This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > July 2006 > website redesign - comments please?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
website redesign - comments please?
|
|
|
|
OK, I've wiped it clean and started again. I am looking for a bit of
constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's perspective. Not
particularly interested in critiques of the HTML at this point.
http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
The photography is all original, btw.
Cheers
Owen
| |
|
|
|
|
| lomcovak 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> I am looking for a bit of
> constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's perspective.
What are you trying to achieve by attempting to prevent right-clicking? (I
say 'attempting' because it doesn't work with Firefox - the annoying
copyright message pops up but then you get the context menu anyway). I
personally find this irritating and I know I'm not alone.
--
www.lomcovak.com
| |
|
|
|
| Owen wrote:
> OK, I've wiped it clean and started again. I am looking for a bit of
> constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's perspective. Not
> particularly interested in critiques of the HTML at this point.
>
> http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
>
> The photography is all original, btw.
The font is waaaay too tiny - it's tinier than designer's 75% Verdana
even! :-)
I like the dotted line between navigation and content, and the
different pictures at the top. I'd give the pages a shadow border left
and right and center the page though, to make it look a bit more
professional. Also I'd not center align the navigation - maybe right
align? And give the grey backround on hover a bit of left and right
padding.
The white on black in typewriter font is nice for headers, but I'd
make them slightly larger or fatter.The scanned printed bit on
'rejections' is much wider than the page, which makes the page look
unbalanced. Maybe have a smaller version of it in the page, and link
it to the large version separately?
HTH
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Now playing: Dave Edmunds - I Knew The Bride (when She Used To Rock
And Roll)
| |
| Chaddy2222 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
|
Owen wrote:
> OK, I've wiped it clean and started again. I am looking for a bit of
> constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's perspective. Not
> particularly interested in critiques of the HTML at this point.
>
> http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
>
> The photography is all original, btw.
>
> Cheers
> Owen
Some of the pics take a little while to load on my dial-up conection.
I would suggest maybe optomizeing your graphics a bit more.
I do like the layout though, it's simple and easy to find your way
around, though I would agree about adding padding the the hover and I
also think that blocking the right click is pointless, I can just
disable JS and right click away.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
| |
|
| "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1152361958.649575.137810@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Owen wrote:
> Some of the pics take a little while to load on my dial-up conection.
> I would suggest maybe optomizeing your graphics a bit more.
> I do like the layout though, it's simple and easy to find your way
> around, though I would agree about adding padding the the hover and I
> also think that blocking the right click is pointless, I can just
> disable JS and right click away.
> --
> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
>
OK.
Question for you and other repliers who found the right-click block
annoying:
"Why did you right-click anyway?"
My aim was not to annoy, and yes I know visitors can get around it easily,
but I wanted to make it as hard as possible for people to copy & paste my
text. I don't see why I should make it any easier for people to nick stuff.
Owen.
| |
|
| "David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8o7ka$r38$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Owen wrote:
>
>
> http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/cgi-bin/we...es.cgi?code=539
>
> I need to add a new point to that script I think:
>
> Attempts to block right clicks have two major drawbacks:
> (1) They don't work
> (2) They are immensely irritating to users
(1) Well, they do, but not very well. They're easy to work around (just use
keyboard shortcuts or browser menu for example). But there's an awful lot
of dumb users who think the right-click menu is the only way.
(2) Yes they are, that's the whole point. If they try right-clicking to
copy & paste and it doesn't work, they get pissed off and go away.
Excellent, good riddance to them. I don't want those kinds of people
visiting my site. The more I irritate *them*, the better!
Owen
| |
|
| "Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:34tr22e3llep$.19my3qdgpawnw$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Owen wrote:
>
>
> The font is waaaay too tiny - it's tinier than designer's 75% Verdana
> even! :-)
Depends what Text Size your browser is set to, surely? Looks far from
"tiny" on the Medium setting in both IE and FF.
> I like the dotted line between navigation and content, and the
> different pictures at the top. I'd give the pages a shadow border left
> and right and center the page though, to make it look a bit more
> professional.
Hmmm, yes, I'd considered that orginally, but I've come to rather like the
left-aligned stype of page lately. Shadowy borders are also nice in a way,
but they're close to being there for the sake of it sometimes, or a bit
O.T.T. rather like 3D lettering or animated spinning logos. I might give it
a try and see how it looks.
