digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Web 2.0 how-to design style guide

webdesignfromscratch.com — Analysis of Web 2.0 design style elements, why they work, how and when to use them.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • phjr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31One of the best Web-2.0 articles I've seen. Good pick!
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6Good article indeed.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12One thing I want to add is that they completely ignore the entire concept of "clean URLs" at that site and its articles. It's apparent by looking at most of their links and that ugly ".cfm" on the end of them. Compare that to URLs at Digg, Flickr, or Delicious and you'll know what I mean.

      For being a site all about cutting edge design and if it's going to name drop with "web 2.0" they should adhere to one of the more simple and practical conventions of Web 2.0 site design.

      But besides that, like I said in my above comment, nice articles all around on that site.
    • bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Absolutely.. it's a good solid article, with real content! Stuff you can actually use
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44How to...

      Design a site that blends in with every other "Web 2.0" site. Brilliant.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7@m3mn0n

      That's called search-engine optimization, which has nothing to do with design.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Why are people digging david76 down? All this article is trying to do is get people to lose creativity. Yes, we should all make websites with the same styles! Oh, boy. Wouldn't this series of tubes be great if we could do that?
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@soogy

      I know what SEO is and I'm not talking about SEO. Clean URLs is a web 2.0 site navigation convention that organizes your URLs is logical structure with the most important stuff going on the left and the lesser ones or the subcategories or parameters on the right.

      It's just as much a help to people and your site security as it is to crawlers because they can navigate your site by easily guessing URLs. And it's not just about SEO because with clean URLs you're separating your web application technology from your URLs and you're separating your file system structure from URLs, which both are good. Why? Things like "page.cfm?blabla&id=329739252&foo=sfWEWETdasGS" is flat out ugly and you can't remember it easy, where as "/page/idnumber/foovalue/" is easy. You can't easily hack the URL to navigate the site. And if your site ever switched from ColdFusion to say PHP, you lose all PageRank and you break all links to your site.

      So without writing and entire article here I'll end this with saying there is MORE emphasis on other aspects/benefits of using Clean URLs than just being good for search engines, so it's not just SEO. SEO is a result of Clean URLs, as is a cleaner look, hackable URLs, keeping your pages technology independent, and etc.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I'm getting tired of people overusing the term "Web 2.0".

      First of all, clean URLs have been around far longer than O'Reilly started talking about "Web 2.0".

      Second, clean URLs have nothing to do with security. Why on EARTH would a generated GET var link be less secure? They both contain the same information, just styled differently.

      Third, you shouldn't be using ColdFusion in the first place. If you do switch, then it's not that difficult to redirect. Besides, when did this become an argument about why to use clean URLs? I merely said it has nothing to do with Web 2.0.

      Again, go look at O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0. It seems people are misusing the term and applying to everything nowadays.
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7soogy, url rewriting can be theoretically safer by not allowing url stuffing, and by not showing which language the site is written in. It's not great, since it's security by obscurity, but it keeps out a lot of script kiddies.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@soogy

      Since you seem not to know what the hell you're talking about, maybe you should read that article yourself and look at where it says "An attitude, not a technology"..."hackability"... & "granular addressability of content". Those three things are right inside the meme map of web 2.0 from the article you're talking about and those three things are entirely what clean URLs are about, aside from SEO.

      Maybe it does have more to do with application development than web design, but that doesn't take away the fact that I think it's wrong it's not even mentioned on the site we're this page is linking to.
    • judgeFire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@soogy re:"That's called search-engine optimization, which has nothing to do with design"

      SEO is interaction design at its finest. Don't dilute the word to stand for graphic design only.

    • willynilly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Graphic design only? It has nothing to do with graphic design. It's trickery based on tags and terms, nothing more.

      And WTF? It's not April 1, yet we have people pretending that WEB 2.0 EXISTS.

      THERE IS NO "WEB 2.0".

      Duh.
    • amikael9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A collection of Web Design Books:
      http://freecomputerbooks.com/webDesignBooksIndex.html
  • xeno439, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5buried. Like all other titles with the words "web 2.0" in them. Who did you pay to digg you up to the front page anyway?
    • jwyles, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8I agree, marked as lame.
    • profOblivion, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Hold on, hold on, hold on... why is the parent comment buried, but the first reply isn't??

