On 06/06/01 15:12 (GMT-0400) James Cutts apparently typed: > Since you didn't answer my original question, and instead answered a > completely different one, I thought I take a quick look at your site > - after all someone with such strongly held convictions on web design > should surely have something impressive to show.
> I was disappointed. On my site, design doesn't mask the content. The content is the reason it exists. Like most sites, it should live or die on that basis alone. > It doesn't start well with the layout. Or rather the lack of layout. Layout can get in the way. It purposely starts out extra simple, leaving a minimum of choices to make. > There are several things competing for my attention - the giant mazda > banner, the bizarre form with the strangely asymmetric animated gif. Several things, but considerably fewer than on typical web pages. > Trapped glumly between these two objects are a bunch of purple links, Purple/blue are the standard web link colors. You may remember those. They're the ones you see used for links on unstyled pages, and on pages with author colors disabled. I don't confuse visitors by making them guess whether or not they are links. > highlighted with a garish yellow. Yellow is the color of warning. That background highlight color only happens on mouseover on offsite links. The idea is to promote a pause that might cause the user to notice that link characteristic in his statusbar in those cases where onsite and offsite links may be intermingled. > The whole lot is simply centered in > one big messy column with not even the slightest attempt to make it > remotely attractive. In your opinion. Some people prefer simplicity to ostentation. > As soon as i click on one of these links i am taken to a new page - > with no idea how to get back. I give my visitors credit for knowing how to use their browser's back button. Any link that purports to take one back to where one came from in fact causes one to proceed forward to a previously visited page, not back. > Some navigation appears periodically Once into the site more than two pages, sometimes more options than going back to the previous page makes sense, so some options other than the back button do make sense and are provided. You'll notice though when the primary content of the page is text, rather than links to choose among, that they number very few. > with wobbly rollover affects as the text scales - nice. I click on it Sometimes. > and whoosh it disappears, leaving me stranded once again. Felix, the Huh? > first rule of web design is to have constant, consistent navigation. The first rule is content. Without that, navigation is pointless. > The number of fonts used on the site is also detrimental - Since much of the site is about fonts, it's hardly possible that a considerable number aren't required. Sometimes I specify no font, or only a generic, for the primary content, which means you're seeing your own choice. Only you can change that. On any given page that doesn't exist primarily to render multiple font-families, the number is usually limited to less than 4, and I believe always to less than 5, not counting any text that may be embedded in an image. > and the blue text is hard to read. It passes the http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT#color-contrast test. You can turn styles off if blue is a problem for you. Or you can make it bigger with your browser's text resizer. > The overall feeling is that this isnt so much a website as a jumble > of differently formatted and 'styled' web pages with no common theme > or navigation That's pretty much what collections of anything tend to be, assemblages of differently styled things, often with no relationship to each other. It isn't like other websites, and needn't look like other websites, or work like them. It's simple enough that the differences between it and typical websites should pose little to no problem for its intended audience. My guess is that you missed your cue. The index.html page has a grand total of 6 links. The one intended for you was right smack dab in the middle of your viewport, if your viewport was of typical height and width. > No page designed for the web requires such poor design. None. It's your opinion that it's a poor design. You're stuck in the cookie cut magazine page paradigm. I'm not. -- "All have sinned & fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ____ The WDVL Discussion List from WDVL.COM ____ To Join wdvltalk, Send An Email To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or use the web interface http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ Send Your Posts To: [email protected] To change subscription settings, add a password or view the web interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=wdvltalk ________________ http://www.wdvl.com _______________________ You are currently subscribed to wdvltalk as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
