Hello,
I just added a new site menu to my site, and besides the fact that all you guys hate frames, I was wondering how it looked on various browsers. It should look fine, but I only have IE, and it seems that a lot of times when I think everything should look fine, it suddenly doesn't. So if anyone cares to, please take a look and tell me what you think.
Also, I changed up some other general stuff to my site, got rid of hidden links...thanks to Wes informing me that google and other search engines do not like this, and some other minor things. Feel free to look around and tell me what you think.
oh... I see... I didn't understand the meaning of 'site menu' until now
thought it's the start of a new site for I didn't spend much time on browsing your page properly... sorry
well, it works on both mentioned browsers
only thing: I'd try to align main and sub links to the same level.. just for more feeling of structure
nice page!
[This message has been edited by kazroot (edited 02-06-2004).]
[This message has been edited by kazroot (edited 02-06-2004).]
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 02-09-2004 05:21
I am trying to figure out if this is what is suposed to happen.
I click on a link and it changes the non-menu frame to display a list?
For some reason this makes no sence to me. It seems like you are trying to create a drop-downish menu like feel without using dropdown menus. Is this what is going on? or is firebird quirky with this?
It's just a site index, you know, listing all the different pages available on my webpage. That's all. And yea, the list that you first see is the main topics, and then when you click on one of the main topics, the sub-topic should pop-up.
kazroot - The main and sub-links should be aligned. Like when you click on poems, the top poem link should be lined up with the word poem, ect. I'm not sure if this is what you mean though.
Not everyone will have the Garamond font installed on their system. If they don't the font face will default to whatever the user has their browser set to, which would really fux things up. Instead define your font-family rules like so:
font-family: Garamond, Georgia Times, 'Times New Roman', Serif;
Although, I'd strongly recommend against using Garamond in any case asit looks dang ugly in small point sizes on a screen when you don't have any kind of font smoothing switched on. I wrote an FAQ on using fonts on the web a while back, do a quick search in the faq on "Screen fonts" and you should find it easily enough. Read it through carefully then re-evaluate what fonts you should be using in your web designs.
Thanks for the advice Cameron, I will look into it.
I really like the way Garamond looks, but like you said,
I have never really looked into the web side of it, but it seems
to look pretty good to me. I just assumed that every system came
with Garamond, since it is a pretty major font, but maybe I am wrong.
I will probably go ahead and change it anyway, just to get a different look
for my webpage after all this time. Change is always good, ya' know.......yo'
Hello again.
Ok, I changed the fonts on my webpage to suit the needs of those unfortunate folks who
don't have Garamond, and I went with Arial. I did this because after going to a bunch of sites
the have short stories, news, or other documents to read, I noticed that they all seem to use
Arial, so I figured that someone at one point or another must of decided that Arial was an
easy font to read, and thus....all these places seem to use it. So I to now use it...for the sake
of conformity.
Also, I had to fix a bunch of stuff to make it look nice, so tell me what you think, if anything.
Especially bad stuff...besides things about how tables suck, because I know that they do, its
just that a lot of my stories (especially my poems) are set up so that they are stactic in
nature. I don't really want the text jumping all around due to different window sizes and
what-not, and since my page pretty much fits on the tiniest of monitors, I figured it was fine.
Gilbert, as I mentioned before, there is a lot of information in the FAQ about using fonts of the web. I strongly recommend you go and read it. Arial, whilst being a common font, still isn't a terribly good choice for for screen readbility.
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 02-13-2004 16:32
The design grates me. I don't like your methodology with this one either. Frames were not needed here, and you could have gotten the same effect without using them. A little server side scripting, or even some clever CSS div swapping would have sufficed.
There is not much to the design. It is sparce. You should spend some time cleaning it up and making it look good. The other issue is why the links move down as you click lower links. The links don't line up, so it makes no sense to me to have this.
The way I think that this might work better is to make this a DHTML menu, with your links being submenu's to your sections. http://www.dhtmlcentral.com/projects/coolmenus/ the cool menu's might be the way to go here. If you combine this with PopupDescriptions http://www.dhtmlcentral.com/script/script.asp?id=7 and you have your menu with the text, and it is in one location and easy to use and read, plus it can be used as a generic menu across your site without much trouble. Where this one here does not allow that.
Sorry to take the hard road, but I really did not like the design of the page and noone else seemed to be jumping on you for it.
GN - yope that's what I meant... main and sub links AREn't at the same level
caused through differing margins/paddings of the titles
I'd use CSS-boxes with fixed heights and empty lines as placeholders for lower options
added it to each list-tag like this one
(frames )
[This message has been edited by kazroot (edited 02-13-2004).]
[This message has been edited by kazroot (edited 02-13-2004).]
kazroot & warmage
yea...the frames suck. Now that I see it online, everytime you click on one of the main links, the sub-link page flashes white. yuck...I'm going to replace the page with something better, when I get around to it.
Cameron
As far as the fonts - I looked into Verdana & Georgia and some other TTF fonts, but I really didn't like the way they looked, so I went with Arial, even though I don't like the way the comas look. Oh well. I guess every font has some problems. I may change it in the future though.
Well, Georgia and Verdana are generally accepted as the most readable fonts, because they were designed specifically for the web. Some other good choices are Trebuchet MS and Lucida Sans Unicode (or Lucida Grande on the Mac). I suppose it's just personal preference from there...
posted 02-06-2004 20:40
)