index2.html
Definitely.
From the standpoint of a webdesigner (You know, I don't get paid 700$
a week for nothing), I like the accessibility of the site. The menu
options are always onscreen, the design is nice, and the scrolling
(think; mouse scroll wheel) is still FAST, on Firefox, on a 1.5Ghz,
Reed Hedges wrote:
Here are two ideas I had for a new website design. Both are rough sketches.
\
2. http://interreality.org/~reed/tmp/iro/index2.html
I made a few small changes to this one, trying a different background
image (the branches one is just to show the concept, it's a terrible
Lalo Martins wrote:
I like #1. When I did a mockup a long long time ago, I went with a
similar idea, and I think it's still valid; the metaphor being that
you're looking at a few flat widgets floating in a 3d space.
The main thing I don't like is it's too dark and black, which might
scare
Also spracht Reed Hedges (Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:11:26 -0500):
I did want the background to look very CGI, could even turn it into flat
unsmothed polygons or put a wireframe on it.
I'll agree a starfield is the lazy way to get the effect that we were
both going for ;-) maybe a different scenery
I made the divs a bit transparent in #1. I think they're too boring though,
maybe need a bit more bubbliness? (Or is that too Web 2.0? :) Or more of a
border?
I just threw together the background images in blender, but I do like having
them look more polygonated and emphasising that they are 3d
Wow. Very impressed. Reminds me how much web design is really not my
thing.
I would say I like the color/styling/background of #1 but the more
column-oriented layout of #2.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:06:50PM -0500, Reed Hedges wrote:
Here are two ideas I had for a new website design.
I like #1. When I did a mockup a long long time ago, I went with a
similar idea, and I think it's still valid; the metaphor being that
you're looking at a few flat widgets floating in a 3d space.
I have a nice background image I generated from Celestia :-)
Also, in my own mockup, I used
