Website design

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 6:11 am

Just wondering. What do you think of this web design?

http://texandjenny.keenspace.com/

Spriteville, USA · Post by **Spriteville, USA** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:17 am

It's too wide, and there's a lot of blank space, you could probably condense the page up and down without losing anything.

Subhuman · Post by **Subhuman** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:50 am

It's also off-center, at least on my 1024 monitor.

Just condense everything, bring stuff in a bit closer. The color scheme is good.

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 8:10 am

Okay. I'll try that first by resizing the tag board. THEN see what else to do...

Jackhass · Post by **Jackhass** » Mon May 09, 2005 2:01 pm

Well, it's not exactly too visually stunning...plus like some have said...it's too wide.

Warofwinds · Post by **Warofwinds** » Mon May 09, 2005 3:45 pm

the colors...they hurt my eyes. I think they're a little too bright, so please tone it down a little?

Phact0rri · Post by **Phact0rri** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:19 pm

warofwinds wrote:the colors...they hurt my eyes. I think they're a little too bright, so please tone it down a little?

*passes the eye drops*

the text for the logo is also to close to the background colour.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:21 pm

Not sure what your target browser is, but on FireFox the site is really messy and huge. Things are overlapping in bad ways, like the text overlapping the background, which is much too dark for black text (it's great if it stays over the white). The tagboard colors are pretty horrendous, and lack contrast for reading the text. The site was big enough memory-wise to slow down my work computer to a crawl. That ended up being my strongest impression.

Smaller and closer together, with more care as to contrast for readability, possibly less blinding colors, and completely differrent colors for the tag-board.

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:24 pm

I use Internet Explorer.

Maybe I should put up "Best viewed in Internet Explorer" disclaimer.

Sput · Post by **Sput** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:26 pm

...ie != only browser. you should test your site out in ie AND firefox, at the very least, to test out its kinks and bugs. this is just a suggestion. *shrug* i won't go back to shity ie to read yer comic, though.

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:31 pm

Well, I don't have Firefox, so I don't think I can test it out. (and no intention of downloading it)

I think the site comes out well in Opera, too, judging by my experience with it.

SOrry for having to scroll left and right. My resolution is 1280X1024

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:39 pm

Firefox/Mozilla is fast becoming the second most popular browser if it isn't already. You'd damned well better make sure it shows up well in both IE and Firefox, at least. IE picks and chooses how it deals with a lot of code so it can look fine and dandy in IE but utter crap in Firefox.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:50 pm

You don't need to apologize, I don't think. You asked a question and people are answering. They aren't complaining or angry or disatistfied... they are just trying to be helpful.

There's no need for a disclaimer saying "this site looks best in IE", those are generally just condescending. If someone uses both browsers, they will either view it in the other browser or they won't... usually people won't switch just because of a disclaimer.

Looking at the site in IE, I couldn't get the images to load. This brings up an interesting point... just how much of your layout is images? Even the purple background disappeared. You should probably try achieving more of your goal with colors than with images, it might correct the load problem as well.

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 5:00 pm

Risky wrote:You don't need to apologize, I don't think. You asked a question and people are answering. They aren't complaining or angry or disatistfied... they are just trying to be helpful.

There's no need for a disclaimer saying "this site looks best in IE", those are generally just condescending. If someone uses both browsers, they will either view it in the other browser or they won't... usually people won't switch just because of a disclaimer.

Looking at the site in IE, I couldn't get the images to load. This brings up an interesting point... just how much of your layout is images? Even the purple background disappeared. You should probably try achieving more of your goal with colors than with images, it might correct the load problem as well.

I noticed that the purple background disappeared in my other computer too.

I just solved it by restarting the computer.

Spriteville, USA · Post by **Spriteville, USA** » Mon May 09, 2005 5:11 pm

So if I restart my computer will the site look better for me too? =]

Leko · Post by **Leko** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:57 pm

I think the most common resolution on the internet right now (Help me out, Joel) is 1024x768. After that it's 600x800. The design definitely needs to be narrower--having to sidescroll is one of my pet peeves when it comes to webpages.

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 8:00 pm

Okay. i just changed the template, which made things even more simple although pretty much the same.

I think this should work better with the common resolution. wait about a hour when my strip updates.

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Mon May 09, 2005 8:09 pm

I'm happy that nobody shot you, Chuck.

Good luck with your site.

Charlesbrubaker · Post by **Charlesbrubaker** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:58 pm

Okay. Now how does the site look?

Risky · Post by **Risky** » Tue May 10, 2005 12:05 am

The layout looks quite professional. I'd consider using the CSS Calendar instead, it might fit in better with your site. Otherwise not bad, ymmv.