> Also I'd not center align the navigation - maybe right
> align? And give the grey backround on hover a bit of left and right
> padding.
There's already padding - to the whole width of the nav. column. However,
for some reason I can't see, the padding only shows up in IE. Wierd...?
> The white on black in typewriter font is nice for headers, but I'd
> make them slightly larger or fatter.
Yeah, I think I'll make the font bold.
> The scanned printed bit on
> 'rejections' is much wider than the page, which makes the page look
> unbalanced. Maybe have a smaller version of it in the page, and link
> it to the large version separately?
Very good idea, and one which I didn't do, purely out of laziness ;o)
>
> HTH
Yep, it does, thanks...
Owen
| |
|
|
| Mark Goodge 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 14:32:06 +0100, Owen put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>"David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:e8o7ka$r38$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>(1) Well, they do, but not very well. They're easy to work around (just use
>keyboard shortcuts or browser menu for example). But there's an awful lot
>of dumb users who think the right-click menu is the only way.
>
>(2) Yes they are, that's the whole point. If they try right-clicking to
>copy & paste and it doesn't work, they get pissed off and go away.
>Excellent, good riddance to them. I don't want those kinds of people
>visiting my site. The more I irritate *them*, the better!
On my copy of Internet Explorer, right-click gives me access to lots
of things, including the following:
Create shortcut
Add to favorites
Mail to a friend
Print
Backward links
See related links
Get Alexa data
Back
Why would you want to restrict my ability to do any of those?
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
| |
| Mark Goodge 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 14:28:38 +0100, Owen put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
>Question for you and other repliers who found the right-click block
>annoying:
>
>"Why did you right-click anyway?"
In this context, to view the source.
>My aim was not to annoy, and yes I know visitors can get around it easily,
>but I wanted to make it as hard as possible for people to copy & paste my
>text. I don't see why I should make it any easier for people to nick stuff.
Do people use right-click to copy text? I'm not aware of anyone else
who does - all the people I know either use CTL-C on the keyboard or
select "copy" from the "edit" menu.
The usual reason for disabling right-click is to protect images by
preventing access to "save picture as...", and it can be semi-helpful
for this because there isn't an obvious alternative unless you're more
computer-savvy than average. But text is so easy to grab from a page,
via several different routes, that restricting just one of them (and
probably a less-commonly used one at that) seems rather pointless.
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
| |
| David Dorward 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> (1) Well, they do, but not very well. They're easy to work around (just
> use keyboard shortcuts or browser menu for example). But there's an awful
> lot of dumb users who think the right-click menu is the only way.
> (2) Yes they are, that's the whole point. If they try right-clicking to
> copy & paste and it doesn't work, they get pissed off and go away.
> Excellent, good riddance to them. I don't want those kinds of people
> visiting my site. The more I irritate *them*, the better!
Then there are the users who right click to open a link in a new window, or
who right click to save a bookmark, or etc. Do you want to irritate people
taking steps to help them find your site again?
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
| |
| Swampy Bogtrotter 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> "David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e8o7ka$r38$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> (1) Well, they do, but not very well. They're easy to work around
> (just use keyboard shortcuts or browser menu for example). But
> there's an awful lot of dumb users who think the right-click menu is
> the only way.
So, insulting your users.....Good start.....
> (2) Yes they are, that's the whole point. If they try right-clicking
> to copy & paste and it doesn't work, they get pissed off and go away.
> Excellent, good riddance to them. I don't want those kinds of people
> visiting my site. The more I irritate *them*, the better!
Now deliberately trying to irritate your users because they don't adhere to
your idealistic way of viewing webpages?....
It's a wonder you get any traffic at all really.....
Just promise me you'll never try to work in a customer services
capacity.....
| |
| Swampy Bogtrotter 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1152361958.649575.137810@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> OK.
>
> Question for you and other repliers who found the right-click block
> annoying:
>
> "Why did you right-click anyway?"
>
> My aim was not to annoy, and yes I know visitors can get around it
> easily, but I wanted to make it as hard as possible for people to
> copy & paste my text.
Then try to disable the "Print Screen" button on their keyboard.....
