Preserved Topic: some feedback? (Page 1 of 1)

Could i get some feedback on this? Its just the start of piece on wanna see if i am on the right direction, just got a wacom tablet and i haven't put it down since it got here <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">... http://www.netmosis.com/main/gallery/images/attitude.jpg
check out the art section of http://www.netmosis.com for similar stuff, also visit the the info section if you wanna have your stuff published...contact me for further details also: jeff@cafex.com

Feedback::

The Piece: Is that Jenny McCarthy? Okay, the idea for the piece was nice, but between the sepia skin toning, mixed with the mauve/pink glow around her, the lack of fade into the turtleneck, and the yellow toned flames in the eyes....it bugged me. Too many colours for what looked like it was supposed to be "art-ish" and they didn't seem to compliment each other at all. The technicals of the "brushing in" itself looked good though.


The Site: Sorry, as soon as I see the horizontal scrollbar of death, and a sign that says "tested in one browser only" I leave. Just a personal thing, since a large percentage of users online are still at 800x600, and even though I prefer IE myself, alienating Netscape users is never all that cool.

With all that said, I think you're headingtoward some great work, especially with your new Intuos. <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">

Hope to see more soon.

Peter



ICQ:# 10237808

[This message has been edited by DarkGarden (edited 09-08-2000).]

i'm either gonna go no colors or all colors it was just something i need to decide before go all the way...

i know about the site, its just something i threw together quickly so i could at least occupy my domain. I'm working on a major redesign that will (hopefully) be more browser and size independent. your right and i know it about the browser size as of now about %65 percent of the users are at 800x600, about %75 are using at least IE4, and most everyone is over a 56K or faster connection. No its not jenny mcarthy...i don't know who it is...i didn't wanna pay for stock photos so i scanned the cover of the imagebank attitude catalog...
check this out for the index page for the new design
This is just a tracing but you get the idea...the large box will be a screen kinda thing, the smaller ones will be buttons...thanks...

[This message has been edited by netmosis (edited 09-08-2000).]

For future reference:

BROWSERS
Browser Version Stats
For June 2000.
---------------------
1: 57% : MSIE5
2: 21% : MSIE4
3: 16% : NS4
4: <1% : MSIE3
5: <1% : NS3

and:

SCREENS
Screen Resolution Stats
For June 2000.
------------------------
1: 56% : 800x600
2: 26% : 1024x768
3: 09% : 640x480
4: 02% : 1280x1024
5: 02% : 1152x864
6: <1% : 1600x1200

These were all taken from stats pulled into http://www.echoecho.com




What if your sole lot in life was to serve as a warning to others?

I'll tell you something... I don't know about that picture you posted originally... but that sketch you made is really cool... in fact, I think you should use that... blend it with some 3D effects, that'd be really neat looking.

yeah thanks, human shield.
Guess ima little outta date on my stats
mine were from february from some article...whatever...eek...

Just keep in mind that screen resolution does not mean browser size...one can't assume that a person uses all of his screen space for his browser.

Call me crazy....

....but I figure that most people have full screen on 800x600 for their browser (meaning that you're left with 760x420 roughly) and they have true color...so why worry about any of the losers tromping around with 640x480 and 256 colors inside of a NS3 environment?

Folks who do Flash on their sites generally demand that Flash be installed, and if it isn't, they offer a link to it....so they've conformed; why can't we assume that peopel will conform to screen size and browser ability?

twItch^%

I like the duotone face with the red lips and flame. Sort of the same effect as the Gatorade commercials, or the red jacket in Schindler's List. I think the glow is detracting from it, though.
Maybe if the glow was monochromatic as well (a gradient of the same sepia shade), the color of the lips and flame would jump out more?

[This message has been edited by Das (edited 09-08-2000).]

Because one of those "losers" browsing at a width of 640 is me. I run at a higher resolution, but browse with my window open at 640, stretched vertically, because I find it easier to read that way. Expecially in something such as this forum. And a good number of people don't know *how* to set their color depth. Not to mention all the people who are using computers at work or at school, the settings of which they are locked out from changing, or which haven't been upgraded in a couple of years due to financial constraints or lack of technical staff. (It wasn't but a few months ago I was doing a demo at a company that designed high-end computer peripherals, yet discovered several machines running at low resolutions and color depths. One user even had his set to 16 colors.)

And one cannot expect everyone to conform to a designer's preferred system settings when many either can't or don't want to out of personal preference.

Whenever clients express a concern over keeping a design under 640, I remind him that even if only 5% of the population is browsing at that size, that's 5% of potential customers you are automatically alienating and 5% of your sales that you jeopardize along the way.

Anyway, my point was that you can't assume browser size from screen resolution. There will probably come a time when a majority of computer users will have 17" monitors set to 1024x768. But I won't be designing pages at a width of 975.

And once again, I resent being called a loser for not spreading my browser to 800 for you, and I think so would my nephew who has a slow graphics card and no money to upgrade it.

*muffled applause from the crowd*



What if your sole lot in life was to serve as a warning to others?

You're right, wes. I apologize for my brazen statement, it was not intended to be insulting.

I was having a rather difficult day yesterday at work dealing with resolution constrictions, and I have since remedied them.

Besides, I called the losers the ones with 640x480 and NS3. I imagine you've upgraded past that browser-wise, and even if you haven't, my commentary still wasn't intended to be insulting.

With regret--

twItch^%

yeah! Whats wrong with being a loser?

Check this out...

- http://thesatyr.com/archives/satyr/gates.htm

"Microsoft shares rose ¾ of a point to 74.25 with the news."

LoL

- Dan -


[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 10-08-2000).]

that link makes me sad...and yet strangely aroused.




[This message has been edited by twItch^ (edited 10-08-2000).]

Browser compatibility is a thorny issue. You have to cut your losses at some version. Personally I think at this point 4.0 compatibility is sufficient. I try to make my pages work in older browsers, but I wont leave out features just because it's not supported in Netscape 2 (ie. table cell background images).

For resolution I try to keep all my graphics at a 600 maximum width. When I design a new interface I open up a 600x400 PS window. On the other hand, I also try to think about what it will look like on a huge resolution, using percentage tables for text whenever possible design-wise.

For colors I don't even bother trying to make web-safe pages anymore. Anyone running in 256 colors is so used to the dithered look that it won't be that annoying anyway.

Ultimately these design considerations are all about your audience. If you are designing a consumer website then I think you really need to take great care to maximize your audience to the lowest common denominator. Remember the web is an information delivery vehicle. The content is the most important thing when you are designing a business web page. On the other hand, if you are making a design site you have to show off your skills in the cutting edge technologies and so bigger, flashier, and more unique become much bigger factors. Personally, I like to stay somewhere in between. Taking a limitation and pushing it as far as I can go.

Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you, twitch...been dealing with my own size restrictions here. I am finding the 640 restriction a little frustrating on some particular pages I'm redesigning, but since it is all content-driven, I want to make sure everyone can read it.

As for the web-safe color issue, I'm gradually moving out of it. I try to stick to the 216 with flat-color areas when I can, but don't feel much anxiety when I stray into the rest of the color universe, especially when it's a graphics-driven page anyway. Like you said, jiblet, people running at 256 wouldn't know the difference--if they did, they probably wouldn't be running at 256 if they could help it.

I'm sure in the next couple of years, the 640 limitation will become a moot point and it will be entirely safe to fit for 800 when it's warranted. I just don't feel a need to be on the forefront of the movement.

wes - it's okay, I occasionally get out of hand in my responses. No harm done?

And IMHO, web-safe colors irritate the hell out of me. I spend so much time in Photoshop coming up with some slick display, then look for the closest match in web-safe colors...ohhhh...they're nowhere near the neat ones.

makes me sad.




[This message has been edited by twItch^ (edited 11-08-2000).]

Heh, if you wanna make a site that works in websafe colors, start thinking FLOURESCENT GREEN! Lots of shades of flourescent green to choose from! Persoanlly, I gave up worrying about 216 colors long long ago, I worry more about lower quality JPEG files showing banding at thousands of colors, a much more common scenario.

As for browser size, I run my screen at either 832x624 (mac) or 1152x864 (PC). I never (hardly *ever*) run my browser at full screen, like Wes I like to use the rest of my computer for other things, and a slice of desktop with different apps peeking out makes it easy to swap between programs. I'll occasionally go to 748 pixels wide for some pieces, but it's a concious thought when I do it. Most all of my sites will fit into 608 pixels wide, good for printing, good for readability. YMMV, of course!

Your pal, -doc-

Oh yeah! The website was annoying, for all those resolution issues mentioned. I like the sketch, I also think you should do something with it, enhance the sketch as-is, you'll get a unique look.

Your pal, -doc-

Heh...do we *ever* stay on topic?

I'm sorry Wes...."On-Topic"???? can you please explain what that means? I don't believe I've heard of anything like that before. Speaking of which, could you pass the mustard, my burger's a little bland....

Was that grey poupon you asked for Jamie? What were we talking about now? Something controversial I'm sure....the sketch is fresh man!