Review Request: Women's Test Site

hello,

I would underline your links, and when their clicked upon, they are unreadable on 800x600..

Why is there such a large space between the first table and the health and fitness heading, seems odd unless your going to put an image there.

I would have thought the colour scheme wasnt women friendly looks more masculine to me, but thats just me maybe.

the td's look ok, but i would put a border around them to seperate them.

all in all its bit plain really, but im sure you will get it right, when the others give you advice..

best of luck with your site, and take care.

I get an error:

Line: 2
Character: 29
Error: Syntax Error

Your text is far too small and the links are unreadable at 8px!!
The background makes the site look ameteurish and so do the table borders I'm afraid. There isn't really anything else to say as without the logo there isn't really a design to critique, it's just links placed into a table along side adverts.

Hi, I am the kidn of person that can only stay on the site if the text and form is really clear. When I checked out your link, the dark background and small text made it hard for my old eyes to see I just could not read the text on the links.

HTH

Thanks. However, one person (spor) says borders would help, yet another (Webmistress) says not to use borders. So, I've just enlarged the text some, tried to line the 3 td's up better (to try and get rid of space above "Health and Fitness"), underlined the links, and changed a few backgrounds. What is the smallest readable px size on an 800X600 screen anyway???

Click Here to see if the site looks any better now.

Note to Webmistress: I don't know what Syntax error you're referring to, or where Line 2, character 29 is on your computer. Is this a coding error, spelling error, or something else? I tried to find an error, but couldn't. I was thinking it might be the hyphen in the "two-line message" part at the top, but I really don't know (a hyphen does belong there, so I don't see why that would be an error).

Any more input is appreciated, especially since lining up the 3 td's (with the links and adverts) has been a " nightmare."

That really improved it already. I can now read your links better. Much more clearer

I'm not sure what the error is referring to either as you actually have 7 blank lines at the top of the code.

The size of the text is a bit better but the borders still don't look right to me. Maybe use css to create the border so that it is a solid line rather than the default 3Dish look. You also need some padding for the cells as the text is running hard up to the side of the border. Also use td valign="top" to get the links aligned to the top of the cells and remove the br above the H2 on the second cell plus below the content in each three cells so that you don't have so much wasted space.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
What is the smallest readable px size on an 800X600 screen anyway???

Generally, I'd go no smaller than 12px for the main text and 10px for the "fine print". Having said that, it depends to a great extent to the font face being used.

Speaking of font, I'm seeing your links in "Impact" - not a great font at small sizes - although a quick look at your style block shows it as 4th pick and I've got at least 2 of the 3 ahead of it. I don't see any obvious reason for this although I'm still sipping on my first coffee.

Does everything validate?

I'm also getting the same error as Webmistress but it is way too early to look into that one.

Overall, there is not much to look at here, just a big table with some spacing issues. First of all, you should valign your cells rather than trying to force placement with breaks. You also may want to consider using two rows, combining the third column if necessary.

I'm also for losing the border and styling it with css instead.

Yes lose the border and use CSS.

First of all, what are you trying to achieve/sell with this site? Seems like just a whole bunch of links to me.

Apart from the ads (which I don't think you need at the moment) your page is pretty much static, it doesn't move, there is no interaction. Make the underlines go away on hover for the links or something, just dno't make it so static, having said that, don't put up a GIF animation or another ad.

What has been said about the spaces is pretty much what I would say too, theres too much of it (especially at the bottom).

The page looks very unprofessional and newbieish. The "Welcome! :)" up the top doesn't help either. Still an incredibly long way before one would take that site seriously. I recommend learning (X)HTML and CSS. Not going to look at the code cause I'm sure it will be a mess

Okay, I got rid of those awful br's, added margins, valigned the tables, and added cellpadding, etc. I also tried to use CSS to specify borders . . . I used a class: .border {border-style: solid thin #333366;}, but I don't know if it worked.

Please let me know how things are with the site now. To Renegade: Basically everything on the site is something that is "selling."

Thanks for the help.

Looks better without the borders I guess and a bit better with them aligned up the top.

There is still however, a lot of space at the bottom of the page underneath the copyright notice, try getting rid of the dashes "-" too, you don't need them. I get a big horizontal scroll because of them.

Well, I added a hover color with no text decoration (no underline), changed the visited links a bit, increased the text and heading sizes just a bit more (the visited link becomes smaller, is not underlined, has a different color, and has a background now).

A couple of notes, though. Although I seem to see hover colors on other sites sometimes, I can't see them on this one so I need someone to tell me if the hover is actually there (please?) and is working. Also, I'm not seeing any border at all around the 3 td's even though I made a .border class that looks like this:

.border {border-style: solid thin gray;}

Maybe there's some error with the border class or something? I had a hex number before where it says "gray" now, but haven't seen a border either way.

