Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    ThePhotoDictionary.com

    http://www.thephotodictionary.com

    Lay it on me folks.

    *ignore the 404's*

  • #2
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    http://www.thephotodictionary.com/ho...ure-works.html

    This is an example of some actual content, less a few photographs I plan on adding.

  • #3
    The Apostate Apostropartheid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 265 Times in 263 Posts
    I think the hover gradient on the menu is kind of tacky. Also, the header would probably look better with a stronger-stroked typeface and sans the red glow.

    I also think your main font should be smaller. It's quite big as it is. Your sidebar looks unfinished, too. You misspelt "launched", by the way (:

  • #4
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostropartheid View Post
    I think the hover gradient on the menu is kind of tacky. Also, the header would probably look better with a stronger-stroked typeface and sans the red glow.

    I also think your main font should be smaller. It's quite big as it is. Your sidebar looks unfinished, too. You misspelt "launched", by the way (:
    Tacky is somewhat vague. Is it the gradient you're not liking *edit*(i just reread that, nevermind)*edit*? I've played with some rounded tabs and didn't like how that looked.
    Last edited by tspek; 11-11-2009 at 08:34 PM.

  • #5
    The Apostate Apostropartheid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,215
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 265 Times in 263 Posts
    The gradient you have just on the menu looks fine; it's just the hover/selected gradient I dislike.

  • #6
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostropartheid View Post
    The gradient you have just on the menu looks fine; it's just the hover/selected gradient I dislike.
    Right, i re-read what you wrote. It's been a long week

    How do you feel about the "current page" change in the gradient?

  • #7
    UE Antagonizer Fumigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Utah, USA, Northwestern hemisphere, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Alpha Quadrant
    Posts
    7,691
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 637 Times in 625 Posts
    That's funny because I really liked the hover effect. It was slightly distracting actually, but in a nice way (IMO).

    As for font size, it really depends on the user's screen resolution and I didn't have any problem with it. Too many websites today go for a tiny little font which is very annoying. So bigger bigger bigger I say!

    One thing I would recommend is some sort of accordion effect so when you click "p" you see only "p" words. As your dictionary grows having everything in a long list like that is going to get unwieldy. Also the viewer is closer to the letter links if only one letter's definitions are shown at a time.

    As for white text on black background... though I love the look artistically, it's simply harder for me to read than black on white. It may be because most everything else is black on white, so the adjustment on that tab to the reverse takes my eyes a few seconds.

  • #8
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Fumigator View Post
    That's funny because I really liked the hover effect. It was slightly distracting actually, but in a nice way (IMO).

    As for font size, it really depends on the user's screen resolution and I didn't have any problem with it. Too many websites today go for a tiny little font which is very annoying. So bigger bigger bigger I say!

    One thing I would recommend is some sort of accordion effect so when you click "p" you see only "p" words. As your dictionary grows having everything in a long list like that is going to get unwieldy. Also the viewer is closer to the letter links if only one letter's definitions are shown at a time.

    As for white text on black background... though I love the look artistically, it's simply harder for me to read than black on white. It may be because most everything else is black on white, so the adjustment on that tab to the reverse takes my eyes a few seconds.
    I would like to keep the entire dictionary on one page but I'll look into some sort of minimization effect, I do like that idea but I also like the idea of people being able to find words they may not have been looking for or know about.

    As for the color of the text on black, it's actually gray right now as white was too difficult to read. I'd like to avoid the standard white backgroundw ith black text but I think you're right that I do need to find a way to make it work a little better.

  • #9
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    ****

    Just discovered an issue with the news box on IE7..

  • #10
    New to the CF scene
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    The only thing that really bugs me is the banner, it just seems too "busy". All of the words in the background get in the way of reading the actual title, which is usually a bad thing for a first impression (trust me, I speak from experience).

    You won't believe how many people enter/leave a website simply by judging a design.

  • #11
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Cynical Eric View Post
    The only thing that really bugs me is the banner, it just seems too "busy". All of the words in the background get in the way of reading the actual title, which is usually a bad thing for a first impression (trust me, I speak from experience).

    You won't believe how many people enter/leave a website simply by judging a design.
    Even in context?

  • #12
    Master Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,682
    Thanks
    436
    Thanked 890 Times in 879 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tspek View Post
    http://www.thephotodictionary.com

    Lay it on me folks.

    *ignore the 404's*
    - you have a error in css:

    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...tionary.com%2F

    - using transitional for new sites is not a good idea because is "transitional",
    - missing meta, no description, keywords
    - I read the "ignore the 404's" from your post but I think is better to do something with it since you will always have some links to missing word inside definitions.

    I like both your idea and how it look, congratulation,

    best regards

  • #13
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    190
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by oesxyl View Post
    - you have a error in css:

    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...tionary.com%2F

    - using transitional for new sites is not a good idea because is "transitional",
    - missing meta, no description, keywords
    - I read the "ignore the 404's" from your post but I think is better to do something with it since you will always have some links to missing word inside definitions.

    I like both your idea and how it look, congratulation,

    best regards
    I built the site with a template a while ago and then decided to redesign it, those 404's are going somewhere, I just have to get all the content back up in the next day or two.


  •  

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •