I?m getting bored of my emm?. my grey and dull site. So for the past few weeks I have been playing around with ideas/colours/navigation ideas/etc and now I have a design which I like and think can work.
The site is made up of layers for the navigation and content. It?s made out of layers because I don?t want to have about 30+ pages and the navigation I like as it all works on one page than changing pages to show something else. The problem I can see with this is the main content. Which is all in a layer, meaning that the whole page would have to be downloaded to view most of content. Which for 56Kers is bad. If you?re a 56Ker and your having problems with it now then I would have to re-think how the content is shown, because the site I have made has only 7 images, the end one will have about 30+ of images ranging from 40K ? 50K in size. So in the end it?s going to be a big ass file to load in all at once. I have the perload images code but that still means downloading a lot of little files.
But that file size bit can be over come in a few ways. The thing I would to know is what is it like for a 56Ker? And is it ok on a mac? (I can test It on a mac tomorrow so no need to rush for that).
Below is two links on to a pop-up and the other in just a normal window. I want it really to be in a window centred, but as it uses layers it would go all over the place as layers are fixed form the X & Y. That?s why I might just have it a pop-up or in frames. I don?t like the sound of frames as it would consist of four pages and the main page (letter box type frame style) but I hate frames so a pop-up does for me, even though I know that most of you will kill me for doing it!! :P.
IE 6 = Works fine
NN/Mozilla 7/1 = Works fine
Opera 6 = Some of the layers are a little out of line but I don?t know how to fix it. I have tried all things and it will not nudge then down about 5px
So what do you think? Is it too much for a 56Ker? What do you like about? Does it work for you? Tell me
Emp: Thanks for the help on the DIV only CSS, but I just had to dump it as something just messed up and the page CSS just took over agian.
~ Runs far away as I know it?s a bandwidth killer for the humble 56Ker ~
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 06-18-2002 18:01
chris:
I think that it needs a little more. It is still really plain jane. If that is what you want then that is fine, it just seems a little too bare to me.
I think the pop-up window would work best as it is now. When you click a link to the artwork, it moves the page up and hides the links.
There needs to be a link to get back to the main page. When I view the artwork and other stuff, I can't get back to the main page. I just saw that the little [x] in the corner will take you back to the main site. Might want to rethink that, I thought it was a link to close the window.
There seems to be a link problem. When I click on "Info" then "Basic" I see the info, but then when going to "Artwork" I get nothing when I click on the links.
It would be real nice to have the sub links line up with the main nav links. Like when you click on "Info" the "Basic" is directly across from the "Info" link. does that make sense.
Just an idea after reading that this site was still considered to be too plain, which i have to say I agree with. I would suggest putting some kind of picture behind the main content, where it is currently grey. Using a mellow cyan/blue colour it would contrast well with the orange highlights, and if you didnt use a picture that was too saturated then it wouldn't distract from the content. Possibly something along the lines of the first image in your artwork section might work well. Hope that helps.
"i miss me,
i miss everything i'll never be"
[This message has been edited by quisja (edited 06-18-2002).]
Right to start off the design is the way I want it and to me it?s better than my grey and dull site, which I have now. So leave the design of out it, as far as I'm concerned it?s better than the old one? If not I will care a little bit. But if you?re saying it's still "plain jane" then it's plain and I like plain as it make you consecrate on the content than the page. (Don?t know where jane came in though??)
[nice voice]
CPrompt:
The artwork link does move up the links, that?s the way it will be because I can fit about three rows of links in there so it will all be understandable once it's full of links.
Main page link added
Link problem fixed I hope
And I get what you mean it is a bit hard to understand but try it now it should be fixed, except the artwork and design (which will be full of links so it won't be out of line)
Thanks for the link to centring pop-up win (I'll make it centred and make the pop-up work in opera as it does not yet)
quisja: I haven't seen you around so welcome , But your ideas would just add more to download if it was an image at the back, so that's can't be done....hhmmm... got me thinking though
Now where's the 56K er room? I want feed back from 56Kers it all depend on there download time.....
