Sent by Felix Miata on 31 January 2003 23:11
Alex Robinson wrote:
> >Since they converted to CSS, their web site is better than at least 90%
> >of the rest of the web. What do you think is wrong with the way it
> >looks?
> It's not just the way it looks - it's the architecture of the site which is
> frankly terrible.
Maybe you should explain why you think so.
I see only two things wrong, but they are a matter of taste: 1-soiled
baby diaper tones for the navigational boxes; 2-Logo gets awfully small
for high resolution displays.
OTOH: 1-The primary content area is highly readable due to the
reasonably narrow width and user's text size. Also it scales nicely to
different resolutions and viewports; 2-The index at left is inclusive
and alphabetized; 3-Search clearly defaults to site and is prominent;
4-Contact link is prominent, instead of obscured by tiny text at the
bottom of the page or on another page; 5-Prominent mission statement,
for those who didn't already know.
> The way it looks though is a terrible advert for the potential of css-based
> design leading many short-sighted people to conclude that css is only for
> overly-obsessed hobbyists and not for "professional" designers. Or so say
> the folks behind
It may be deficient in how to design a glitzy site, but it is an
excellent example of how to present a site that is all about content,
which is what the site exists for.
> <http://w3mix.web-graphics.com/>
> <hint>Anyhow, this is all off-topic.</hint>
> I only mention this as some css-d listers might like to have a crack at the
> competition
I hit each of the ten links to sites under the judges' names. Not a one
was a better home page. Five were awful, two marginal.
--
"There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough,
people will believe it." William James
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html