P.S.: I got rid of the space at the top (7 blank lines) and the dashes. I use the dashes sometimes after because sometimes the part disappears on me. There is a reason for everything, I think.

Yip, the hover is working.

Your CSS:
.border {border-style: solid thin gray;}

Should be:
.border {
border:solid thin #c0c0c0;
}

border-style is just the "solid" bit, thats why its not working.

Thanks. It looks like I got all the possible border attributes confused.

Would it have worked in this format?

.border {border: thin #c0c0c0; border-style: solid;}

I think this is what you're saying, but am not sure. I also saw a shortcut for the border thing, so I may have gotten it confused with the longer version, LoL. Go figure.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Would it have worked in this format?

.border {border: thin #c0c0c0; border-style: solid;}

Yes, it would have worked but I would prefer:

.border {
border:solid thin #c0c0c0;
}

because less coding

Still not seeing a border for some reason.

I do have it in the format like this for right now, but still don't understand why I don't see a border:

Then I put class="border" in the td sections. Can anyone tell if something is wrong, or is this CSS border command something that is only visible with certain browsers like the hover color . . . although I actually saw the red hover color on veslokev's (spelling?) site which was recently posted for review. Can't see my own hovers, though, LoL. Wierd, huh.

Can't seen anything wrong with your CSS but try:

See if that works

Nope, still didn't see anything. My latest attempt looks like the following (and I thought CSS made it easier):

.border {border-color: #cccccc #cccccc #cccccc #cccccc; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: ridge; border-left-style: ridge; border-bottom-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 1px;}

I also tried using the td attribute before that, which looked something like this:

td {border-color: #cccccc; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid;}

At this point, something like
.border {border-appear-right: now;}
looks appealing.

I know, let's just leave the border off. I really don't know what else to do. I think someone may have suggested that anyway.

Thanks anyway, Renegade.

P.S.: I'm now considering replacing the #333366 background with a happier-looking color . . . maybe even yellow (or a not-so-bright form of yellow)? Of course, I'll have to change the link colors (and maybe some other stuff) if I do that. Whatever works, I guess.

Try assigning the class for the border to the table tag rather than the td

You can shorten it down

.border {
border-color: #cccccc;
border-top-style: solid;
border-right-style: ridge;
border-left-style: ridge;
border-bottom-style: solid;
border-width: 1px;
}

If all four attributes are the same then you don't need to repeat them.

How are you declaring your classes?
<-- like that?

Yeah, I tried assigning the class to the table tag, but still didn't see anything. According to what I've read, it should've worked, but it didn't.

Also, I was declaring the .border class with in those 3 td's. Now the .border class has been entirely removed. I've also changed the color schemes a bit and just decided to place a border only around the top table. I guess it's just whatever works.

Well, have fun and good luck

I think I may have found the problem with the border thing. I haven't tried it yet (probably not until tomorrow, if ever), but I think the border stuff is supposed to go in the body {CSS-stuff;} tag , though I'm still not sure why the "td {CSS;}" and .border {CSS;} attempts didn't work. Anyway, if this is right, the correct format would look like the following (this would be the CSS shortcut . . . less coding):

body {border: #0000ff 2px solid;}

Who knows, maybe that'll work (?).

P.S.: Is the page looking any better (the yellow didn't work out too well, LoL)?

That will try to put a border around the body of the page though

Yeah, I believe that would be correct . . . assuming
"body {border 2px #ff0000 solid;}" even works.

You know, I did This CSS Border Test site with almost all CSS just to see if the border attributes would work. Well, I see a border between the td's, but it's the same color as the background (midnight blue) . . . I'm not seeing the border color that I specified (#ff0000, or red). I'm also not seeing any border around the outside of the table.

I don't know. It's probably something simple or something out of order, but it just doesn't seem to be doing the right things. Seems like everything else (except for the border) is working.

Well, when all else fails, try the CSS Validator

Personally, I would not have a textured background behind your content because it is hard to read. Also, the background behind where you will put your logo and two line message clashes with the purple background and is hard on the eyes. Perhaps colors with a similar undertone?

Your banner placement is good, because for larger screen sizes the banners get cut off not your content.

To dbaldwin: Thanks for the info. I'll take those things into consideration. Btw, are you saying EVERY textured background is making the text harder to read, or just the 2 backgrounds at the top? The reason I ask is because the main page background (the purple-pink one) seems to be going very well with the text.

To Renegade: CHECK THIS W3C PAGE OUT. The CSS code at the top is very similar to the code we've been dealing with here, YET I don't see any borders on this page except on the table in the bottom of each of the 2 sections - and it's not a green border, but looks white (or transparent?) to me. The other paragraphs that say they should have borders around them don't have any. So . . . maybe it is a browser thing like the "hover" thing is??? In other words, it seems that the CSS we've been using is valid (I guess "valid" doesn't necessarily mean "working").