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 06-18-2002 20:42
DS, I will look at it again when I get home on my slow poke 56k
The links work much better now. Makes much more sense. I'll take a look at the code when I get home regarding the centering window and see if I can figure out how to make it work in Opera.
About the "plain jane" thing. Like I said, it was just my 2cents. It looks, reads and is more navigational friendly more than the other version. Don't get me wrong, I love sleek simple sites. It is nice and innovative. No reason not to push the bill so to speak.
It is going to be interesting when you 30+ links on the Artwork section though.
DS: You called for 56k'ers so here I am! (Though it's actually 64k, but who cares )
I won't say anything about the design but that it's nice neat and clean. Not far too 'plain jain' IMO.
As for the download time, it's really much and already takes a long time to download without all the images being added. It would be a good idea to have the same small image in all the layers and replace it with the actual big one once the appropriate link is clicked. That way the images would only be loaded when needed.
How about putting the whole page into another <div> and centering it in the browser window instead of using the somewhat annoying popup window? I'm sure that'd make many people happy.
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 06-19-2002 02:38
Very nice DS. I see that you used the center window script. Works great on IE6.
Download time for the artwork was a little slow on my 56k but not too bad.
Have you thought about just preloading all the images and put a dHTML image loading bar in there? Just a suggestion.
I still like the popup window one best. I am starting to actually like these kind of designs. I have seen them more and more and they are really starting to grow on me. Good work. I like it!
56Ker's can you test it now and what?s it's like for emmm...download time
*starting running away*
Because I've added 20 images now ranging up to 50K each. So thats about 800KB . I know this idea is going to turn out bad for the humble 56kers I just knew it, but I have a back up idea that can work for all so I might start making that.
(All nice ideas form poeple )
CPrompt: Yep will be interesting when you 30+ links on the Artwork (beascue the file size will be over a 1meg then :-(. I not using any blogger or anything like it (might do but that?s another thing) I'll just change the text in the update box when I added image as I'll have to edit the file anyway. About the dHTML image loading bar, that can work but your still downloading in the end 1meg of images all at once, but kuckus idea is good.
kuckus: Hhmm nice idea... I'll try it on a mock up and see how it goes, but all else fails I'll just use one frame, breaking it into two, one part nav the other pages.
-- DS --
[edit - bye bye sig]
[This message has been edited by Darkshadow (edited 06-19-2002).]
..hhmm.. so I take it takes a long time then? .... oh well I think I'll make it into a two frames, one for nav and on for pages.
kuckus: I don't know how to implant that idea you have so I might just leave it unless you can add more light into it on how, where, what it all works/goes/etc. It's just that I'm not a coder and I'll never will be (as I?ve been playing with code for 2 years) so playing with code is very frustrating to do and work out where it all goes, etc so I try and think what I can do that I can make with in my knowledge of HTML and some simple java script. But any help or step by step will be greatly welcomed.
-- DS --
[This message has been edited by Darkshadow (edited 06-19-2002).]
I'll be back in a few minutes with some 'instructions' . . .
. . . here they are:
The first thing you'll have to do is creating a 1x1 pixel transparent gif and setting it as the source for all the gallery images. But don't change the proper width and height settings in the code, it's easier to leave them as they are than to change them with the javascript. Now you should have empty spaces in the layers where the images are supposed to be.
Next, go through all the <img> tags again and add a name="whatever" attribute (each img needs to have a different name). The tags should then look like the line I posted yesterday:
Now, if someone clicks a link to one of the pictures (say //001) we need a javascript that changes the appropriate <img>'s source to the actual file. Change the links you have now like this:
kuckus: does this work test work? Don't worry about the gif and the logo I can sort that out later just want to test the great idea out .
Check the code and that to make sure it all what you said as I want word by word, copy and paste (with little alters here and there) If it work I can get on with the rest of it
DS: I must say that I liked the stark minimalism of your old site but we must have progress and change Some thoughts:
1. I'm not sure what went wrong with the code - if you have a copy of what you did then I can have a look through it and see what can be done.
