails/37Signals is the top result for a search on DHH. Downvoting paolo's attempt at an answer is not cool, however. Or least, it's less understandable.
That's a classic. My old pioneering blog, camworld, is in there a few times. But I sold the domain several years ago. It's a porn site now. Oh well, the times. They do change...
Yes, and now the next time one of my designer colleagues tries to use them in a website and I say "lay off, that's SO 2000" I have a working example to prove it.
The point start today and in eleven years you'll be some where.