Beautiful sites with no (or very few) images

Catchy title, I know.

In stark contrast to my last post about intricate backgrounds, I’ve decided to examine (by example) the characteristics of sites that are aesthetically pleasing even though no (OK - maybe one or two) images have been used. In essence, this could also be a testament to CSS and the talented folk who use it to its full potential. Or a look into how character is injected into a deign without imagery.

Beautiful? Hardly any images? Show me…

Not convinced a design can be creative and brilliant despite the lack of imagery? Feast your eyes on the following sites and maybe my reasoning can persuade you otherwise.

Andy Rutledge’s masterpiece, as far as I can tell, only uses the one image across the entire site. But before we dwell on his logo let’s examine the other features. Andy mixes white-space, typography and a simple grid to produce an uncluttered site that begs to be read. The serif-type suggests “sensible intellect” whilst the pull-quotes and exciting orange represent a creative flair in Andy’s personality. The structure is simple and uncluttered, suggesting a solid character. Going back to his logo for a second, the split font usage suggests the two sides of Andy - creative and solid.

Just a few tiny images scattered around. Not in the least bit boring though in my view. On the contrary in fact. Sections are crisp, headers are ‘big and bold’ and the black-on-white approach seems less subtle than the aforementioned Andy Rutledge site. I believe that Rik’s site aims to stand out, but not through use of imagery. Whilst Andy’s site is elegant and subtle, Rik’s is bolder and sharper.

Sparse imagery including a logo, a drop-shadow and a smattering of icons just about lets this one slip into this category. This Georgia-heavy site brings outstanding typography to the party. The tight grid layout and clever uses of white-space make it a pleasure to read. The fact that it is in a language I cannot fully understand and still makes me want to scan the page is a testament to Peter’s type-setting skills.

John Gruber’s home is a powerhouse in the world of design. Such a wide audience, but few pictures. What keeps people coming back (aside from John’s great content of course) then? Maybe the fact that the simple, but by no means unskilled, layout means one cannot really get lost on his site. A neutral colour scheme allows for reading in comfort, rather than trying to read without getting distracted. A few nice typographical touches, like the asterisks for the permalinks, inject more character.

Bold and vibrant are words which come to mind when seeing this site for the first time. It’s stylish, and the grid layout for the portfolio is fairly unique in the fact that no images are used on the homepage - simply title and a description. Solid hover states add a funky, trendy feel to the site but don’t go over the top and become brash.

Conclusion: What sets these sites apart?

Typography. One could argue that the examples above have almost perfect type-setting, with careful attention given to font sizes, line-heights and whitespace. This sets them apart from other sites with few images.

Images. When an image is used, it’s necessary. It feels ‘right’, not just for eye candy’s sake. Images have purpose.

Content. The text stands out. It urges you to read it. It looks elegant and the clean structure of the page allows you to read in comfort.

Colour. Colour has a meaning in these sites, whether it be for emphasis or for a link perhaps. It always has a purpose and is not splashed on for the sake of it.

Over to you…

As usual, I welcome your views and examples. Fling a comment our way below…