note: this isn't my site, but that of a distant acquaintance.

http://www.visualstructures.com/

what do you folks think?

On Wed,  4 Aug 2004 19:49:36 -0400 (EDT), An Metet
<anmetet@liberty.gmsociety.org> wrote:

>note: this isn't my site, but that of a distant acquaintance.
>
>http://www.visualstructures.com/
>
>what do you folks think?

The menu links are too small; increasing text size [in Firefox] has
part of them then disappearing. Literally - as they are white text so
many people wouldn't think of highlighting the page to see the
additional 4 to 5 menu links that flowed over.

Appears to be designed, at least in the main content area, for 800 x
600 resolution? At 1240 x 780 there is a lot of empty space to the
right ... and when increasing text size [to increase the size of the
menu text so it is readable] the last column of "recent projects" then
goes very narrow [1 word per line type thing] yet still plenty of
empty space to the right hand side. I would suggest having the first
area ("visualstructures, a New York ...") and possibly the div
("recent projects") using percentage if they didn't want all three
sections to "flow" with various resolutions that much - to help lessen
and yet take advantage of a couple hundred pixels of "blank space" to
the right at resolutions above 800 x 600 - yet still have the
appearance wanted.

Try using % or em for text size versus pixels as in IE I wouldn't be
able to increase the text size. 9px is too small for text wanting to
be shared at the top [thus felt to be somewhat of importance?] but px
doesn't allow resizing either. Also slip in, at the body, font-size:
100%; to help eradicate the bolding of text effect when increasing the
text size.

Basically the only major problems I see is the "fixed sizing" thoughts
being applied.

Carol

On Wed,  4 Aug 2004 19:49:36 -0400 (EDT), An Metet
<anmetet@liberty.gmsociety.org> wrote:

>note: this isn't my site, but that of a distant acquaintance.
>
>http://www.visualstructures.com/
>
>what do you folks think?

Agree re: text display questions.

The background graphic is rather large for such a relatively simple
picture.

Your acquaintance needs a copy editor.

Frogleg wrote:

> On Wed,  4 Aug 2004 19:49:36 -0400 (EDT), An Metet
> <anmetet@liberty.gmsociety.org> wrote:
> 
>
> The background graphic is rather large for such a relatively simple
> picture.

That's because it's in a format inappropriate for the particular image.
This graphic as a jpg would be a fraction of its current size.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

quote:
Originally posted by An Metet 
note: this isn't my site, but that of a distant acquaintance.

http://www.visualstructures.com/

what do you folks think? 
 

Well, it is my site. And I have no idea who you are. Regardless, I can expla
in that the reason for the fixed size text in the menu was to prevent the me
nu options from extending beyond the image. It wouldn't look very good to po
tential clients for text to go all over the place. As for the fixed width co
lumns I didn't have any real reason other than sticking to the background im
age that defines the different shades of color behind the text. And for chan
ging font sizes, sure they can change, and yes the site might look worse whe
n the font is at 24pt, but oh well.

strategy wrote:
> An Metet wrote:
> 
>
> Well, it is my site. And I have no idea who you are. Regardless, I can
> explain that the reason for the fixed size text in the menu was to
> prevent the menu options from extending beyond the image. It wouldn't
> look very good to potential clients for text to go all over the place.
> As for the fixed width columns I didn't have any real reason other than
> sticking to the background image that defines the different shades of
> color behind the text. And for changing font sizes, sure they can
> change, and yes the site might look worse when the font is at 24pt, but
> oh well.
>

LOL! /me shakes his head at the pitiful excuses.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message104353.html

I guess that explains it :-/

--
Ben M.

strategy wrote:
> An Metet wrote:
> 
>
> Well, it is my site. And I have no idea who you are. Regardless, I can
> explain that the reason for the fixed size text in the menu was to
> prevent the menu options from extending beyond the image. It wouldn't
> look very good to potential clients for text to go all over the place.
> As for the fixed width columns I didn't have any real reason other than
> sticking to the background image that defines the different shades of
> color behind the text. And for changing font sizes, sure they can
> change, and yes the site might look worse when the font is at 24pt, but
> oh well.
>

LOL! /me shakes his head at the pitiful excuses.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message104353.html

I guess that explains it :-/

--
Ben M.