Btw, I forgot to ask earlier, but could anyone give me a screen shot from Mazilla or Opera (both would be nice ) on the woman's test site? If not, is there some site I can go to that would provide a screen shot for me after I enter the URL of the site (just like one of the validators)? HERE'S THE LINK AGAIN for your convenience.

Screenshot in Mozilla
Screenshot in Opera

Thanks a lot Renegade . . . VERY helpful. I believe it also looks similar in IE, but I don't have access (or know anyone who does) to Mozilla or Opera. Looks like I'm going to have to shorten the width (%) of the right td (with the ads) a bit and align the ads in the center.

Thanks again!

No problem

Okay, I've adjusted the percentages a bit (for wider resolutions) and have changed a couple of other things. Any improvements (Click Here)?

Basically, I'm a bit concerned about how the words are looking (or how readable they are) over the backgrounds. Are the font sizes for the links large enough? Should the links be in bold?

P.S.: I tried hard to pick backgrounds that weren't too "loud" or grainy looking, so maybe that helps? Also, it's not meant to be a professional-looking business site either, so please take that into consideration (that's the reason for the backgrounds, rather than "solid" colors . . . plus the backgrounds looked more appealing than the MANY other "solid" colors I've experimented with).

Thanks for any input!

Well it doesn't look any different from before :S

I only made minor changes, but here are some of them:

[=1]

[*]The banners in the 3rd td should now be aligned in the center, rather than at the right . . . also with less space in this td (reduced from 20% width to 16% width, as stated above).

[/=1]

MY QUESTIONS:

1). All this, although sort of subtle changes (except for the changes in sizes/background in the top table) have made no difference at all in the site's appearance for those of you with larger resolutions??? REASON: I'm trying to make it look better for screens with 800 and higher resolutions (I'm not too concerned with other MSNtv users viewing it, because I really don't know of many at all . . . maybe 2,000 - 3,000 people in my entire state . . . BUT I've still tried to make it as cross-compatible as possible).

2). Is ALL of the text easily readable now??? REASON: I was told earlier that 12px was the smallest readable text, but have now increased the 12px's to 14px's & 15px's?

3). Are the backgrounds pleasant-looking, and not interfering with how ledgible the site is??? REASON: My goal was to find backgrounds that were fairly close to solid colors, but better and not as dull.

:D[/]

Seriously, I do NOT see any changes.

How about now? (Click Here)

I condensed the two tables to 82% width, which hopefully should help it not look quite so wide on larger resolutions.

Those banners down the right side of the page should be aligned in the center of the solid-color td now also, rather than aligned at the right. Plus, I've now increased all font sizes by 2 px (the links are now 17px) . . . still wondering if this is large enough or too large (?).

:eek:

Btw, this is open to everyone, so there's no need to make Renegade do all the work (much appreciated, Renegade).

Where's Busy (he may not know it, but he's sort of like the grand-daddy of my CSS training ). There's also Suzanne, Megan, Taff, or anyone else out there who could give some input?

P.S.: I chose pixel font sizes because I know about the browser problems with the other measurements (em's, pt's, etc.).
However, I'd still like to know if the (latest) pixel sizes I've chosen are just the right size, too large, or too small, as I don't have much experience dealing with pixels . . . the sizes on my screen are appently quite a bit larger than those that end up on those flat computer screens. For example, 10px is easily readable on my screen, but apparently is not on a computer screen.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Where's Busy (he may not know it, but he's sort of like the grand-daddy of my CSS training ).

Busy is on holiday.

Oh, I didn't know (have a good holiday, Busy!). That still leaves quite a few people, though.

I think I failed to mention it earlier, Renegade, but you, Julia, Abhishek, Taff, Suzanne, Megan, and Mark have been quite helpful also (now and in the past). .

Also, the Matrix-style site you have looks fine in MSNtv, just in case you're wondering (you stated on the site that you didn't know how it would appear in other browsers since it was made with Mozilla). Neat CSS tricks in there, too. To be honest, both your sites (the old one that was in gray/black colors and the Matrix-style site) and Busy's EZ site have been like quick, concise CSS lessons without all the other mumbo-jumbo seen on many CSS pages (those pages I save for when there's much more time available).

I think Julia and the others help keep me straight and always in search of better (closest-to-right as possible) ways to do things, no matter how aggravating it can get.

Hmmm, maybe a little comparison of 2 different styles of the site is in order:

Style 1 (original one) - Click Here

Style 2 (one with a different background) -
Click Here

Right, this is going to sound blunt but it's not meant to offend.

There is no real design here, it's just columns with links in it. The two headers for the link columns need some padding as the text is right up against the edge. The header/logo area looks disjointed and isn't helped by the two different backgrounds and visible table border. It would be good to see what logo you are putting in there as I can't imagine what it will be like and that could make it look better or even worse. I also don't like the background appearing on hover for the links. The site looks like it's just been thrown together by an ameteur - it needs some kind of design and proper colour scheme IMO.

