T
The Doormouse
Martin Clark said:
Come on, you know you like it!
The Doormouse
Come on, you know you like it!
The Doormouse
F
Frogleg
I've said it before and I'll say it again. How 'bout fewer links to
*bad* sites -- we all know there are zillions -- and more to good
ones? This would be information people could *use*. Even if you search
on "good web design," most of the references are to "what NOT to do
rather than suggestions and examples of what is attreactive,
interesting, well-constructed, etc.
I realize there's a certain satisfaction in being able to say, "at
least my site is better than *that*," but it's a little like pointing
and saying "hey, look. That kid's really ugly." It benefits neither
the kid nor the observers.
R
rfq
Martin Clark said:
Actually I didn't think it was that bad. At least its got a theme and
is clear and simple to navigate. Granted, it's not pretty and
definitely not my cup of tea but its miles above the hodge-podge
layout of my high-school yearbooks from what I can remember. -- so far
in this thread, the initial site with the bubbles and 600 million
flashing fonts still takes the cake IMO.
M
Martin Clark
rfq wrote...
You must be seeing it in a different resolution than me, or something.
(IE6 at 800x600) The content is in a frame with a very wide black band
across the top and down both sides. The content is too wide for that
frame so needs to be scrolled sideways. The title of the site is
supposed to be inside a box but is falling out of it to one side. Text
overlaps images and there is a "next page" button slap in the middle of
a paragraph of text. On one page the navigation buttons are out of sight
and I need to scroll sideways to find them. On the Memory Lane page the
text appears in a narrow column down one side of the frame with lots of
blank space to the right, and there's no way to navigate away from that
page apart from using "Back" on my browser. The thumbnails in the Photo
Album are slow to load - one is over 92KB! Oh - and all the navigation
is by button images, so no way to navigate if you have images switched
off.
Frogleg doesn't agree with "bad sites" being picked out, but I think
they serve as good examples of what not to do and why certain things are
best avoided!
You must be seeing it in a different resolution than me, or something.
(IE6 at 800x600) The content is in a frame with a very wide black band
across the top and down both sides. The content is too wide for that
frame so needs to be scrolled sideways. The title of the site is
supposed to be inside a box but is falling out of it to one side. Text
overlaps images and there is a "next page" button slap in the middle of
a paragraph of text. On one page the navigation buttons are out of sight
and I need to scroll sideways to find them. On the Memory Lane page the
text appears in a narrow column down one side of the frame with lots of
blank space to the right, and there's no way to navigate away from that
page apart from using "Back" on my browser. The thumbnails in the Photo
Album are slow to load - one is over 92KB! Oh - and all the navigation
is by button images, so no way to navigate if you have images switched
off.
Frogleg doesn't agree with "bad sites" being picked out, but I think
they serve as good examples of what not to do and why certain things are
best avoided!
R
rfq
Martin Clark said:
I stand corrected. Initially checking out the site from work at
1152x864 (in Opera 7.2) it looked fine. But eee-gads..just re-checking
it now at home at 1024x768 (in Opera 7.2) things get quite squirrely..
text flowing out of boxes and scroll bars around the main text both
horizontally and vertically. Indeed I must retract my former
statement. However the bubbly site still impressed me the most.
BTW, learning what *not* to do is just as good as learning what *to
do* in many cases. Some good design examples can be found at places
like http://oswd.org . Although there are some icky ones there too.
RQ
F
Frogleg
Thanks. The site was new to me. Some inspiration there, although I'm
wondering if teeny type is the new black.
T
Toby Inkster
rfq said:
It is a useful resource indeed. IME much of the coding is crap, but I've
used it in the past to steal ideas for colour schemes and layouts.
W
WebcastMaker
It may just be me, but every single one of those designs looked exactly
the same as the others. No originality at all in any of them. Every
single one of the sites looked plain-jane, dull, and boxy.
You can be accessible and follow all the standards, but how about some
originality? This is one of my biggest complaints about designers that
follow standards. They seem to lose their originality and creativity.
There are few exceptions.
W
WebcastMaker
Maybe it is the artist in me, or the massive amounts of drugs I took in
my younger years, but every page, with the exception of font size and
color they are virtually identical. No originality at all. Scrolling
through the pages reveals nothing but variations of the same boxy look.
It does not have to be that way. One can follow the standards, and be
completely accessible and still be original.
R
rfq
WebcastMaker said:
I personally like quite a few of them there. My tastes run in the
clean, sparse look, but that is just me. I don't think it suits every
type of site of course, but I like the simple, efficient look. There
are many that look similar, but don't forget that many of them are
designed by the same group of people there, so the gamut is not that
wide. Many of the designs speak to my tastes, but not to everyones.