New Spring site design, I need your feedback.

pktm · Post by **pktm** » 23 Aug 2007, 11:40

Looks cool!

A few things:
- is it conform to any standard?
- does it uses css (would be usefull for bandwith saving as someone already mentioned)
- whats with colorblin dpeaople and such (I don't know the exact word for it)? will they be able to read your site?

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 23 Aug 2007, 16:13

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/882/ ... 333qz7.jpg
He totally knows the best maps ever made

- whats with colorblind people and such (I don't know the exact word for it)? will they be able to read your site?

I have some colorblindness, and i can read that very well.

I like that layout.

malric · Post by **malric** » 23 Aug 2007, 16:53

I think it is just an image - there is no HTML/CSS for it yet.

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 23 Aug 2007, 17:08

malric wrote:I think it is just an image - there is no HTML/CSS for it yet.

OMG YES, how did you know that?!?

Forboding Angel · Post by **Forboding Angel** » 23 Aug 2007, 17:48

Appearently the extention failed to properly give it away...

Roflcopter · Post by **Roflcopter** » 23 Aug 2007, 18:34

Hay guys

cong06 wrote:um. only the "SPRiNG" looks ugly. everything else is great. (comparing newspring.clan-sy.com and the picture)

Yea, I felt like something was wrong there but for now the logo isn't the most important matter to fix.

Tim,
I'm not a very big fan of scaling, a fixed width can work way better and I don't feel like changing that for now. What I can do is fixing it for a resolution of 1024x768 instead of 800x600.

The Top Maps and Mods and the Latest posts thingies were just an idea we can explore, i'd like the page being nearer to the lobby and community in general.
Being bandwith conservative was already in my mind; it's as important as a nice layout.

And I'm doing some of that stuff in HTML already mainly becasue I found an unfinished layout which was pretty similar to the pictured one.

Oh yes, about the colorblind people, if there's any important issue about that make me know.

malric wrote: I think it is just an image - there is no HTML/CSS for it yet.

Yes, there is now.

cong06 · Post by **cong06** » 23 Aug 2007, 18:38

Roflcopter wrote:I'm not a very big fan of scaling, a fixed width can work way better and I don't feel like changing that for now. What I can do is fixing it for a resolution of 1024x768 instead of 800x600.

I'm gonna agree...Tim, you say that the Fixed width is important to fix for the current site, and I don't quite agree with that. The problem with the current site is it in general doesn't look like a gaming community/site, but more of a Programming community/site.

I think even with fixed boarders this can work, and Roflcopter's picture is proof. I'm stuck at 800x600 as I type this post, so I may be less inclined to go with 1024x768(as opposed to 800x600), but I think more people will be satisfied with 1024x768 in general.

just my 2 cents.

Relative · Post by **Relative** » 23 Aug 2007, 18:39

This site has really come a long way.

pktm · Post by **pktm** » 23 Aug 2007, 18:40

[quote="TradeMark"][quote="malric"]I think it is just an image - there is no HTML/CSS for it yet.[/quote]
OMG YES, how did you know that?!?[/quote]

Let me guess, because it's an image?
However, we should consider doing it the right way :)

pktm · Post by **pktm** » 23 Aug 2007, 18:41

[quote="cong06"][quote="Roflcopter"]I'm not a very big fan of scaling, a fixed width can work way better and I don't feel like changing that for now. What I can do is fixing it for a resolution of 1024x768 instead of 800x600. :wink:
[/quote]
I'm gonna agree...Tim, you say that the Fixed width is important to fix for the current site, and I don't quite agree with that. The problem with the current site is it in general doesn't look like a gaming community/site, but more of a Programming community/site.

I think even with fixed boarders this can work, and Roflcopter's picture is proof. I'm stuck at 800x600 as I type this post, so I may be less inclined to go with 1024x768(as opposed to 800x600), but I think more people will be satisfied with 1024x768 in general.

just my 2 cents.[/quote]

Oh yes, I ould prefer the 1024x768 resolution, as a design in 800x600 looks very small on 1680x1050.

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 23 Aug 2007, 19:21

pktm wrote:Oh yes, I ould prefer the 1024x768 resolution, as a design in 800x600 looks very small on 1680x1050.

Very yes.

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 24 Aug 2007, 00:58

Peet wrote:
pktm wrote:Oh yes, I ould prefer the 1024x768 resolution, as a design in 800x600 looks very small on 1680x1050.
Very yes.

My point, and I have two in a dual screen setup 3360x1050.

Scaling fixes this for all people, fixed width (at any resolution) is not going to happen with my help. (as in I'm not going to spend my time implementing a fix width site)
But you guy's are free to entertain the idea and I will read and maybe comment on it.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 24 Aug 2007, 04:13

TradeMark wrote:http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/882/ ... 333qz7.jpg
He totally knows the best maps ever made

- whats with colorblind people and such (I don't know the exact word for it)? will they be able to read your site?
I have some colorblindness, and i can read that very well.

I like that layout.

I like how he showcased my map and all.....

but, WHY IN THE SAM HELL IS EVERYTING ON THE BOTTOM SPEED#$@%^$$!@$#%$$%SHIT..... urgh...

irritating...

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 24 Aug 2007, 17:32

LathanStanley wrote:but, WHY IN THE SAM HELL IS EVERYTING ON THE BOTTOM SPEED#$@%^$$!@$#%$$%SHIT..... urgh...

Because speed balls are the best maps ever made...?

Peet · Post by **Peet** » 24 Aug 2007, 18:02

TradeMark wrote:
LathanStanley wrote:but, WHY IN THE SAM HELL IS EVERYTING ON THE BOTTOM SPEED#$@%^$$!@$#%$$%SHIT..... urgh...
Because speed balls are the best maps ever made...?

I lol'd.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 24 Aug 2007, 23:19

/me kicks trademark in the nuts

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 24 Aug 2007, 23:38

LathanStanley wrote:/me kicks trademark in the nuts

*balls

Roflcopter · Post by **Roflcopter** » 25 Aug 2007, 01:57

TradeMark wrote:
LathanStanley wrote:/me kicks trademark in the nuts
*speedballs

better.

And about the topic: okay, I'll modify it somehow to make it scale and I'll post it along with the fixed width versions. We will find out which one feels better in some days.

Post by **Tim Blokdijk** » 25 Aug 2007, 23:44

That's great, I'm sure you can make graphics that can scale, it's harder then a pixel perfect fixed layout but I have seen good looking scaling layouts.
Also know that I'm fine with partially transparent gradients in png files to allow blending when things scale in or out. IE6 won't support it but I personally limed support for IE6 to functionality only. (as in the site needs to "work correct" in IE6, graphic effects can be a bit off) So don't limed your design to accommodate a few people (17%) that can easily update to IE7 or Firefox.

TradeMark · Post by **TradeMark** » 25 Aug 2007, 23:54

omg no, i use IE6, i wont update to IE7. if you cant make site which looks same with all browsers, then you shouldnt be making sites at all.

We dont NEED transparent effects, it doesnt make the site any better, thats just excuse to despise IE users and tell them to move to another browsers.

Spring RTS Engine

New Spring site design, I need your feedback.