|
thehen
|
 |
« on: Apr 06, 2008, 04:14 PM » |
|
Hi there, I've pretty much finished my personal website refurbishment which is going to take the shape of a(nother) web design blog. The sites lacking in content at the moment, but it will hopefully soon be up to speed. If anyone could point out any cross-browser issues it would be greatly appreciated. Web Design Blog - seo apologies |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dev_cw
Testers
Posts: 4,024
|
|
« Reply #1 on: Apr 06, 2008, 04:18 PM » |
|
Sweet! This is a nice design. It has been a while since I have seen an purple web sites. Very rich textured design, I like it. Another great example of a MODx powered blog.
On OSX/FF all seemed to be OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thehen
|
|
« Reply #2 on: Apr 06, 2008, 04:30 PM » |
|
Cool, I'm pleased you like the design. It doesn't really conform to the whole generic 'web 2.0' good design ethos so I wasn't sure how it would be received. Hopefully the design will reflect the content when it starts to appear.
Does the footer image at the bottom appear to have too sharp a cut off on the left and right? It looks fine on my monitor at home, but Im on my GF's and it looks a tad unnatural. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
netProphET
Coding Team
Posts: 372
Time is Art
|
|
« Reply #3 on: Apr 08, 2008, 09:14 AM » |
|
I love it Henry! Web 2.0 Shmeb Shmoopointoh! I get bored of the clean, big copycat look. The bottom fade looks just fine on my monitor - if I had it set any brighter I might see what you're talking about. Design is stable in FF 2.x Linux.
Nice, man. +1 feed subscribed via Bloglines ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thehen
|
|
« Reply #4 on: Apr 08, 2008, 05:45 PM » |
|
I love it Henry! Web 2.0 Shmeb Shmoopointoh! I get bored of the clean, big copycat look. The bottom fade looks just fine on my monitor - if I had it set any brighter I might see what you're talking about. Design is stable in FF 2.x Linux.
Nice, man. +1 feed subscribed via Bloglines ;-)
Ah thanks. My first subscriber  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thehen
|
|
« Reply #6 on: Apr 09, 2008, 08:28 AM » |
|
Wow, that's pretty cool. It sprung up in a few other CSS galleries, though with not quite as good a rating (in fact not nearly as good.) It just shows how subjective design is I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
smashingred
Moderator
Posts: 1,297
HTML, CSS, Marketing, Design, and more...
|
|
« Reply #7 on: Apr 09, 2008, 10:28 AM » |
|
Henry,
I think you will see a divergence over the next while away from ultra clean white and grey sites, especially for personal sites. Your site is clean in the sense of uncluttered, has enough whitespace or negative space and is well designed.
Great work.
Cheers,
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Just because it's possible to build a dropdown menu doesn't mean you should.
|
|
|
|
thehen
|
|
« Reply #8 on: Apr 10, 2008, 02:59 AM » |
|
Henry,
I think you will see a divergence over the next while away from ultra clean white and grey sites, especially for personal sites. Your site is clean in the sense of uncluttered, has enough whitespace or negative space and is well designed.
Great work.
Cheers,
Jay
Yes I agree; many sites that feature heavily in galleries/showcases have built upon aspects of ultra clean websites but are indeed moving towards a more visually rich approach. As long as the design pleases the demographic, I suppose it doesn't really matter. I would actually say that the use of negative space is one of the weaker aspects of my design; I think it looks a tad busy. I think this is mainly because I didn't include some of the elements in my orginal mockup (rss feed, HR's, drop-caps etc) and it led to them sort of being added as an afterthought. I'm working on another design for a different project and I've definitely learnt from these mistakes. My problem is generally that I get so engrossed in a design that I forget what I want to achieve with the end result  Thanks for the comments. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
smashingred
Moderator
Posts: 1,297
HTML, CSS, Marketing, Design, and more...
|
|
« Reply #9 on: Apr 10, 2008, 06:26 AM » |
|
I would actually say that the use of negative space is one of the weaker aspects of my design; I think it looks a tad busy. I think this is mainly because I didn't include some of the elements in my orginal mockup (rss feed, HR's, drop-caps etc) and it led to them sort of being added as an afterthought.
The fact is that negative space doesn't need to be a huge gap in text or visual elements it is enough space to give elements to breathe. You aren't designing a poster you are designing a blog. There is inherently lots of elements on the page on a blog. In that I think you succeeded. In addition the contrast helps reduce the visual clutter and anchors the important bits visually. Can't wait to see your next project. Cheers, Jay |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Just because it's possible to build a dropdown menu doesn't mean you should.
|
|
|
dev_cw
Testers
Posts: 4,024
|
|
« Reply #10 on: Apr 10, 2008, 08:34 AM » |
|
What is the difference between visual clutter and richly textured (for the non-designer)?
BTW - I would add the rss feed link into the Browser address bar as well. I did not notice it a first (even though I did roll over it), I am conditioned to look in the address bar for the nice orange icon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thehen
|
|
« Reply #11 on: Apr 10, 2008, 08:40 AM » |
|
What is the difference between visual clutter and richly textured (for the non-designer)?
Richly textured = organised visual clutter  BTW - I would add the rss feed link into the Browser address bar as well. I did not notice it a first (even though I did roll over it), I am conditioned to look in the address bar for the nice orange icon.
Ah thanks. I'm an RSS noob so to speak and haven't integrated it into a site before. I'm going to look into doing the address bar thing now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
smashingred
Moderator
Posts: 1,297
HTML, CSS, Marketing, Design, and more...
|
|
« Reply #12 on: Apr 10, 2008, 08:50 AM » |
|
@thehen. To get the RSS icon to show up in the address bar you need to add the <link> with the URL of your feed document to the head of your template. <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Your Blog Title Here" href="blog.url" /> On the Richly Textured vs. Visual Clutter: (This is a personal opinion as these are not academic but subjective terms) Richly textured designs are those that use layers of elements and many elements that oppose minimalism or extreme whitespace. Visual clutter is a result of poor organization of elements in a design that distract, confuse or frustrate the viewer either physiologically or psychologically. Richly textured designs can give warmth, create mood, and enrich an experience, clutter just messes it up. Many elements != Clutter Clutter = Lack of structure, organization and relationships Richly Textured opposes minimalism and starkness Richly textured doesn't necessarily need to have tonnes of elements but depth, tone, and relationships between elements both subtle and strong. Some minimalist designs are visually cluttered. Again these are opinions of someone who is a student not a professor of design (student as someone with a library card and an Amazon account and has spend time learning from others and doesn't consider himself a graphic designer by any stretch of the imagination). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Just because it's possible to build a dropdown menu doesn't mean you should.
|
|
|
|
|
dev_cw
Testers
Posts: 4,024
|
|
« Reply #14 on: Apr 10, 2008, 11:07 AM » |
|
Richly textured = organised visual clutter I get it.  If it's pretty, it's Richly Textured. If it's confusing and ugly, it's visual clutter. I'm no way a designer, but I know what I like.
This is along what I was thinking. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