Try stopping them from hitting ctrl-a then ctrl-c.....
It's impossible to stop people from copying and pasting your work.....You
might as well not bother with anti-right-click measures and save yourself
some time and effort....
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> Question for you and other repliers who found the right-click block
> annoying:
>
> "Why did you right-click anyway?"
To open one of your links in a new tab.
> My aim was not to annoy, and yes I know visitors can get around it
> easily, but I wanted to make it as hard as possible for people to
> copy & paste my text. I don't see why I should make it any easier
> for people to nick stuff.
Click mouse at beginning of text
Drag mouse to end of text
Press Control-C
Open editor
Press Control-V
What is that old adage? "The value of your (text/image) is inversely
proportional to your efforts to hide it" or something similar to that. I
certainly don't see anything on your pages worth nicking. The more you
annoy your visitors, the quicker they will leave and go someplace else.
And see this page:
http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
|
| "Owen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:S_ednTvI9r0fCzLZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
Alright, alright! I've got rid of my right-click disabling measures. It
was probably overkill anyway since I've got logins to limit the content.
Also put the font size at 100% although I think it looks shit.
| |
| Swampy Bogtrotter 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> "Owen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:S_ednTvI9r0fCzLZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> Alright, alright! I've got rid of my right-click disabling measures.
A wise move.....Your visitors will appreciate it.....
> Also put the font size at 100% although I think it looks shit.
I don't think it does.....I think you have a good clean, legible, and
logical design there.....To be honest, I didn't notice any change in the
text size....I like the way your site looks....
| |
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> "Owen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:S_ednTvI9r0fCzLZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> Alright, alright! I've got rid of my right-click disabling measures.
> It was probably overkill anyway since I've got logins to limit the
> content.
Thank you.
> Also put the font size at 100% although I think it looks shit.
...but now I can actually read it. Remember, not everyone has the same
eyes as you, or perhaps the large monitor or whatever you use. It
probably looks large to you because you left Verdana in your .StoryText
class. Did you read the Verdana link on my fontsize page?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
Try this:
font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
| |
| David Dorward 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> Also put the font size at 100% although I think it looks shit.
If you don't like the font size set in your browser preferences, why not
change it?
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
| |
|
| Owen wrote:
> "Els" <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
> news:34tr22e3llep$.19my3qdgpawnw$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Depends what Text Size your browser is set to, surely? Looks far from
> "tiny" on the Medium setting in both IE and FF.
WinXP FF, medium, 19inch 1280x1024 -> very tiny font.
Look at http://www.deviantart.com - text in the right column is very
small, yet well readable for me. Your text I need to resize to be able
to read without getting closer to the screen.
>
> Hmmm, yes, I'd considered that orginally, but I've come to rather like the
> left-aligned stype of page lately.
It's not about what you like, but what your readers like. I often surf
with the browser maximized, and I don't like to read on the left side
of a wide window. Anyway, even if left-aligned, some kind of border on
the right would make it look more finished.
> Shadowy borders are also nice in a way,
> but they're close to being there for the sake of it sometimes, or a bit
> O.T.T. rather like 3D lettering or animated spinning logos. I might give it
> a try and see how it looks.
I didn't mean a shadow as in 3D lettering kinda shadow - just a
discreet border to make the page a bit more prominent. A saw a very
nice example yesterday, when I was browsign skins here:
http://skins.nucleuscms.org/browser/
Select "Slick" from the dropdown. See the shadows? I wouldn't rate
those in the same order as animated logos and 3D lettering - would
you?
>
> There's already padding - to the whole width of the nav. column. However,
> for some reason I can't see, the padding only shows up in IE. Wierd...?
No, probably not weird - just the way it's coded - but I was looking
at the visuals, not the code :P
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Andy Mabbett 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| In message <e8ohpr$99p$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, David Dorward
<dorward@yahoo.com> writes
>
>If you don't like the font size set in your browser preferences, why
>not change it?
screen cleaner!
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>
| |
|
| Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> What is that old adage? "The value of your (text/image) is inversely
> proportional to your efforts to hide it" or something similar to that.
Indeed! Was just surfing this photographer's site:
http://www.pablorios.com/pixelpost/index.php
And found this refreshing line on the about page:
<quote>
All posted images are available for personal printing at 4x6 size.
Simply right click on the image and save it to your computer.
</quote>
Look at the pictures - definitely good value :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Uncle Pirate 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| "Owen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:S_ednTvI9r0fCzLZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@pipex.net:
>
> OK, I've wiped it clean and started again. I am looking for a bit
> of constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's
> perspective. Not particularly interested in critiques of the HTML
> at this point.
>
> http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
>
> The photography is all original, btw.
It looks pleasantly clean and simple to me. It's just the kind of
layout I like to see. I did not even look at the HTML or CSS, just the
layout. You might want to link the text "Featured Story" as well as
the picture. My first instinct was to go to the text. I noticed my
script stopper not allowing a script to run but the site still
functioned and looked satisfactory.
That sure is a long domain name. I recommend to my clients to make
them as short as possible while giving as much info about the site as
possible. One of my latest recommendations was a water well drilling
service. He wanted carterwaterwelldrilling.com and I talked him down
to carterdrilling.com (I did not create the page) and recommended the
full title in <title>.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
| |
| Uncle Pirate 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| "Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:1152361958.649575.137810@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Owen wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Some of the pics take a little while to load on my dial-up
> conection. I would suggest maybe optomizeing your graphics a bit
> more. I do like the layout though, it's simple and easy to find your
> way around, though I would agree about adding padding the the hover
> and I also think that blocking the right click is pointless, I can
> just disable JS and right click away.
Good point about the graphics, even on my DSL, I could see some of the
graphics load. I browse with scripting off so never even noticed the
feeble attempt to disable right click. I also concur about the the
padding.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
| |
|
| "David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8ohpr$99p$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Owen wrote:
>
>
> If you don't like the font size set in your browser preferences, why not
> change it?
>
Well, yes, I could. And I could say the same to visitors who moan about the
text being too big. But wouldn't it be better if it they didn't have to?
What's the most commonly used browser text size anyway? If I knew then I'd
make sure it looked good in that size.
--
Owen.
http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
| |
| William Tasso 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
Owen <spam@spam.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:
> ...
> What's the most commonly used browser text size anyway? If I knew then
> I'd
> make sure it looked good in that size.
100%
--
William Tasso
http://williamtasso.com/words/what-is-usenet.asp
| |
|
| "Uncle Pirate" <UnclePirate@MotorcycleFun.org> wrote in message
news:Xns97FA6F8215671UnclePirate@216.234.192.142...
> "Owen" <spam@spam.com> wrote in
> news:S_ednTvI9r0fCzLZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@pipex.net:
>
>
> It looks pleasantly clean and simple to me. It's just the kind of
> layout I like to see. I did not even look at the HTML or CSS, just the
> layout. You might want to link the text "Featured Story" as well as
> the picture. My first instinct was to go to the text. I noticed my
> script stopper not allowing a script to run but the site still
> functioned and looked satisfactory.
Good point on the featured story link - I'll change it.
>
> That sure is a long domain name. I recommend to my clients to make
> them as short as possible while giving as much info about the site as
> possible. One of my latest recommendations was a water well drilling
> service. He wanted carterwaterwelldrilling.com and I talked him down
> to carterdrilling.com (I did not create the page) and recommended the
> full title in <title>.
>
LOL, well negotiated! The loooong domain name is a deliberate choice, ie.
deliberately long. It's somewhat tounge-in-cheek and I'd never suggest such
a long name for a commercial site. This one's just for fun.
--
Owen.
http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
| |
|
|
"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote in message
news:op.tcdri4nfm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com...
> Fleeing from the madness of the jungle
> Owen <spam@spam.com> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>
>
> 100%
>
That's not what I meant.
I meant, what is the most commonly selected option in the browser, under
"View > Text Size".
For example in IE, I've always got mine set to "Medium". And with that,
fonts at 100% look grossly oversized. I have to lower the browser setting
to make them bearable. I'd hate to think my users feel the same.
Owen
| |
| David Dorward 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Well, yes, I could. And I could say the same to visitors who moan about
> the text being too big. But wouldn't it be better if it they didn't have
> to?
