Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Bored Druid ThreadFollow

#3702 Dec 09 2010 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I find the tan wow skin easy on the eyes.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#3703 Dec 09 2010 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Boils down to personal preference and monitor settings.

I prefer warmer colors.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3704 Dec 09 2010 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Restyling is a lot of work though, I'm currently designing my own website and it's amazing how much you actually need to figure out.


Two suggestions:
1. Use a decent font. As in, something that doesn't have Arial in its name. (Tahoma and Verdana work 98% of the time but you'd probably want something that people don't immediately recognise which brings me back to OMG IT'S ARIAL)
2. Are those margins like 30%? Cut them down to 50px or so, seriously.
#3705 Dec 09 2010 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
What Kali said, sort of.

Using a known font isn't necessarily bad, as long as you use the right one. Comic Sans... no. Times New Roman... no. Verdana, Tahoma, Calibri... yes. Avoid serif fonts and you're mostly fine.

I'd darken the white frame and change the menu background color to something solid. Other than that, sweet site. The blue frame and the blue in the background image looks great.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3706 Dec 09 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
****
7,732 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I find the tan wow skin easy on the eyes.


I use the same one. I still think the site, even after they fixed it, has to much dead space with art on the side.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#3707 Dec 09 2010 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Horsemouth wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I find the tan wow skin easy on the eyes.


I use the same one. I still think the site, even after they fixed it, has to much dead space with art on the side.


Try changing the 'wow' in the URL to 'www' and check out the wasted space there. Good stuff.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3708 Dec 09 2010 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
It's going to be a thick font and there won't be too much text on it to start with, mainly photos and some comments on the shoot/assignment.
#3709 Dec 09 2010 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
Maybe ask NixNot for font advice; I honestly don't know a font that would fit your idea that isn't either fugly or Impact and Impact has the wrong connotations to be used for a professional website. Maybe just go with Tahoma, Verdana, Calibri and change the font weight. To do that, go into your style.css document and add the line
font-weight:900;
somewhere within the body {}.
#3710 Dec 09 2010 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Kalivha wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Restyling is a lot of work though, I'm currently designing my own website and it's amazing how much you actually need to figure out.


Two suggestions:
1. Use a decent font. As in, something that doesn't have Arial in its name. (Tahoma and Verdana work 98% of the time but you'd probably want something that people don't immediately recognise which brings me back to OMG IT'S ARIAL)
2. Are those margins like 30%? Cut them down to 50px or so, seriously.
1: No, I don't give a **** if everyone recognizes it because it fits. So you're wrong.
2: It's nowhere near done, specifically getting the size right isn't working yet for some reason.

Also, I might darken the background but I'm not going to change the menu to be solid because that's A: boring and B: not nessecary. The banners are going to be mostly black anyway so it works.
#3711 Dec 09 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
1. I'm not wrong because anyone who cares will tell you it's awful.
Seriously, just try replacing
font-family: Arial black;

everywhere in your style sheet with
font-family: Verdana; 
font-weight: 900;

and adjust the weight if you want and then do the same for your header if you like it.

2. The problem with your width is probably in the style.css file, specifically
 
#container { 
width: 800px; 
margin-left: 40px; 
padding-top: 0px; 
padding-bottom: 0px; 
}



Try something like

#container { 
width: 70%; 
padding-top: 0px; 
padding-bottom: 0px; 
}


instead.

That should account for different screen resolutions on the user's side, and cut the margin on either side down to 15% of the screen width.
You'd have to adjust the banner and menu accordingly, probably, to make it align properly and such.
#3712 Dec 09 2010 at 12:04 PM Rating: Good
I'm a fan of monospace fonts myself, as they help avoid formatting issues.

And yes, the wasted space makes me cry too. Also bite me Mazra.
#3713 Dec 09 2010 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Kali you're still wrong.
I know what I want as far as looks go and I am not building the site myself so I'm not going to **** around with fonts.
I frankly don't give a flying **** about what you or "anyone who cares" thinks because I know what looks good and what doesn't.
#3714 Dec 09 2010 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
Overlord Norellicus wrote:
I'm a fan of monospace fonts myself, as they help avoid formatting issues.


A lot of monospace fonts are hideous, though, or just don't work for most contexts.

DejaVu Sans Mono is all right, I suppose.


Edit: Æth, who is building your site, then?

Edited, Dec 9th 2010 6:37pm by Kalivha
#3715 Dec 09 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Overlord Norellicus wrote:
Also bite me Mazra.


I had to go back a page to find out why you wrote that. Smiley: lol

Aeth, the font thing is a very minor issue. Personally, the font being used doesn't strike me as wrong in any way.

Anything beats Times New Roman.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3716 Dec 09 2010 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
Grand Master Alchemist Mazra wrote:
Aeth, the font thing is a very minor issue. Personally, the font being used doesn't strike me as wrong in any way.

Anything beats Times New Roman.


Comic Sans doesn't. :P



Also, one of the issues with Arial is that it's just not that great and has in many instances been chosen purely because it's cheap license-wise (for people like Microsoft who need to pay for the fonts they offer to the end user). It's like "Hey, look, I'm too cheap to use Helvetica so I settle with Helvetica with some cut-off edges and nevermind the fact that Helvetica was the font of choice 40 years ago!").
Okay, maybe I'm a bit too much into this.