      Anyhoo, I agree. Buried for even *saying* "Web 2.0". EDIT: The article, I mean.
    • fritzon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'm tired of people that are tired of and complaining about the term Web 2.0.
  • Dested, on 10/12/2007, -4/+55Holy crap! The entire article is on one page! I didnt know that you could still do that.
    • kalmi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Personally I prefer it this way.
      We don't have to wait for every damn page to load.
  • g0ng, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I agree. Nice article.
  • Aloyarc, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Buried as spam. Look at the first two comments and see how people react to those types in other stories.

    "Absolutely wonderful article indeed, 'ol chap! Now, wheres that $5 you promised me?"
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8You think I was paid? LOL

      Wow, you must be also one of those conspiracy theorists who think Bush planned 9/11 for oil.
    • digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4idiot
    • Aloyarc, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4***** you guys. I made an observation, that is all.
    • ace77, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2@Aloyarc
      I only pay to ***** your sister, not for getting dugg.
    • jwyles, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@m3mnon:

      Are you saying you do not think that Bush planned 9/11!? You must be one of them TERRORISTS!
    • mtjohnson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Aloyarc = pwnt
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2In Soviet Russia, dugg for get you!
    • Aloyarc, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2@ace77 If you are who I think you are, then you already know that my sister has a dick, and she's really my sister, she's yours...
    • Aloyarc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Please digg down what I typed above, that was just uncalled for (and incoherent). I shouldn't stoop down to comments like that.
  • raynar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Yay, another one.

    Here's how to design in 2 steps.

    -Use "glossy" gradients
    -Throw some AJAX in

    the end.
    • digitalsin, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4and thats why your website sucks
    • xeno439, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3amen, paid for sure. conspiracy theory no. But once it gets on the front page, group think kicks in. That's all it takes. This story had 30 diggs when it hit the front.
    • raynar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"and thats why your website sucks"

      And thats why I dont have one, *****.
    • 5la5hd0tter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5it's sad that was all you were able to pick up from that article.
  • fujiyama17, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Great article. I love anything that can help people understand good web development :) Cheers!
  • abstractia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19These "how-to" design guides are rubbish. Especially ones dealing with such nebulous concepts as "Web 2.0". It's a designer's responsibility to choose appropriate visual and functional elements that meet the goals of the project, not just slap together some gradient-laden, giant-text-sized monstrosity that's fully buzzword compliant.

    Web 2.0 is a useless buzzword created by a marketeer - Tim O'Reilly to sell tickets to an overpriced conference. It isn't some great gospel of good design, or some great leap in web technology. You should always use appropriate design and tech for your project, not just adopt the latest fad.

    Use this guide if you want your work to be cliche, unoriginal, and completely insignificant. Proper designers think for themselves - they don't just check off "Web 2.0" style-guide points.
    • popstalin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Rob, are you upset 'cause your last 3 "Web 2.0ish" designs didn't make it into that article? ;)

      Give the guy his dues, he wrote a decent article on the subject of a very hot trend right now. Keep in mind there are designers out there that are constantly trying to improve themselves. You (or I for that fact) may be too advanced for this sort of thing but there are those out there who aren't. Let's hope they can use this as a way to improve their skills and develop the Web 4.0 look.
    • Saiing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Abstractia: to be honest, I think you're missing the point. This isn't a guide for "proper" designers - professional designers wouldn't go to a site like this for advice. But it is an interesting read, and there are a few nice tips that joe-public can take away and use. If it slightly improves the layout of one or two people's personal sites, or inspires people to think about the subject of interface design then it's mostly harmless and at worst a bit of fun.

      I think it's also fair to say that the author isn't stating "this is how you MUST do it". He's just identified many of the well known common features found in a lot of "web 2.0" sites and put them all together in a nicely written guide. Whether individuals want to borrow any of these ideas is up to them. Personally speaking, I actually quite like some of the fresh bright designs that have cropped up in the last year or two. The fact that there are 'trends' in web sites shows that as an industry, web design is maturing and is no longer the poor relation of print design (where purists have often claimed the "real" designers work!)

      I would never claim to be an expert, but I say this as someone with nearly 20 years experience in the design industry for both print and screen.
  • alexvalentine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Nice article, but people on digg need to get their heads around the idea that web 2.0 has nothing to do with photoshop or web site layout.

    http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I disagree.

      Look at the page you linked to. It says "Rich user experience" and that's what this article and many others focus on. Because they don't talk about every aspect of web 2.0 doesn't mean it isn't apart of the evolution.
    • anteyekon4myst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4 Sort of agree with what alexvalentine is trying to say. I think its just a coincedence that CSS' functionality and design emerged at the same time the social web did. Note sites that had the same design styles before hand such ass csszengarden.

      Secondly, A lot of the design observations categorized under web 2.0 style are just simple design principles. The only reason why we see more of it now is because 1, programmers with a lack of understanding in design are less and less apart of the process and 2 people are getting better educated in design generally. Reducing visual form so that it corresponds to functionality, thus reducing elements on a page, is not a new idea.

      @ soogy

      My first instinct was the same as yours. There is a lot of conformity, but I dont think that's what the author is trying to get at. I think the similarity in styles emerges from people imitating a "new style", then people talking about it (viral marketing) and then companies requesting what everyone is talking about. However, I think there is enough variance in the elements the author points out to afford a multitdue of designs.

      Good article. My only real criticism is that you used the term Web 2.0 to define the design style, thus limiting the design principles to a time period. Although I realise most people will only pay attention to posts that have a buzz word, so good job on exploiting that.

      Cheers!

    • avolant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i think web2.0 is when stuff from web1.0 is incompatible with stuff on teh new web. and we dont have that yet. so, i propose that, until http is used as its illustrious designers intended it (REST is best), thusly revamping html and the link scheme commonly found throughout the internet, you all shut the hell up.

      and even then, shut the hell up.

      everybody seems so angry today. its beginning to look a lot like christmas.
  • muntz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3maybe learn how to set type...jeez. everyone of those designs shown in the article has type that is set "good enough" or looks like "ass."
    • prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You can't really do any H&J on the web....
  • Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What happened to Web 1.0 ?
  • xeno439, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Funny how my comment was dugg down like hell, but the reply agreeing with me was dugg up.
  • ulyssesyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3every designer i know is revolted by the "Web 2.0" *****. why in the world would you want EVERY WEBSITE TO FOLLOW THE SAME DESIGN GUIDELINES?

    but "eb 2.0" is for the amateurs and people who don't want to design--the people who Google for "web templates."
    • popstalin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So if a client came to you and said I want my site to look "Web 2.0ish" you'd tell them it was ***** and to go away?

      Got news for you, I'm a designer and I'm not revolted by designing what people want (including Web 2.0)—I'm revolted by being poor, homeless and starving.
    • muntz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"I'm revolted by being poor, homeless and starving."

      then go work at walmart you hack, or go and study information design, form, usuability and typesetting. Because you can't have partial understanding to be a professional. You might also want to delve into marketing
    • armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"So if a client came to you and said I want my site to look "Web 2.0ish" you'd tell them it was ***** and to go away?"

      No, I'd recommend that they expand on what they mean by web 2.0. I would recommend that they size down the fonts so they're not elephant-sized, and use a decent color scheme. If they still wanted it to be web 2.0 with big nasty pink fonts, I would tell them no.

      Accepting every client who asks you to do their website is the surest way to have a really crappy portfolio.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well said, popstalin.
    • abstractia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I turn down clients on a daily basis who ask for a "Web 2.0" site. I'd rather a client approach me with the specifics of his or her needs - business, aesthetics, or otherwise, and leave the designing to the designer. A client asking for a "Web 2.0" site is likely just cool-chasing - looking for another cookie-cutter pile of junk. I don't even reply.
  • greymarketbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3FTA "# 11 Rich surfaces | Most 2.0-style sites use subtle 3D effects, sparingly, to enhance the qualitative feel of the design...
    Realistic surface affects like drop-shadows, gradients and reflections help make a visual interface feel more real, solid and "finished"."

    Translation: Use only an aesthetic of glossy fake lifeless plastic ***** with mostly pastels and the same 6 colours that make people just want to puke.
  • Mikekuul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The standard of comments on this is appalling.

    This article is good, and a few of you should take a second to consider the fact that articles like this could be used to educate not only current web users, but future users.

    Furthermore:

    "Clearly, a site doesn't need to exhibit all these features to work well, and displaying these features doesn't make a design "2.0" - or good!"

    While this article is analysing "Web 2.0", it is more an overview of design elements that work and why they work. While they may be trends followed in many "Web 2.0" sites, they are still stand alone elements that designers (amateur or professional) should recognize and consider when producing a site design. As the quote says, you don't need to use them all, and they won't necessarily make your design "Web 2.0" or good.

    To all those saying "designing for web 2.0 is bad", tell me why other than "cus they're all doing it".
    • muntz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1it's bad to have a label on anything this complex. Interface design (or ANY design) is a holistic PROCESS that looks at how everything fits together and how a user will interact with that design. Little pieces of drop shadowed *****, gloss and bad typesetting is not good design--or information design. Understand form and typesetting first and foremost. Everything in this article looks like templates and does not further form-giving.

