nasanu — Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:26:22 +0000

Ok updated. I think I am getting close to something final here.

BTW sorry for only having a mockup at this stage (the html will be exactly the same), but there is a lot riding on this site for me and I want to get it right.

shugotenshi — Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:04:31 +0000

I see what you're getting at. A very simplistic/non cluttered site...at least I think. Yeah, it's hard to really grasp it if it's only a mock up.

fiesty_01 — Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:07:38 +0000

I think Internet Explorer is by far the most popular version in the U.S., if I'm not mistaken. MSNtv (used to be called WebTV) is mainly an entertainment-type setup for surfing the net, sending/receiving e-mail, and using MSN messenger.

I'm sure quite a few sites on the net have been made (and are being made ) on the MSNtv system, but I don't think too many people with the system are trying to make cross-compatible sites, which is what I'm trying to do.

One problem, however, is the screen resolution. I can make a site that looks great on a TV screen, but on a computer screen with a resolution of over 1,000 everything gets stretched out quite a bit. BUT, I'm about to get these percentage-width things down (I think). HOWEVER, when the percentages are changed to fit a larger computer screen, the site no longer looks as good on the TV screen, so it's basically a trade-off.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the population of MSNtv in the U.S. is probably somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000. IE browsers on actual computers are, I would think, possibly around 100-150 times more popular. Actually, though, this system (MSNtv) uses IE, but an older version . . . it's up to version 2.8 now, after several "free" upgrades over the last couple of years, LoL.

nasanu — Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:37:06 +0000

Hey thanks, I'll try to take the advice on board.

BTW is webTV wide spread in the US? My site is going to be for the australia market only so I dont have to worry about it for this site, but I'd like know anyway.

BTW everything is quite readable on a PC screen, but in the final version I think I might make a low res version.

fiesty_01 — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:42:17 +0000

I like the logo, too.

The text just under the logo is just barely readable to me (what is that word before development?), and the nav items are so small that they are unreadable (MSNtv with a 25" TV screen). Might be different on a computer screen (?).

The numbers beside the nav items add a nice touch (sort of looks computer- or binary-like, IMO), but it looks like it could use just a bit more space between each number and each nav item . . . maybe just 1 or 2 extra spaces. Or, perhaps a bit more differentiation would help them some. For example, bold links with the numbers not being bold.

Don't know about the different font sizes, but my eyes seemed to like seeing them.

Megan — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:23:20 +0000

I agree about the logo. The only problem with the rest of the design is that IMO there's too much variation in font sizes. I think those should be consolidated a little bit (the "01" size, the "menu" text, the nav items and the nubers next to them - all are different sizes and it looks rather incoherent). I also don't understand what the purpose of the numbers is.

Otherwise there's not much to say. A nice clean, stark layout. I like it, and I also like the pink in the logo - not a common colour, so it stands out.

Honest Opinion

dbaldwin — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:57:11 +0000

I think your logo is professional, and personally I like it. Where will you display the content on your pages? I think it looks more professional to have your links in the same place for each page. It avoids confusing the users.

hostito — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:01:42 +0000

Your site looks nice It reminds me of some of the design shops in SF. The numbers specially. It would be nice to test the site around. If the text is the final text, I would reconsider using casual talk, as it can sometimes seem like you are young or new.

HTH

The Webmistress — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:51:10 +0000

I always find it very hard to critique sites when they are just a jpg as you can't tell how links will work, rollovers etc and how it will expand or not to fit different sized screens.

Do you have a working version online we can look at?