Please let me know what you think

"JDS" <jeffrey (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 20:03:17 -0700, Stan McCann wrote:

I thought so. I'm no artist and I was trying to be too artistic
before. This one keeps it simple.

I think it looks horrid. Simple is good, but simple can also *look* good.
Of course, I realize quite well that "looks good" is very subjective. Hey,
I just found a very simple site that I think actually "looks good", just
by way of example:

http://darwinports.org/

That site is about as simple as yours but the colors work together, the
layout works, etc. I'm sure someone else will disagree.
Both sites use serif fonts. DarwinPorts is somewhat better, but the text is

difficult to read and unbalanced on the page. I strongly suggest that
SureCann use Verdana or another common sans-serif typestyle for easier
reading and a more modern look.

I also agree that the color scheme on SureCann simply does not work, nor
does it look professional. If you're using this site to get web design jobs,
then I wouldn't expect many to come your way. You don't need to use Flash
or anything too exotic, but reconsider your color choices, use some CSS
style work on your link menu and put in a proper footer.

I don't want to be too critical, but my first impression when I saw this
site was that this was a first attempt by a new Frontpage user. But when I
looked at the source code, I could see that you used external CSS style
sheets to set up your presentation. That's great - you're over the first
big hurdle. Perhaps you need to go check out some of the design ideas at
http://www.oswd.org/ and get a fresh outlook on the design process.

If you're going to do this as a bizness, or at least a money-making hobby,
then do yourself a favor and try to find some really good looking sites that
will help you generate some fresh ideas about color and text layout.

I think the thing I like least about your site is the color choices,
especially the mauve highlights. uck.

Just my $0.02

--
JDS | jeffrey (AT) go (DOT) away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

In article <WmWug.2364$Gv.538@fed1read09>,
"John Hoyle" <just2busy (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Both sites use serif fonts. DarwinPorts is somewhat better, but the text is
difficult to read and unbalanced on the page. I strongly suggest that
SureCann use Verdana or another common sans-serif typestyle for easier
reading and a more modern look.

And a good reason not to use Verdana
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>, although I
agree with the sans-serif recommendation.
I still use Verdana as a preferred font on sites I've done, but I won't
in the future.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>

On 2006-07-18, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:

In article <WmWug.2364$Gv.538@fed1read09>,
"John Hoyle" <just2busy (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Both sites use serif fonts. DarwinPorts is somewhat better, but the text is
difficult to read and unbalanced on the page. I strongly suggest that
SureCann use Verdana or another common sans-serif typestyle for easier
reading and a more modern look.

And a good reason not to use Verdana
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>, although I
agree with the sans-serif recommendation.
I still use Verdana as a preferred font on sites I've done, but I won't
in the future.

Well, you should.

The arguments against Vardana are mostly arguments against
fixed-size fonts. There is nothing wrong with Verdana itself.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2006-07-18, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
In article <WmWug.2364$Gv.538@fed1read09>,
"John Hoyle" <just2busy (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Both sites use serif fonts. DarwinPorts is somewhat better, but the
text is difficult to read and unbalanced on the page. I strongly
suggest that SureCann use Verdana or another common sans-serif
typestyle for easier reading and a more modern look.

And a good reason not to use Verdana
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>, although I
agree with the sans-serif recommendation. I still use Verdana as a
preferred font on sites I've done, but I won't in the future.

Well, you should.

The arguments against Vardana are mostly arguments against fixed-size
fonts. There is nothing wrong with Verdana itself.

...so long as you don't assign a smaller base font size. <g>

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

On 2006-07-23, Stan McCann wrote:

Please take a look at my latest project (http://FamousPhone.com/) in my
next post.

<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/web/examples/FamousPhone.jpg>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote in
news:Y66vg.414507$Fs1.395747 (AT) bgtnsc05-news (DOT) ops.worldnet.att.net:

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2006-07-18, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
In article <WmWug.2364$Gv.538@fed1read09>,
"John Hoyle" <just2busy (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Both sites use serif fonts. DarwinPorts is somewhat better, but
the text is difficult to read and unbalanced on the page. I
strongly suggest that SureCann use Verdana or another common
sans-serif typestyle for easier reading and a more modern look.

