Carolyn Jones — Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:30:00 +0000

Hi there Philip,
I love the look of your site, the colors/shapes.
Fun fonts, but the top writing is not very clear.
Not sure how I feel about the green at the bottom yet
Everything else has already been mentioned.
I think you've done a very nice job and created a very unique looking site.

take care,
Carolyn

----------
Asymmetric Designs, unique designs for contemporary minds
http://asymmetric.hypermart.net/sitedesign.html

JP Stones — Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:06:00 +0000

I like it, nice use of colours.
The font you use for the graphics is not to my taste, too spidery and hard to read.

The 'Live!' text should be the same bodeaux red as the rest of the page.

The J circle is a bit rough around the edges.
JP

----------
The Webmaster Promotion and Resource Center.
Visit: http://www.what-next.com

Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:20:00 +0000

Ooohhh, very nice. I do agree that a rollover for the menu bar would be cool. I think the buttons on the bottom look fine (hey I'm a OD moderator too). Keep up the good work!

----------
FireBurn Web Publishing - www.fireburn.com
Low cost web design and graphic design.

dyc — Mon, 02 Aug 1999 19:44:00 +0000

Very nice site. The mood & colours are very consistent, and the colours are very nice too.

Of course, you want criticism, so:

- Yes, rollovers. They would fit perfectly with the playful mood of the site.

- Buttons at the bottom (ODP, PHP, MySQL) seem pointless to me. Also, your site talks about how the software and server are Java; where does PHP come into it? And MySQL for chat? (I guess for user registration info)

- While the font used for the side navigation is good, blown up and red at the top it doesn't look good - a little too pixelated, tough to read. Try a different font, or maybe smooth it out a little bit.

- Your changing adjective at the top isn't spaced properly with the other words, there's too big of a gap there. It seems petty, but it really does make a difference. I'm also not sure if I like the whole changing-adjective thing, but that's personal.

- You've got a DOCTYPE declaration on your page, but your page doesn't validate with that DTD (see http://validator.w3.org/ ). Most of the errors are trivial and theoretical (except for one, you've got a badly nested font tag), and there's not really anything wrong with having those "errors" in a site, but if you do you can't include a DOCTYPE declaration which says that your page is compliant with HTML 4.0 Transitional.

OK, I think that's about it.