Log in

November 2006   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
wind horse

Compliant code, Newest Standards, 98% compliant, but does it look good?

Posted by horsedreamer on 2004.11.23 at 20:41

Hey all. I've been toying around with web design for quite a while now, and I was hoping you'd take a look at this for me. The site is http://dave.homelessatnyu.com/. The only things that aren't compliant are the mood icons on the lj page.What I'm really looking for is comments on usability, aesthetics, and "feel". I know I'm not a photoshop whiz kid. I use text links for a reason. I don't intend to change that.

errata: I'm aware of only a couple minor incongruities between gecko and IE. One is related to the css :before and :after pseudo-classes. The other is with navigation, in IE the link description doesn't show up like I want when you hover the link. If there are any more issues, I'd appreciate you pointint them out.


resurvivor48 at 2004-11-23 20:22 (UTC) (Link)
I'm using Firefox , 1024 x 786.

It's alittle white. but just alittle ya' know. It looks alright. Original, but just alittle boring. Nothing to really pull the reader in (and you don't always want too much to pull). Content isn't there, but you mention that. Codes great blah blah blah, this is for design though. The whole top banner irks me with the 'repeating background' and '[{]' thing. It gives off an enigmatic feeling, but a nice one. Makes you kind of think. It's not bad. I think if I went to it regularly, it'd grow on me.
horsedreamer at 2004-12-02 23:04 (UTC) (Link)
Thanks for the critique. I'm working on a replacement for that dull repeating background thing, and some alternatives on the banner. I'm vaguely contemplating a theme switcher (I have most of the code kicking around here somewhere) but that'll be a while until implementation, after the holidays at least.
Previous Entry  Next Entry