      On the other hand, if you know how to design, go ahead and use these elements to your hearts content because you already know how to bring form to content, but until then...
    • Mikekuul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I reiterate "displaying these features doesn't make a design "2.0" - or good!". I completely agree that there is more to design than adding all these aesthetic touches, I just dislike how far some people go to claiming "Web 2.0" (I also agree it should not be branded!) is bad design when all these gradients with shiny bits and bobs are just the surface of something that may have had more thought put into.

      Going back over my post, I could have worded my end statement a little better. I didn't mean purely designing a site so that it fits with the whole "Web 2.0" scheme of things, rather why it would be so bad if a designer used some of these elements in their well formed design.
    • digguerre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2muntz is completely correct. it's not that this kind of design "bad" - its that content should drive your design, not web trends. It's good to be relative to the times, but not at the expense of creativity and creating something that's appropriate to the content.
  • digitalcowboy99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I thought this article was very good. I have to design web pages for my work although my strengths lie within writing some of the underbelly code (the data hooks and systems manipulation routines).

    I think it's primary emphasis isn't on "do it in this style" like some people are saying, but rather in a "use these concepts, clean interface, focus on what you need to, etc." I agree, too many websites are just cluttered and badly designed. I know mine aren't perfect and anything to provide me with some improved design suggestions when I have to design my next site are great.

    I read the comment: "Design a site that blends in with every other "Web 2.0" site. Brilliant."

    So...you're against providing your users with an interface they may be familiar with? You want to make them guess as to what to do? Sure, the author did mention a few style choices, but also said that you have to go with what works for your site. Most of the important content to me was the discussion on the layouts and the clarity of navigation.

    Step outside your own boxes and look at something from the point of view of your actual users. What are they trying to accomplish and how are they attempting to do this? How are they used to doing this? Too many technical centric people don't "get" that.
    • sirsean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree. I thought this article was pretty good, and people shouldn't complain about just because it uses the term "Web 2.0" or includes a bunch of things in the list that might not all go well together ... of course if you just throw them all together without thinking about it you won't get a good design.

      I'm a programmer, not a designer. But I develop web applications that need to look good in addition to working well. People here seem to all be designers rather than programmers, and are forgetting that the world is not split up into the two categories of "designers" and "users." There are people who make web pages that don't already know all about these things, and the idea that they shouldn't have any place to go to pick up some new tricks or learn what looks good these days demonstrates some pretty closed thinking.

      I'll use myself as an example. I'm the lead developer for ZedZone.com, and we have a very good concept that should end up working out well. (It's a site that facilitates communication and collaboration among communities, and allows the to easily get online.) The functionality is good, but since we don't have any web designers on staff, the visual design of the site was left to programmers. Of course we did what we could, but being able to learn how to do it better is a good thing.
  • fiveoaks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This site has been dugg before. Good site though.
  • jamesh64, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2When you see paint-by-number style guides like this you know the fad of "web 2.0" design is passe.
    • skelta63, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2haha. very true. can't wait to ride the 2.1 wave when the gradients are duo-tone
  • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1What was the first "web 2.0" site? Google?
  • gauthierm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This should be added to the style guide:

    Use the Joint Photographic Experts Group image format for photographs and the Portable Network Graphics image format for graphics.
  • tomlaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow, this article touches on the "gimmicks" of Web 2.0 and not the real essence behind the movement. The essence is what dictates the style. It's meant to be friendly because these sites are user driven or offerring services that propagate a community-style interaction with the service. That style can be whatever it needs to be but for what it is now, you have a handful of sites that set the trend and then a ***** load of sites that have leeched. You're describing the leecher style of design. How very M$ of you. Show a little more understanding of the process and tell people how to achieve better usability, not style-stealing.

    Sagmeister says: "Style=Fart". Words to live by. If you don't know who he is, Google him then go get a design degree.
    Peace.

  • fintheman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Buried for saying Web 2.0

    Its getting very very stupid people.
  • kevdotbadger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1The meaning of web 2.0 has really really been misunderstood.
  • imyayo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"2.0 design means focused, clean and simple."

