View Full Version : Need feedback on this..
February 11th, 2002, 10:48 PM
What do you think of this new design for my web site; anim8.biz?
Some things I'm planning on doing all ready:
•Changing the main font for readability, keeping the banner the same
•Err, that's it XD
February 11th, 2002, 11:04 PM
bit hard to tell from looking at a jpg of your opening page but the setup looks clean. basically attractive. My only problem is that i could not easily read (and therefore did not make the effort) the smaller white type in the main body of text. that typestyle just does not work well at the size i was viewing it when shown in white against black. I had no problem with the same typestyle at what appeared to be same size when done in the yellow in the frame menu. and of course the large title looked good and was easy to read. perhaps red or purple or some other color would work better. the white 'smears' too much.
just the opinion of me and my glasses (yes, i had already corrected for any potential viewing difficulties due to my own 'hardware':p )
February 11th, 2002, 11:09 PM
Thanks for your input.
Like I said, I'm planning on changing the typeface in the body. Good of you to give me your feedback, what font do you suggest for the body?
February 11th, 2002, 11:12 PM
like i said, i am not so sure you need to change the font. it looks pretty cool really. but it might be more readable in a color. like i said, the yellow is easy to read. white just contains so much light that the eye has more problems sharpening it.
February 11th, 2002, 11:17 PM
You misunderstood me. I wanted to know what a good font for the white text in the body should be. I'm not talking abut changing the yellow text or the banner text, but the body text with the hard-to-read font..
Please read carefully. :p
February 11th, 2002, 11:24 PM
or is it that you are misunderstanding me. is there a difference between the font for the yellow text and the one for the white?
part of what i am telling you is that WHITE is a bad color to use for type!!! It will be hard to read at that typesize and smaller no matter what font you use!!! it has to do with the amount of pure, unfiltered light that is allowed to pass thru from the source. it is different than when you see this color combination on paper because there your eyes are dealing with reflected light.
why can't your type which is now white, just be a color. (hint again: the yellow type is easy enough to read)
February 11th, 2002, 11:33 PM
Okay, I was misunderstanding you. ;)
Sorry about that. Glad you like the font, perhaps I'll use it in a light purple color. :D
And since most people don't have the font, I'll ask the author about letting people download it.
:p Sorry again. I didn't read you well. XD
Do you have any other suggestions?
February 12th, 2002, 12:10 AM
it's ok. fact is i felt stupid when i made my post and then reread that you were aware it was unreadable -forgot after checking it out. but turns out maybe it was for the best anyway. most of the time i would be against having a typestyle that people need to download, but this one is very nice and would be worth it i think. especially if you have it jpeged in the banner so people can see what it will be.
hey, sometimes i go back and reread my posts and don't understand exactly what i am saying. the important thing is that we got it worked out. and i am sure that in the next 24 hrs plenty of people will come along and disagree with me because....well, just because:p ;)
February 12th, 2002, 04:04 PM
Well, I would have to agree with Ed. White is a bad color to use, especially with that font. But I believe you said you were going to change it, so I probably wasted your time. :)
February 12th, 2002, 04:13 PM
I did change it. :D
I agree with both of you.. check out my 403 and 404 error pages with the lavender text. :P Here's a link:
Does this work a bit better? :)
February 12th, 2002, 04:23 PM
way too star trekkish IMHO.
why not use that font for header areas and such... and use HTML text for the copy. more legible and more bandwidth friendly.
February 12th, 2002, 05:19 PM
i think the lavender looks great. no problem reading it. and i guess the star trek look is what i like about it. go figure.:p
February 13th, 2002, 04:53 PM
The Lavender is much stronger. Although with Sans Serif fonts I think you would have been okay using white. (best not to risk black or white on screens, to each their own.)
Looks like you're using "Earth" font. Or something similar?
There seems to be an overuse of whatever that font is. I would change the body font and all the categories (currently in the color of yellow). Leave the "Earth" font on the headings... The banner is where the eye is drawn, but it seems to be floating up there all alone. Consider extending it for a stronger presence on the page.
You're off to a great start, but it should be pointed out that not a lot of people are going to have that font installed on your system. Perhaps you've already thought of this, and you're just checking out the look before you commit everything to a graphic... so if that's the case ignore what I just said.
I doubt people will download and install a font to view your site. Most people won't even know that they are missing your font, because a default font will automatically replace the cool font you've selected. In web design you don't get the absolute power of how raw text will look on your website. You can only make suggestions, the end user has the ability to override your suggestions. Even font size is not in your control. Most browsers can force fonts to on a page to appear at certain size and color. (I have mine set to Verdana) While most people don't do that, it still presents a possible problem that's worth identifying. Which, by the way, if you're looking for a good font, I'd use Verdana, it's more moderan looking than other web-fonts.
A graphic approach might be a safer solution than straight text. I realize it will increase load time a bit, but you should be able to stream the buttons down (if they are only two colors) to almost nothing. And of course, I am only talking about making the headers graphics... don't make the body text a graphic or your page will take forever to load.
February 13th, 2002, 05:06 PM
Okay. Evildan, thanks for your suggestions. I was thinking along your lines for a lot of the things you mentioned. (btw the font is called Dodger, a font I downloaded :p ) I like the lavender color, I might keep it.
Maybe the navigation links will be better as .jpg buttons?
Hmm.. need more feedback XD
February 21st, 2002, 05:16 PM
Now how is it? ;)
The shiznit (http://www.anim8.biz/currentprogress.jpg)
February 21st, 2002, 05:46 PM
personally, i think it lost something in the translation.;)
February 21st, 2002, 06:28 PM
It did, sort of.. If you're talking about the lavender color, I haven't applied it to all the pages yet. There's your answer.
I'm using Tahoma for the font though, and it's on both Mac's and PC's; on Mac it's embedded in IE. Yee!
March 1st, 2002, 11:17 AM
We are in... how should we say... public beta form. XD Go check it out! :D
Keep in mind, the site looks best under 1024x768 resolution. :p
March 1st, 2002, 08:52 PM
looking pretty good. your typestyle on the main page is a bit small. it could stand to come up 2 to 4 pts.
overall navigation is good, nice splash page, nice pic layout on graphics page.
other than the fact that i switched my monitor to the resolution you suggessted and cussed your name a few times for doing so, i liked it. good start.:D
March 2nd, 2002, 09:36 AM
I would get rid of the table border... and the border on the frame.
put these in the frameset tags:
frameborder="0" framespacing="0" frameborder="no" border="0"
<frameset rows="120,*" frameborder="0" framespacing="0" frameborder="no" border="0">
March 3rd, 2002, 10:20 PM
March 4th, 2002, 12:24 AM
I think there's been a trend in design for some time now away from frames. There are some reasons for this. The first is that the look of frames, if you don't explicitly do some color-setting and width-setting of said frames make a page look dated. Another reason is that it makes navigation and bookmarking harder for end-users, in some ways. Finally, it can make the back-button work in unexpected ways for end-users.
Finally finally, :), frames are often used as crutches for bad design of naviation.
Now, this last doesn't seem true for your page -- your page has a straightforward nav-on-top model. If it were me, I'd just lose the frames. I can imagine the heart-rending response: "But Mr. Zero, then I'll have to put that header on every page!" My reply: "Learn #!include virtual :)" or its equivalent on your webserver.
Just my two copper disks. :)
March 4th, 2002, 12:33 AM
How's Flash for version 3? :D
March 4th, 2002, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by ZeroAltitude
-The first is that the look of frames, make a page look dated.
--Another reason is that it makes navigation and bookmarking harder for end-users, in some ways.
---frames are often used as crutches for bad design of naviation.
----Learn #!include virtual :)" or its equivalent on your webserver.
-make a page look dated... yes, if they use bad colors like you said. Don't do that :)
--Yeah, bookmarks are the biggest problem.
---Overall, I think frames are great for design...the iFrames are really good. too bad NN does not support them. Frames keep the important stuff in view all the time.
---- yes, include virtual is the best... but not all servers support that.