nick wrote:
> nick wrote:
>> Deewiant wrote:
>>
>>>> ...suggestions...
>>> Other than that, the layout's quite good. <g>
>> Thank you for the constructive criticism.
> 
> I made some changes. Thoughs? Do you think it's good enough?
> 
> http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
> 
> 

Looks like a better use of space. Perhaps the "D" in "D programming" could be a scaled down version of the original?

-- 
Kyle Furlong // Physics Undergrad, UCSB

"D is going wherever the D community wants it to go." - Walter Bright

Deewiant wrote:
> nick wrote:
>> nick wrote:
>>> Deewiant wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ...suggestions...
>>>> Other than that, the layout's quite good. <g>
>>> Thank you for the constructive criticism.
>> I made some changes. Thoughs? Do you think it's good enough?
>>
>> http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html

> The stuff in the footer (Home, News, Products, About, Contact, And other things that belong at the bottom) doesn't show up too well, I almost missed them completely. The black background is too dark IMO.
The stuff in the footer would ideally be legal B.S. and such that you don't want distracting the user anyway; the mock content is a big misleading. The Home, News, Products would ideally be a duplicate of the real nav menu, so it would be OK to miss it. I could kick up the contrast though.

> Still doesn't validate. Too bad about IE's box model.
Haven't done that bit yet.

> Without images, the visited links in the top menu (the tabs) have too little contrast against the dark background. I'd suggest changing their background-color as well as background-url.
Ah... interesting point. I thought I made the visited links the same color as regular links.

> Every other CSS class/id actually has meaning except for the two in the new title: class="bright" and class="dark". It's so rare to find a site that actually does this correctly that I'd really like to have it done: just rename them to something like "title_d" and "title_prog" or whatever, I think you know what I mean.
Yup Yup, that was incorrect naming on my part.

> That title should be a <h1> instead of a <div>. Slap on display:block and it should work the same, but the page will be more semantically correct.
K, I'll try that.

> I'm not sure if this is of much importance any longer, but the page is a bit too wide for an 800x600 resolution, at least with the default font styles - one can always make fonts smaller to make it fit better, but it might still be annoying. The minimum viewport width to display the page in Firefox without a horizontal scrollbar seems to be 896 pixels.
Easy to fix; I'll just take away a couple EMs from the body width.

Again, thanks for the input. I'll try to fix all that later tonight.

nick wrote:
> Ah... interesting point. I thought I made the visited links the same color as regular links.

This is considered bad design: visited links are incorporated into browsers for a reason.

If you meant only the menu, instead of site-wide, then I'd say that's OK, though: I find it only really matters when you have in-text links with differing text but the same target location.

True purists would probably still whine, but even I draw the line somewhere. <g>

> Again, thanks for the input. I'll try to fix all that later tonight.

Not a problem.

By the way, if you need help with anything, feel free to ask; you seem to be doing fine by yourself, so I'm craftily using you to fix the site's design to my own specifications <g>, but if you have any ideas of your own that you have problems with or whatever, I can mess around with the template as well.

What browsers are you testing with?

"Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e3fekb$6d9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Looks like a better use of space. Perhaps the "D" in "D programming" could be a scaled down version of the original?

I like that idea.  Having the red D on there made it look a bit more interesting.  I've always been fond of grey-and-red color schemes ;)

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Kyle Furlong" <kylefurlong@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e3fekb$6d9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Looks like a better use of space. Perhaps the "D" in "D programming" could be a scaled down version of the original?
> 
> I like that idea.  Having the red D on there made it look a bit more interesting.  I've always been fond of grey-and-red color schemes ;)
> 
> 
I liked it too. Perhaps it's OK to have that header for the front page, and then reduce it for the subsequent pages.

I liked the watermarks and inspired myself to use them on my own blog (http://albet.blogdns.com) I hope you don't mind me using your idea, if it bothers you, I'll remove them.

Regards,
Alberto Simón

"nick" <nick.atamas@gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje news:e3fq3v$19cl$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Deewiant wrote:
>> nick wrote:
>>> nick wrote:
>>>> Deewiant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ...suggestions...
>>>>> Other than that, the layout's quite good. <g>
>>>> Thank you for the constructive criticism.
>>> I made some changes. Thoughs? Do you think it's good enough?
>>>
>>> http://hcoop.net/~natamas/d/template.html
>
>> The stuff in the footer (Home, News, Products, About, Contact, And other
>> things
>> that belong at the bottom) doesn't show up too well, I almost missed them
>> completely. The black background is too dark IMO.
> The stuff in the footer would ideally be legal B.S. and such that you don't want distracting the user anyway; the mock content is a big misleading. The Home, News, Products would ideally be a duplicate of the real nav menu, so it would be OK to miss it. I could kick up the contrast though.
>
>> Still doesn't validate. Too bad about IE's box model.
> Haven't done that bit yet.
>
>> Without images, the visited links in the top menu (the tabs) have too
>> little
>> contrast against the dark background. I'd suggest changing their
>> background-color as well as background-url.
> Ah... interesting point. I thought I made the visited links the same color as regular links.
>
>> Every other CSS class/id actually has meaning except for the two in the
>> new
>> title: class="bright" and class="dark". It's so rare to find a site that
>> actually does this correctly that I'd really like to have it done: just
>> rename
>> them to something like "title_d" and "title_prog" or whatever, I think
>> you know
>> what I mean.
> Yup Yup, that was incorrect naming on my part.
>
>> That title should be a <h1> instead of a <div>. Slap on display:block and
>> it
>> should work the same, but the page will be more semantically correct.
> K, I'll try that.
>
>> I'm not sure if this is of much importance any longer, but the page is a
>> bit too
>> wide for an 800x600 resolution, at least with the default font styles -
>> one can
>> always make fonts smaller to make it fit better, but it might still be
>> annoying.
>> The minimum viewport width to display the page in Firefox without a
>> horizontal
>> scrollbar seems to be 896 pixels.
> Easy to fix; I'll just take away a couple EMs from the body width.
>
> Again, thanks for the input. I'll try to fix all that later tonight.

Alberto Simon wrote:
> I liked the watermarks and inspired myself to use them on my own blog (http://albet.blogdns.com) I hope you don't mind me using your idea, if it bothers you, I'll remove them.
> 
> Regards,
> Alberto Simón

I assume you are referring to the ", the d and the c++ "watermarks" for the code and quotes.

I didn't invent the watermark, but feel free to use them. =)

> 
> I mostly agree, and where I do, I agree very emphatically.
> 
> The only point I disagree with is 3... A better D-man would be nice (sorry
> Walter) but changing the name is a bad idea.  The name "D" has already made
> significant inroads (see TPCI) and we don't want to loose that.
> 

To change the name now is not too late and I also think it should be done before the language goes commercial.

D sounds nice but not very convincing. Especially "The D Programming language" when googling... Try typing in google.com "Java", "Visual Basic", "C++", "Ruby", "Python", "Eiffel" and you might feel the difference! The Difference!!!

Think once more, please, before regecting the idea. A successful name would be unique enough and noticable.