Good points made with regards to this by you and others; I'll use the
san-serif as the last resort font, currently, I have some with serif as
last resort.

And a good reason not to use Verdana
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html>, although
I agree with the sans-serif recommendation. I still use Verdana as
a preferred font on sites I've done, but I won't in the future.

Well, you should.

The arguments against Vardana are mostly arguments against
fixed-size fonts. There is nothing wrong with Verdana itself.

..so long as you don't assign a smaller base font size. <g

Thanks to all, for the comments; each and every one is under
consideration. Some may be implemented or modified first, then
implemented. Some may be disposed of for one reason or another.

Please take a look at my latest project (http://FamousPhone.com/) in my
next post.

Check out my vvvvvvv new sig too!
--
Stan McCann, RETIRED!!, "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/
Implementing negative score for googlegroup postings, see
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html A zest for living must include a
willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in news:vc3bp3-qck.ln1
@xword.teksavvy.com:

http://cfaj.freeshell.org/web/examples/FamousPhone.jpg

That's what I get for tweaking the layout after asking for a critique.
Thanks, I think that issue is fixed now.

--
Stan McCann, RETIRED!!, "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/
Implementing negative score for googlegroup postings, see
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:44:19 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

The arguments against Vardana are mostly arguments against fixed-size
fonts. There is nothing wrong with Verdana itself.

Could you give me an example of a variable-size font?

The problem with Verdana is its unusually large 'x-height'. Specifying
any font with unusual properties can lead to problems when it must be
substituted.

TTFN,
--
Ben Measures
$email =~ s/is@silly/@/

On 2006-07-25, Ben Measures wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:44:19 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

The arguments against Vardana are mostly arguments against fixed-size
fonts. There is nothing wrong with Verdana itself.

Could you give me an example of a variable-size font?

All of them, when used properly.

The problem with Verdana is its unusually large 'x-height'. Specifying
any font with unusual properties can lead to problems when it must be
substituted.

It's not a problem unless you are specifying fonts by px.

Besides, there is a far greater difference in X-height between
Times and Helvetica than between Helvetica and Verdana:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/web/examples/test.shtml>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:19:35 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2006-07-25, Ben Measures wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:44:19 -0400, Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

The arguments against Vardana are mostly arguments against fixed-size
fonts. There is nothing wrong with Verdana itself.

Could you give me an example of a variable-size font?

All of them, when used properly.

Perhaps you mean a 'fixed-sized' font to mean a font 'sized absolutely'?
Thus a 'variable-sized' font is one 'sized relatively'?

The problem with Verdana is its unusually large 'x-height'. Specifying
any font with unusual properties can lead to problems when it must be
substituted.

It's not a problem unless you are specifying fonts by px.

More important than font-size to legibility is x-height[1]. Thus it's a
problem whenever you specify a font-size, regardless of whether the unit
used is relative or absolute. Btw, 'em' is a relative unit, as is 'px'[2].

Besides, there is a far greater difference in X-height between
Times and Helvetica than between Helvetica and Verdana:
http://cfaj.freeshell.org/web/examples/test.shtml

There is something wrong with the rendering of Times on your system. It's
certainly not the same font-size as the others (check if the 'W's are the
same height).

A better resource is "Tools: Aspect values, x-widths for fonts"
<http://www.webspaceworks.com/resources/cat/devtools/43/>. It gives the
aspect values of Times, Helvetica and Verdana as 0.45, 0.52 and 0.55
(respectively).


[1] "Because over 95% of the letters we read are lowercase, larger
letter proportions usually result in a more legible typeface."
- Excerpt from It's About Legibility
<http://www.fonts.com/AboutFonts/Articles/Typography/Legibility.htm>

[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-length>

HAND,
--
Ben Measures
$email =~ s/is@silly/@/