I have to agree with Julia on this one. I said about all I had to say back on page one of this thread and things haven't evolved much since then, I hate to say. To be honest, this thread should probably have been moved to the concepts forum on day one, There *is* no site here to review - it is a links page and nothing more.

A "web site" is (or should be) a structured complex of pages conveying a consistent theme and some sort of message. I don't want to come across as harsh either but you are far from having something remotely resembling a web site.

Hey, harsh and blunt are better than nothing at all. I knew from the beginning that the page would likely need some beating into shape, that's why I came here.

You're right, though, about the page not actually being a true (full) site, but I think I'm going to include it as one of the pages a in a site that's quite a bit larger, with the logo actually being for that site's home page (however simple it may be). The larger site is undergoing a "face lift" right now, though.

I suppose I can assume that the font sizes are okay, since they weren't mentioned (?). Not too worried about color schemes, as they can be experimented with and changed as needed. Also, it seems that some will like the colors and some won't, no matter what.

What I am more worried about is making it look decent (appear as it should) on a computer screen through the medium I'm using, while still making it accessable to many browsers AND keeping it as close to right as possible for the most popular ones.

I hope that made sense, and please forgive me for referring to this web page as a "web site." But if I can get the little kinks and glitches out of one page, rather than starting out with, say, an entire site with 10 pages or more (all likely having kinks and glitches), then the rest of the site will likely come together well also. It seems more efficient to take one page at a time and apply what I learn from it to the rest, in other words.

Btw, thanks again.

Yes, as I have said many times, there isn't much that has changed, if any. This thread only got as big as it did because of the help with CSS.

"the td's look ok, but i would put a border around them to separate them." LATER . . . "The background makes the site look (???) ameteurish and so do the table borders I'm afraid." (Okay?!?!?).

"Without a logo there isn't really a design to critique" (Sounds almost like it's mostly the logo that matters when designing a site).

"The size of the text is a bit better?" (is "a bit better" good enough?)

"your page is pretty much static . . . there is no interaction. Make the underlines go away on hover for the links or something."
(Did that, but still don't quite get what is you're referring to that can make a page look unprofessional and newbieish, because nobody ever REALLY said why. Was it because it didn't have a logo? Because it was done with MSNtv?. Not to mention the fact that I see worse-looking pages all the time).

"All the CSS border stuff that didn't work." (I tried, but it didn't work, and was even valid CSS).

"Btw, are you saying EVERY textured background is making the text harder to read, or just the 2 backgrounds at the top?" (Asked by me, and never answered).

"CHECK THIS W3C PAGE OUT" (From page 2 . . . never commented on).

"I'd still like to know if the (latest) pixel sizes I've chosen are just the right size, too large, or too small . . . " (Never answered regarding latest font sizes).

"There is no real design here." (Please define "real design," especially since the page did not design itself).

"I also don't like the background appearing on hover for the links." (Why? Wrong color? Shouldn't be used at all? Would others possibly like it?).

Unfortunately, this is one place where the message in my signature could be proven false (an X number of questions is not leading to a larger Y number of answers here, in other words). I imagine posting a critique request for an entire site (in this particular case) would have likely made the thread a lot longer than it is.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"the td's look ok, but i would put a border around them to separate them." LATER . . . "The background makes the site look (???) ameteurish and so do the table borders I'm afraid." (Okay?!?!?).

Different members said those. Not everyone will have the same opinion.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"Without a logo there isn't really a design to critique" (Sounds almost like it's mostly the logo that matters when designing a site).

Well, the page is mostly ads and links. There is a bit of structure, but it's lacking aesthetically. The colour scheme is simplistic, but not elegant. There is little in the way of graphics (not eye candy, but simple visual appeal). I think that's what Julia was referring to there... perhaps the logo is technically symbolic to the design?

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"The size of the text is a bit better?" (is "a bit better" good enough?)

"a bit better" says, to me, "it's a move in the right direction, now you figure out how to perfect it."

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"your page is pretty much static . . . there is no interaction. Make the underlines go away on hover for the links or something."
(Did that, but still don't quite get what is you're referring to that can make a page look unprofessional and newbieish, because nobody ever REALLY said why. Was it because it didn't have a logo? Because it was done with MSNtv?. Not to mention the fact that I see worse-looking pages all the time).

It's newbieish and unprofessional because it's not well thought-out. One finds that amateurish designs come from little planning, and little consideration of what message is to be presented. A common mistake is to jump right in and slap up a design.

The result is inexplicably amateurish -- it doesn't have a mood, or a unique style, and lacks that finesse. It is generic, and the various design elements (colour, proportion, text style) don't work together.

Try simplifying it at first. Don't use backgrounds, hover effects, and all that unnecessarily. Keep a design goal in mind, and only add things in the way that they will help you achieve your goal.

With practice, the ability to come up with a unique, cohesive, effective design becomes easier. It is second nature to good designers, which is why they're able to whip up good designs without laying it out on paper and thinking through it as much as amateurs like us do.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"All the CSS border stuff that didn't work." (I tried, but it didn't work, and was even valid CSS).

Gremlins.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"Btw, are you saying EVERY textured background is making the text harder to read, or just the 2 backgrounds at the top?" (Asked by me, and never answered).

Used properly and in the right context, they work well. In your case, it doesn't go.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"CHECK THIS W3C PAGE OUT" (From page 2 . . . never commented on)

Maybe there was nothing to say.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"I'd still like to know if the (latest) pixel sizes I've chosen are just the right size, too large, or too small . . . " (Never answered regarding latest font sizes).

Perhaps they were ok and didn't need comment?

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"There is no real design here." (Please define "real design," especially since the page did not design itself).

See above.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"I also don't like the background appearing on hover for the links." (Why? Wrong color? Shouldn't be used at all? Would others possibly like it?).

Doesn't work in your case.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Unfortunately, this is one place where the message in my signature could be proven false (an X number of questions is not leading to a larger Y number of answers here, in other words). I imagine posting a critique request for an entire site (in this particular case) would have likely made the thread a lot longer than it is.

I'd say it is true, but only in certain circumstances. If you want to look into the science of the issue, I suggest you look up Information Theory.

One would almost think that its not a critique you wanted but money from the ads that you displayed.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Sounds almost like it's mostly the logo that matters when designing a site

You have no idea how much truth there is to this. When designing a business site, you are developing and/or expanding upon a corporate identity. If a client has a logo, that is where I draw my inspiration for colour, font, shape, texture.. you name it. If they don't have one then that is where I start.

Your laundry list of questions reads almost like a demand for answers as if our raison d'être is to help you build this thing from the ground up. I would argue again that this is not the point of this forum. This is for critiques of sites that have been built - constructive criticism and yes, the occasional tip or pointer.

But to expect assistance with every stage of its progress? Might I remind you that many of us get paid to do that for a living?

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Btw, this is open to everyone, so there's no need to make Renegade do all the work

Case in point.

I gave you my feedback already and most of it still stands. Heck, most of the replies in this thread have more content than your site does.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Please define "real design"

Gosh. I don't even have a reply for this one.
:eek:

Define real design?
Why don't you define "real" then define "design"?

I believe you can't answer that without a lot of debate. It all comes down to ... well I don't know what it all comes down to. The X-Factor I guess. :S

Quote: Originally posted by Renegade
Define real design?
Why don't you define "real" then define "design"?

I believe you can't answer that without a lot of debate. It all comes down to ... well I don't know what it all comes down to. The X-Factor I guess. :S

It was the question that boggled me, not the answer.

Quote: Originally posted by taff
You have no idea how much truth there is to this. When designing a business site, you are developing and/or expanding upon a corporate identity. If a client has a logo, that is where I draw my inspiration for colour, font, shape, texture.. you name it. If they don't have one then that is where I start.

I agree with this 100% the logo is what brands the site and so you have to design around the logo.

If you have to ask for a definition of design then maybe you really need to go back to the basics!

"When designing a business site . . . expanding on a corporate identity."

What I don't get is why people try to critique a site as a professional or business site when it's actually meant to be nothing more than an interest site (or page, whichever is being talked about) that people can simply visit while doing general surfing.

In other words, if this page is nothing more than a page of links, then why would I try to make it into something else that it isn't (a corporate or business site/page)?

I mean, this particular page looked fine to me on IE (an actual computer), other than looking more "flat" as compared to the TV screen and having the font sizes a bit too small. Personally, I think the backgrounds give a bit of depth to the page on a flat screen, however the goal was getting it to look as good as possible with these backgrounds.

Step 1: Look at your content, before you even get to HTML.

Step 2: Restate the main point(s) of it all in brief, bullet-point format. This is going to be what you want to communicate to the user at the end of it.

Step 3: Think about how best to present all the content, effectively communicating the main point(s). Come up with drafts, briefs, sketches, mock-ups. If you have them in hypertext format, you can post it up for us here to review.

Step 4: Re-evaluate your presentation (aided by suggestions here), selecting ideas that work and removing ones that don't. Put this design together.

Step 5: Refine. Add hovers, tweak backgrounds, adjust widths, fix bugs, experiment with minor variations, make it all cross-compatible (should be easy if you worked with standards from the start). Then check that it still communicates the main point(s).

That's a concise version of the design process. Whether it is a business, interest, political, personal, or experimental site, you'd generally have to go through something like the above to make a good, professional design.

Using a logo for "branding" is not merely for businesses. Anyone can have an "icon" to represent whatever message they are communicating, whatever field that is in, or whatever interest there is in making the page. A good logo in itself is one that has gone through a design process, and communicates the main point(s) in the first place. If you have a good logo, much of the work is done for you... you'll only have to extend the logo's style into the general website design.

The trouble with your site -- or page -- is that it lacks any real purpose. There is no message to get across. There is nothing unique or of importance there. Therefore, you lack a real design, which is influenced by the main message -- that which you don't have.

The only design goal you have is "getting it to look as good as possible", which is rather generic. And the meaning of "good" is entirely relativistic, so what is "good" in one website may not be "good" in another which is in a different context. But your site doesn't have much of a context, so it's like you can't make anything good of that content.

You have no real aim. The design -- or lack thereof -- is evidence of that. You're getting nowhere fast.

I would have to disagree with that, as I haven't seen too many great logos on the web. Many seem to be nothing more than a small (or too small, or too large, or too "busy" or "loud") thing at the top of a page that someone may or may not be able to click on to get back to the home page (I normally either click "back" or use the "recent" function for this . . . I think "recent" may be something like "history" on an actual computer).

Design - a plan or scheme formed in the mind of something to be done; preliminary conception; idea intended to be expressed in a visible form or carried into action; to create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: i.e., a page in a website designed to appeal to women. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a page layout on an html editor.

There's really not a whole lot of design that can be put into some pages (such as a page mainly focused on links) without taking the chance of overdoing it. Sure, I could have a little flash intro or movie at the top of the page or even on a separate page (hopefully with an option to skip it), or I could put something similar to a flashing neon sign at the top as a logo. But why on Earth would I?

Also, there is no real message on this particular page other than an obvious one that should immediately enter a persons mind when seeing it . . . it's a page of links specifically placed there for women. The "purpose(s)" would be for any woman seeing the site to (1). find it pleasing to look at and easy to use, and (2). find some links under the headers in each column that they might be interested in.

Rarely do I visit a site and care much about it's logo (one tends to scroll down when the page loads anyway, so the logo may only be visible for a couple of seconds). However, I do hope the site has what I'm looking for on it. Plus I notice the layout and colors (text and background colors) and whether or not the site is easy to use (or easy to find) and interesting for my needs at the present time.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
I would have to disagree with that, as I haven't seen too many great logos on the web. Many seem to be nothing more than a small (or too small, or too large, or too "busy" or "loud") thing at the top of a page that someone may or may not be able to click on to get back to the home page (I normally either click "back" or use the "recent" function for this . . . I think "recent" may be something like "history" on an actual computer).

Firstly, good designs are often based on logos. I've explained in my previous post why this is done.

Secondly, logos have other functions too, and these differ per situation, so how logos themselves appear is of no importance here. What we're focusing on is the integration of, and relationship between the logo and the design.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Design - a plan or scheme formed in the mind of something to be done; preliminary conception; idea intended to be expressed in a visible form or carried into action; to create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: i.e., a page in a website designed to appeal to women. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a page layout on an html editor.

You said it yourself: design. What I took effort to explain previously is the design process, not the noun "design".

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
There's really not a whole lot of design that can be put into some pages (such as a page mainly focused on links) without taking the chance of overdoing it. Sure, I could have a little flash intro or movie at the top of the page or even on a separate page (hopefully with an option to skip it), or I could put something similar to a flashing neon sign at the top as a logo. But why on Earth would I?

Yes, it may seem there isn't a whole lot you can do given your content and lack of workable design goals. But if you gave it some thought, you'd realise that this particular content theme you have provides certain unique design possibilities for you to explore. To see this in action, just take a look at other well-designed women's interest websites -- magazines, communities, etc.

As an illustrative example, I might say that your colour scheme and general layout lacks "softness". This can be seen in the contrasts you use in colour, and the hard edges in layout.

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Also, there is no real message on this particular page other than an obvious one that should immediately enter a persons mind when seeing it . . . it's a page of links specifically placed there for women. The "purpose(s)" would be for any woman seeing the site to (1). find it pleasing to look at and easy to use, and (2). find some links under the headers in each column that they might be interested in.

As I explain in the paragraph above, there are possibilities. The design is not the content. It is meant to support content (design goals). Your design does nothing to even support the theme of "women's interest".

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
Rarely do I visit a site and care much about it's logo (one tends to scroll down when the page loads anyway, so the logo may only be visible for a couple of seconds). However, I do hope the site has what I'm looking for on it. Plus I notice the layout and colors (text and background colors) and whether or not the site is easy to use (or easy to find) and interesting for my needs at the present time.

It won't be obvious to the regular user, and, in most cases, shouldn't be. Be sure that all good designs have a quantitatively equal amount of thought, planning and work put into them. And this often involves working over logos, symbols and themes, which ultimately should work to communicate your message, or, at the very least, a general idea.

Quote: Originally posted by taff
It was the question that boggled me, not the answer.

Yes, I was answering the question, infact it was the question I was boggled by as well because there (I believe) is no set definition to "real design"

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01 Also, there is no real message on this particular page other than an obvious one that should immediately enter a persons mind when seeing it . . . it's a page of links specifically placed there for women. The "purpose(s)" would be for any woman seeing the site to (1). find it pleasing to look at and easy to use, and (2). find some links under the headers in each column that they might be interested in.[/B]

As a woman this site does nothing for me at all! When ever I come across a page of links that looks ametuerish I will immediately close it down and move on. Why? Because I assume that it's a tacky way of someone getting paid for me clicking on links. If no thought has gone into the style/presentation of the page/site then why should I stick around. It has to grab the viewers attention and there must be a reason to stick around and if the content is just chucked on the page then that's not going to do it for most people!

"Your design does nothing to even support the theme of "women's interest."

Why?

To Webmistress: Maybe I should add a "News" link?

Quote: Originally posted by fiesty_01
"Your design does nothing to even support the theme of "women's interest."

Why?

What is it about your design that says "women" and "products"? There's not much that suggests either.

The colours are fairly generic. Hard contrasts -- large pink areas on full dark background, and bright white text simply doesn't flow, I'm sorry. There's nothing soft, light, fresh, sensual and beautiful about it. (Assuming that "soft, light, fresh, sensual and beautiful" is a worthy design goal.) Bright blue on hover is too garish. Black and green in the header make the contrasts worse.

The layout is ok for a draft, but you have to develop it further. It doesn't flow smoothly; two columns in parallel like that seek equal attention, and the casual reader would normally skip over it all.

Looking at other design elements, it's obvious you haven't reached Step 5 in the described design process. The headings are functional, but they lack form. They're ugly. Bold, italic, bright white on dark pink, Sans isn't very pleasing.

There isn't very much else there, but most of it is, nonetheless, ineffective.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that you think about it, and plan before you start designing. Find keywords, figure out exactly what you want to say, or what you want to set and support. I think you have kept in mind what theme you're working with, but only instinctively -- which is what explains what colours you have used. You haven't been at all precise about it, that takes a toll on the design too.

I think you need to reconsider your color scheme. It is very hard on the eyes.
Do a google search for color schemes. You should try to use colors that are not as neon like. Just my suggestion. I went through the same phase as you.
Good Luck with you site.

To ChessManiac: Might I ask which color scheme? This page has had maybe 5 saved color schemes and probably 50 or more unsaved ones since this thread was started.

To anyone reading: Plus, MANY web pages out there are hard on the eyes, even many done by "professionals." Even some of the tutorial sites are hard on the eyes, with colors like brown or sienna offset beside bright white backgrounds and dark prints. I've even seen some use a color two-color scheme like lime or cyan for the main text and a solid black background, while at the same time using the lime (or cyan) as a table background color on the same page.
Some use white and gray backgrounds with black text, then have an EXTREMELY different color scheme for links (like bright red).

I mean, the backgrounds are gone now, and have been replaced with some quickly-put-together pink-purple-magenta colors which are also flat and boring to me, but apparently not to everyone. I'm sure they'll (unfortunately) look even flatter on a flat computer screen. In other words, I took all the backgrounds out and replaced them with solid, flat colors before going to work today.

Shucks, I may never use backgrounds again. It's WAY too much trouble finding them, transloading them, and then trying to get them to fit well on a page just to hear people that never use them say "that looks ameteurish & newbieish."

Can you believe (only part of) my background includes art, graphic arts, layout/design, and printing?

P.S.: I am considering putting the links in sentences that will better explain why they are there, plus have only two column's rather than 3, with one being for these sentences with the links and another being the banners in a much smaller column at the right . . . if that's any consolation.

Do what ever you want.

Yeah, I guess that's about what it boils down to, huh.

It'd sure be nice if there was a site like THIS ONE out there somewhere that could not only have a "Lynx Viewer" on it, but would also have Netscape, IE, Opera, and Mozilla viewers on it as well.

Anyone know of any site (that doesn't have to have something downloaded from it) that can do all of that?

Please start another thread for that.

I'm not sure which forum that would belong in.

Try Webmasters corner

Well, I went and posted it in "Site Tools" but, if this should be incorrect, please move it to an appropriate forum.

Btw, I've been encouraged to ask questions, so I would like input on
THE WOMAN'S PAGE (Click) we've been discussing here . . . mainly if the color scheme is looking any better (there are no backgrounds).

