|
|
|
This layout, now in its unprecedented sixth month, is beginning to grate like the Popsicle-stick birdhouse I never brought home from the summer camp I never went to as a child. It's functional yet anemic, like a Hollywood starlet. It's a little threadbare, like my tendency to analogize in triplicate. (But oh! I can't help myself.)
That being said, my annoyance hasn't crossed the homicidal threshold yet. I still feel lazy-queasy whenever I fire up Fireworks, push around my Mondrian-lite blocks of color, rummage through my directories of impersonal, burnished object photography. The impetus isn't quite there -- plus, I have a zillion other things I'm supposed to be doing; but everyday it weighs on me incrementally, and sooner or later the water will break.
Dilemmas, dilemmas: would you like to see more sidebar action? Namely, sideblog action? Namely, little interstitial remarks and randomata that don't quite merit center-ring posting? Believe it or not, something along these lines was originally in the extended parameters of this layout, but I gave up on the enterprise for various reasons -- namely boredom and lack of technical wherewithal. Now that I'm chugging along, however, maybe it's time to revisit the concept, especially since it's all the rage.
Another nagging detail: should I give up on making my layouts 800x600-friendly? I know hardly anyone browses at that resolution anymore, but I always feel bad abandoning certain legacy conventions. I only recently stopped vetting my code in Netscape 4.x, for example, even though I haven't used said browser in over two years. Nudging my basic canvas toward 1024x768 would free me up considerably design-wise.
[Insert snarky non sequitur here.]
You could make it black text on a black black background. Like AC/DC. Or Spinal Tap.
"It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black."
Posted by Andrew on February 21, 2002 09:29 AM
|
I really like the design actually. It makes me think of fantastical spacecraft control panels, which I like, even thought they don't technically exist. I do understand the need to redesign though. And although I still browse at 800x600, I never have a problem with sites that don't conform to that. I guess I'm just too lazy to use another browser! But really, as the feral Ice-T said in Johnny Mnemonic, "Do whatcha gotta do." I read this site for the content really, the design is an added bonus.
Posted by Mickie Rat on February 21, 2002 11:08 AM
|
In seriousness, I'm with Micky Rat. Your designs (all of 'em) are beautiful, but I'm here to read. It's nice to read in a pretty space, though.
Posted by Andrew on February 21, 2002 11:35 AM
|
If the content is good, I don't care if it scrolls off to the right -- as long as it's just sidebar that's scrolling off.
I browse at 1024x768, but I keep the favorites explorer sidebar up all the time, so it's like I'm an 800x600 viewer.
Posted by Kristian on February 21, 2002 11:56 AM
|
I'd keep em 800x600 friendly. There are still plenty of people out there surfing at that res.
I'm a pretty big fan of the sideblog, because it let's me keep my site active with short memes and links that don't interfere with regular, personal postings.
But sideblogs are becoming a bandwagon. And no one's paying me royalties. ; )
Also, I like this design a lot, but I can see why you'd be ready for a change. Get freaky and do something outrageous.
Posted by Ryan on February 21, 2002 12:01 PM
|
Also, Crossroads is painfully amusing. I'd actually recommend that you see it, as a study in lack of quality. And big ups to Dan Akroid for finding the bottom of an even deeper barrel. This movie makes his My Girl performance look like Michael-Caine-caliber character acting.
Posted by Ryan on February 21, 2002 12:05 PM
|
I've said it before but I always wanted the green one to become full-fledged but it never did. However, sidebar action is quite nice.
I do like how this design strecthes and flexes. I browse at 1280x1024, but because I need the real estate for design stuff plus I do have a 19 inch so it's okay.
I still design for 640 sometimes but usually I'll go with 800x600, but it does seem like a lot of people are going with 1024x768 these days.
In the end it's really up to what you want to do. As the people ahev said before me.
Posted by Naz on February 21, 2002 01:11 PM
|
Even on my 1280x1024 /1152 x 768 dual screen setup, I usually browse at 800x600. It's one thing to have a large screen, it's another to want your browser window taking up all of it.
I'd go with something similar to what you have here--a layout that's easily readable at 800x600 but that can be expanded to 1024x768 if one so desires. Your wide pics are cool, and even cooler that they're "stretchy." I did the same on my site.
You going table-less like everyone else?
Posted by resonance on February 21, 2002 03:16 PM
|
no! stay with 800x600. i'll love you forever. highindustrial is so clean and readable and yet, very nicely designed all at the same time.
and don't see crossroads. don't give britney any glory. her movie must FAIL in the box offices.
Posted by haya on February 21, 2002 03:27 PM
|
Aw, you guys are my favoritest readers, you know that? :) I'm gonna bear all this stuff in mind when I finally do get around to redesigning, and I'll definitely keep it 800x600 safe.
As far as CSS is concerned, I'm not ready to take the plunge yet -- Mozilla has good CSS support but hardly anyone uses it; IE's is variable at best. I'm still too layout-obsessive to surrender any control.
I do sorta wanna see Crossroads. I never did see Glitter, and I need to make cinefiasco amends.
Posted by R. on February 24, 2002 02:34 AM
|
Post a comment
|
|
|
|
|