Yes, it would be nice if browsers could read the user's mind and adjust
their font size automatically, but we're a long way from psychic computers,
so they have a preference dialog instead.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
| |
| Jim Moe 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> OK, I've wiped it clean and started again. I am looking for a bit of
> constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's perspective. Not
> particularly interested in critiques of the HTML at this point.
>
> http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
>
Overall it is a well-designed site.
Why so much blue? If the idea is to "Rip the ugly blue void...",
non-blue colors would seem more appropriate.
The <img>s could really use width and height attributes. The header
image in particular loads slowly, pushing down the content as the image
data flows in.
"Where in God's Name Am I?" A dubious phrase to use in these religiously
volatile times, especially on the home page. Also, think about the phrase
"Where in God's Name". I thought god's name was God? And how is there a
location in a name? What about Zeus? Or Odin? Or Allah? Or any of the
1000s of other gods' names?
"CLICK HERE to view a rejection slip from TTA PRESS." <sigh>. How about
"View a rejection slip from TTA PRESS" with either "view" or "rejection
slip" as the link?
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
| |
|
|
"David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8opl1$icv$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Owen wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, it would be nice if browsers could read the user's mind and adjust
> their font size automatically, but we're a long way from psychic
> computers,
> so they have a preference dialog instead.
>
We don't need psychic computers, just common sense.
OK smartarse what do you make of this site (not mine):
http://www.wildchildpublishing.com/
Fonts here seem perfectly readable to me as a fixed size.
Owen
| |
| lomcovak 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> OK smartarse what do you make of this site (not mine):
> http://www.wildchildpublishing.com/
>
> Fonts here seem perfectly readable to me as a fixed size.
But you're (presumably) not sight-impaired. Using 100% or 1em as the default
size and using percentages or ems to define other styles in relation to
that is part of making sites more accessible. It's all about not dictating
to visitors how to use their browsers. Some have requirements you may not
anticipate.
--
www.lomcovak.com
| |
| David Dorward 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| Owen wrote:
> OK smartarse what do you make of this site (not mine):
> http://www.wildchildpublishing.com/
>
> Fonts here seem perfectly readable to me as a fixed size.
And they are quite readable to me ... coincidently the body text is set to
be the same size as my preference.
Different people have different preferences though (and different levels of
eyesight, and different monitors with different resolutions and different
pixels per inch).
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
| |
| Phil Payne 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| > What's the most commonly used browser text size anyway? If I knew then I'd
> make sure it looked good in that size.
My stats don't tell me that.
But 62% are using 1024 x 768 and 15% 1280 x 1024.
SO I'd say any font that looks good on the former.
| |
| Andrew 2006-07-10, 7:20 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:27:08 +0100, "Owen" <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>OK, I've wiped it clean and started again. I am looking for a bit of
>constructive feedback on the design itself, from a user's perspective. Not
>particularly interested in critiques of the HTML at this point.
>
>http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyourhead.com
>
>The photography is all original, btw.
>
>Cheers
>Owen
>
Hi Owen,
Loved the site although I was a little concerened at you self-torture
page where you carefully list all your rejections :-)
http://www.riptheuglybluevoidfromyo.../rejections.asp
I kept looking for a footer to the pages, as each fades away at the
bottom a little. Have you thought of adding one?
All the best with the writing!
Andrew.
--
Andrew
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/
| |
|
| "Andrew" <sorry.no.email@post_NG.com> wrote in message
news:qg61b2phqfgnj5llrqt2ioj2r7me26iui9@4ax.com...
> Hi Owen,
>
> Loved the site although I was a little concerened at you self-torture
> page where you carefully list all your rejections :-)
>
Ah, but accumulating rejections is half the fun of writing.... !
>
> I kept looking for a footer to the pages, as each fades away at the
> bottom a little. Have you thought of adding one?
I am thinkning of it now... thanks to your suggestion!
>
> All the best with the writing!
>
Cheers!
Owen.
| |
|
| "David Dorward" <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8p9ef$9lk$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Owen wrote:
>
>
> And they are quite readable to me ... coincidently the body text is set to
> be the same size as my preference.
>
> Different people have different preferences though (and different levels
> of
> eyesight, and different monitors with different resolutions and different
> pixels per inch).
>
Fair enough.
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|