Also, I've typed out all of this stuff and am currently trying to figure out (design ) the best way to present it, but that may take a day or two. Mainly what I will be doing is adding sentences or phrases around the text links to (hopefully) help draw more interest. I am happy that it looks better on the screen than on a piece of paper in black typewriter ink (it alway seems to get back to the basic pen and paper routine, huh ).

That's much improved. It's more mature and straightforward -- probably a solid base to develop on.

Try moving from blues to shades of pink and red. Maybe give it a more sophisticated, feminine mood that way. In the same vein, you might want to lose the yellow hover background.

Quote: (it alway seems to get back to the basic pen and paper routine, huh ).

That it does.

Although this time I can see noticable change, I still can't see, a logo (which is a must).

I see that you have chosen complimentary colours, which looks good I guess.

The layout however is still the same and its also very boxy.

Good start though

Yeah, I haven't exactly figured out how to redo the logo thing yet, but it'll likely just say something like "So-and-So Home" since this page is going to be part of a larger site.

Looking at the time you posted, Renegade, I think you may have seen the purple-ish colors I ended up with last night before bed. However, I've now toned them down a bit with shades of violet colors, and I added SOME of the new content around the links (not all of them yet). I'm not quite sure how to make it less boxy (unless there's some way to make td edges round or something).

Also, I ended up having to use "tt" up in the CSS for the body text (the newer content) because the body {color: #??????} thing didn't work. I had a dark purple in it and it came out black with a default size . . . very strange.

I think it may get there sometime this decade, LoL!

Oh yeah, here's the link again so you don't have to scroll up.

It is much better, although I don't like the peachy colour and pinks together - better to go for a pale pink.

I'm now getting a error on the page line 2, char 29, syntax error.

Jewelry is spelled jewellery.

The only problem I foresee is that you are saying that this is going to be a page part of a larger site. IMO all apges of a site should have a consistant look/layout & logo.

I'll try to find out what the error is . . . might be an editor thing again (spaces at the top).

I wasn't sure about the peach color either, so thanks for pointing that out. I have to add color to the TV screen to get it to look as strong as the colors on the computer screens I've seen, so you can see the problems that can cause when dealing with colors (i.e., red looks even more red, yellow more yellow, etc.).

"Jewelry is spelled jewellery." Really? Maybe it's different in the US? I don't know, though. I have seen different spellings of other words (i.e., color and colour) between countries, however.

Logo thing and 2-line message added. May not be the final "cut," though, LoL. Just basically wanted to give you an idea.

Please understand there is no Dreamweaver or whatever else is used to create (higher-quality) logos here, so I am limited with whatever is out there on the web and is available for use (and isn't copyrighted) . . . i.e., not much more I can do than either use a solid color background for a logo or a non-copyrighted, borrowed one.

I forgot about the odd American spellings! Jewellery is the correct spelling

As far as I'm concerned that isn't a logo, a logo is a nice designed graphical representation of the site/company name. Yours is plain boring text which adds nothing to the look & feel and would be much better in a unique font (hence the need for a graphic) to grab the eye.

Quote: Please understand there is no Dreamweaver or whatever else is used to create (higher-quality) logos here, so I am limited with whatever is out there on the web and is available for use (and isn't copyrighted) . . . i.e., not much more I can do than either use a solid color background for a logo or a non-copyrighted, borrowed one.

Another reason to get that PC, eh? If you're feeling adventurous, you might try learning PHP and making -- coding -- images with GD and whatnot. But that's hardly realistic.

If you're serious about the page/site, get someone to make you a logo.

Question: Do you know what a logo is and what it does?

heh, yes, Renegade, I think he does know what a logo is, and what it does. Which is probably why he correctly acknowledges that he doesn't have one, and also that he'd prefer to have it.

The logo (for the main home page) is at the bottom of the women's page . . . the stuff at the top of the women's page is just like a title for the women's page.

It should say FUN*LINKS*'N'*MORE with different-colored letters and a white background (assuming it's working . . . I saw it there
anyway )

This goes back to exactly what I said before:

Quote: The only problem I foresee is that you are saying that this is going to be a page part of a larger site. IMO all apges of a site should have a consistant look/layout & logo

Yes, I agree with that for the most part . . . especially for a business site or a site that only has links to other pages made by the same person/designer as a part of that particular site.

However, the home page links to quite a few pages that aren't made by me also (news, sports, etc.), so it's understandable that these pages will not have the same look/layout/logo as the Fun Links site since they were made by someone else.

Did that make sense? By the way, the particular site I put the logo together on did allow anti aliasing on this particular design, which is one reason why I chose it.

Also, I do intend to put the logo on EVERY page I personally made that is linked to from the home page, so hopefully that is the correct thing to do.

There needs to be some images somewhere to grab my attention. Just plain text will make me look elsewhere pretty quickly.

put some more pages to provide advises or guidelines. currently i see mostly are affiliate links.