Edited, Dec 9th 2010 7:20pm by Kalivha
#3717 Dec 09 2010 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Grand Master Alchemist Mazra wrote:
Aeth, the font thing is a very minor issue. Personally, the font being used doesn't strike me as wrong in any way.
Kali has a fetish for fonts or something.

Also here is the design:
Screenshot
#3718 Dec 09 2010 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
****
7,732 posts
Kalivha wrote:
Edit: Æth, who is building your site, then?


The angry badger that crawled up his bum.
____________________________
Hellbanned

idiggory wrote:
Drinking at home. But I could probably stand to get laid.
#3719 Dec 09 2010 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Despite its pervasiveness, a professional designer would rarely — at least for the moment — specify Arial. To professional designers, Arial is looked down on as a not-very-faithful imitation of a typeface that is no longer fashionable. It has what you might call a “low-end stigma.” The few cases that I have heard of where a designer has intentionally used Arial were because the client insisted on it. Why? The client wanted to be able to produce materials in-house that matched their corporate look and they already had Arial, because it’s included with Windows. True to its heritage, Arial gets chosen because it’s cheap, not because it’s a great typeface.



This.
#3720 Dec 09 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
******
27,272 posts
And I picked it because it's the font that I liked the most out of all the ones i've tried so go **** yourself.
#3721 Dec 09 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Kalivha wrote:
Quote:
Despite its pervasiveness, a professional designer would rarely — at least for the moment — specify Arial. To professional designers, Arial is looked down on as a not-very-faithful imitation of a typeface that is no longer fashionable. It has what you might call a “low-end stigma.” The few cases that I have heard of where a designer has intentionally used Arial were because the client insisted on it. Why? The client wanted to be able to produce materials in-house that matched their corporate look and they already had Arial, because it’s included with Windows. True to its heritage, Arial gets chosen because it’s cheap, not because it’s a great typeface.



This.


What it's saying is "Arial is so 2001" which is personal opinion. In this case, Aeth isn't making a poster, he's making a website. Websites, especially ones like Aeth's, should feel personal, not like something right out of Karl Lagerfeld's mind. While it's important that a website maintains a certain aesthetic standard, so as to not degenerate into this, there's no need to make it too impersonal.

If Aeth wants Arial, he should stick with Arial. There would only be cause for alarm if he insisted on going with TNR, in which case I'd take him out the backyard and put him down myself. Smiley: lol

Let Aeth make his website the way he wants to make it. Smiley: wink
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3722 Dec 09 2010 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
I'm just saying, the effect of a "thick" font that is not tacky can be achieved with any font if you increase the weight. If you go with default fonts, there are very few that come like that (one of them being offered as a "special" version of Arial), but it takes like 5 seconds to change the weight of a better one.


And even in 2001, Arial was the font people went for to save money/time. And as such it makes it all the more impersonal.
#3723 Dec 09 2010 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Save money? In what way does using Arial for your website save you money? Smiley: dubious

And Kali, you're way beyond normal website construction here. Changing the weight of a specific font? I mean, that's the stuff you care about if you're doing a presentation for a major company somewhere or something. Or if you're in the greetings card business. For a personal website, using a font that isn't Times New Roman or Comic Sans is really all you need to worry about.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3724 Dec 09 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Changing the weight of a font is what you learn in the first 2 hours of CSS lessons. It's what you do when you do this.
And really, this is a website that has to do with art and design, so it should be designed properly.

Also, srsly, there are a million awful fonts out there that aren't TNR. Like Bleeding Cowboys. Or Curlz MT.


Really though, the fact that I didn't have that much to criticise should tell you that I think the website looks pretty much okay. Much better than most of what my class produced for our hardware information website (and half of that task was to create decent stylesheets).
#3725 Dec 09 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
There's a difference between properly and pedantically, Kali.

And when you say the font should have its weight changed, you're actually saying it shouldn't be bold, right? Use layman terms, srs. It's been four years since I took that course, and it wasn't in English. I thought you were referring to manually slimming/thickening parts of the individual letters. Smiley: lol

To be honest, as long as he's going with the white background, it doesn't hurt to have a, um, heavy(?) font. Reduces the amount of visual noise you get from the white. I'm sure it's horrible from an art designer's point of view, but you have to factor in functionality as well. A pretty website isn't worth a lot if the viewers burn out their corneas the moment it loads.

As for fonts, Bleeding Cowboys and Curlz MT are logo fonts. No one in their right minds would write an entire paragraph or more in that. I know my sister once did in Curlz MT, but she was 12 years old and it was back when wRiTinG LiEk tHiS wAs aLsO HoT.

Kali, most website designers most likely stay within the reasonable range of fonts. The fonts they know and like. My guess is fonts like Bleeding Cowboys and Curlz MT aren't on that list. But to argue whether it should be bold Arial, regular Verdana or Calibri... that's pedantic. Not necessary.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#3726 Dec 10 2010 at 2:20 AM Rating: Decent
I think you've completely misunderstood part of what I said. I didn't say that he should change the weight to 200 (normal). I said he should go with Verdana or whatever and change it to 900+. 600 is bold, you do the maths.

And yeah, obviously those examples are extreme but there are quite a few fonts that are sort of halfway between there and being "normal" and people use those too liberally. Not web designers, obviously, because they'd be out of a job faster than they could say Wingdings.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 169 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (169)