2. I don't think I need to say that I think the popup is a bad idea
3. I know you are dealing with it now thanks to kuckus (that is the solution I'd go for in these circumstances) but just having the site as layers doesn't seem to be a good idea. It has potential cross-browser problems and, as you have a 'light' site design there is really no need for this - pages will load pretty quickly anyway.
4. I can't see that all those tables (at least 4 nested tables at one point) are needed - you could certainly make more use of DIVs to reduce the reliance on tables (in fact does this design work at all in NS4.x? If not and you are keeping it that way, which I wouldn't advise, then you don't need tables at all). The code (and your use of layers) is bloating what should be a very sleek page.
5. I like the colours but I feel like I need a darker colour - possibly a dark grey or green might work.
6. FONT tags???? In this day and age!!!
7. I'd make more use of the page - the site just looks like one that should be in a popup and you could either make the design liquid or do something with all that spare space (on larger screen resolutions).
Overall I like what you are doing at it seems a much more open and inviting design - there are a few issues that need addressing but you've done well - nice one!!
1. Is this the CSS in div code? if yes then it just kept messing up (I think it's dreamweaver, though) It worked for the temp file dreamweave makes, once saved and opened as just a page it just was all the same (i.e. page CSS took over) it was getting on my t**s after the 20th time trying, so I just gave up. (I know I should never give up to what I want the computer to do, than the computer pushing it her way, but it was driving me nuts :P)
2. So is the pop good? or bad? either way I don't care :P
3. Ya I know layers are bad, but I just wanted the navigation to stay on the page, saving making pages that change every time you click artwork or design, etc. So I made that into layers (which is fine to me as it was only the navigation part was layers). Then I had visions of frames for the content, but I just wanted to see if it was ok as all layers, which it is. But It's just a test I still made make the top (content part) a frames, i.e. to two frames= top & bottom.
About NS4 ...hhhmmm I thought about this for a long time now and to me and most poeple I know (including teachers) say that NS4 is dead as there is modzilla and NS6/7 out and don't see why there are poeple still using NN4 as it's such a bad browser to get sites working on. So I don't know about it yet I'll try it NS4 if it's a mess then be it a mess as I can't be working for a browser that is so old and out of date, can I? But as you know with me (as in my last sites) I try to get it working in as many browsers as possible. So I'll try but don't get hopes up though.
"4 nested tables at one point" maybe yes. I found out that on the mac 9+ something with IE5 the layer content would be moved up at the top, which it's not meant to be, so I tried placing it a table and it works in cantering it. For the navigation there is a few table in tables but that?s how it been made I can change it but with DW it might just go pear shape.
5. Colours ..hhhmm.... So what where you thinking with dark colours? To me I like it, it's colourful (compared to my last one) and is airy (I thought I would never say that word), which I like. But any move info on your thinking will be take in for processing, just like the others (that means you C:\)
6. Erm... yep I would like it canter on the page but the layers for navigation and page just go all over the place, so I'll just leave it in a pop-up.
7. Font tags = change of colour for some parts that's why probaly.
Overall this it is just a test, if it works out well I'll use it, if not I'' re-think it over. It's only took me a week to make this so it's no harm to start again as I have learnt a lot here and there about things as I always do, so it's no bother to start again and learn some more :P.
It just seems to be turing out bad once I started playing with layers
-- DS --
[This message has been edited by Darkshadow (edited 06-21-2002).]
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 06-20-2002 22:32
Why all the empty space on the left and right of your content for the main page? It doesn't work. It looks ackward. I think that you should use the space your given (or taking) to the fullest.
Okey I tweaked some bits here and the now it should all work just need a glace over to see if it's OK then it's going up. I thought about it and now I will use it even though the page size a little big but it all work and fits together well to me, so I'm going to use it.
posted 06-18-2002 17:18
. I know this idea is going to turn out bad for the humble 56kers I just knew it, but I have a back up idea that can work for all so I might start making that.