    If you're a web designer, you should be designing websites like that from the start. Not just now, so you can throw on a "web 2.0" label.
    • kevdotbadger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0web 2.0 designs. No i was talking about web 2.0. Making a web site feel like a desktop app.
  • ChefGroovy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would say Amazon is the granddaddy of next-gen web philosophy for commerce. Things like "people who bought this item, also bought...", allowing customers to write their own reviews, dynamic listings and all that. They were way ahead of their time and have made a science out of it. Kind of bloated now.

    IMDB would be somewhere on the top of the list too.


  • rjoseph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Some interesting information in the article for sure, but the irony of how badly it renders in Safari makes me think the author simply culled information from many other sites while having no idea how to actually design for "Web 2.0." Isn't one of the central tenets of "Web 2.0" to ensure that the site look stunning in every browser?

    Oh Digg, the crap you'll digg up.
  • djcronos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This is EXACTLY what our web development department was looking for - a good lesson on what Web2.0 should look like.

    Great article - everyone digg this up!
  • lunanul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6it's all about the web 3.0
    what the hell age are you people living in???
  • joshreport, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0http://blog.myspace.com/s4joshg35
  • tituskashmarek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1this site is garbage...end of story
    a) it doesnt render properly....
    b)the buttons...i mean come on fix them they look like *****!
    c)there is no c
  • byo2000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2First of all, the designer of that web site should learn how to make his/her content render correctly for a range of browsers. It doesn't even render correctly for mine !!! (Firefox 2.0) Get that down first before trying to preach about Web 2.0
  • Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3anything with Web 2.0 in the title gets my digg.
  • sephiroth965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought this was a very good tutorial. The writer knows what they're talking about.(i.e. they understand visual heirarchy in design and concepts of positive/negative space, as well as the best ways to use these concepts.)
  • quux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm a programmer. I build web sites. I don't do design. If I'm lucky, the shops I contract in hire will hire a designer. Sometimes they don't, and I'm forced to do it myself. And what I do to a web site design is just wrong.

    This web-two-pointy-oh site is chock full of help for people like me.

    If you're already a shmancy designer with mad-uber photoshop skills who can make a user weep at the beauty of your fung shoo-ee inspired home page, this site is not for you. So go away and leave this article to guys like me; a guy who thinks the 216 web safe colors are about 212 too many.

    And trust me, you may think you know how to code, but you don't. I'm currently working with one of you. :-P
  • hadimirza, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Very Nice article!! It helped me make some good looking web pages of my own. Thanks, dugg and bookmarked.
  • mike503, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1should we trust a site for web 2.0 advice that still uses coldfusion?

    :)
  • WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm glad the article dissed Yaxay. I've always hated that interface the few times I've stumbled across it. And to think many worshipped it as being good design???!?
  • tweaked7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0so would this be considered web 2.0:
    http://www.imxstudio.com
    ?
  • adubyailkinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I
  • adubyailkinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really like Edward Tufte, I attended one of his courses a year ago. I am making my way through his books, he's got a lot of great concepts... :) Data ink ratio is one of my faves.
  • liberum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, really great pick! Good thoughts about design... I don't like centered websites with static width though. This is not about web 2.0 (stupid idea anyway), this is about readability and design.
  • demopoly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Okay, for the record:

    - Repeats of stories from last year, or up to five years ago.
    - Anything even mentioning Something 2.0 that isn't a release upgrade from Something 1.9.
    - Any article promoting Ubuntu. This is not the hottest thing in the world. It's just another distro. Get over yourselves. I've got XGL on Core 6, but you don't see me filling digg with fluff about it.
    - Anything that says "this is incredible!" or other such bullsheep preconditioning in the topic. Grow up.

    + Posting something I haven't seen fifty times on six different blogs.
  • loxi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.design-sites.net/
  • rider85, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0http://www.flipsidefan.com
  • pekea, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0http://www.best-buy-deal.com/summer-travel-guide.html
  • pekea, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0check
    http://us-freestuff.com/
  • yogastore, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0http://astore.amazon.com/flowtron.mosquito-20
    http://astore.amazon.com/flowtron.insect.killer-20
    http://astore.amazon.com/evaporative.air.cooler-20
    http://astore.amazon.com/air.swamp.cooler-20
    http://astore.amazon.com/braun.electric.kettle-20
    http://astore.amazon.com/cordless.electric.kettle- ...
    http://astore.amazon.com/canon.battery.charger-20
    http://astore.amazon.com/12.volt.battery.charger-2 ...
    http://astore.amazon.com/furniture.chaise.lounge-2 ...
    http://astore.amazon.com/outdoor.chaise.lounge-20
  • theadvinci, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Interesting.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.