demonhale — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:52:25 +0000

vibins wrote: Your new site is better structured but now its lost all the fun its not showing off your graphics skills its very plain and i think you can do alot better with the graphics just dont go over the top.

Thanks Again Vibs, Now Im getting a bit confused, Try more things soon based on suggestions.

Next I thank the people who have helped so far on my usability and graphic issues.

For those having Questions with my code.... I assure you theres nothing Invalid with my raw code, ive uploaded my raw file in w3c validator and it completely validates....
The only problems that I did was I hacked some codes for tripod...
before body then the dynamic links on my href's... Its not a matter of bragging rights I put those icons there... I advocate standardization thats why Im exposing these validations to visitors... Im not misleading them coz I can show them that the code validates....

demonhale — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:45:50 +0000

wwwben wrote: I like the top lcd thingy on the site and the background. If every page on the net looked the same it would be a boring internet if you asked me.
Variety is the spice of life!!

Thanks Ben... Well I tried another Scheme

vibins — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:30:07 +0000

Your new site is better structured but now its lost all the fun its not showing off your graphics skills its very plain and i think you can do alot better with the graphics just dont go over the top.

Neutron2k — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 09:48:39 +0000

demonhale wrote: If you read my original post I said quit checking down my validations, Ill tell you why....

If you dont wnt people to check your validations, dont put the w3c images on the page lol. By doing that your inviting people to validate your code. On that subject not all of the invalid code is thrown in by the ads. Some of it is yours to.

I apologise for making a comment on your validations and trying to offer advice to help u, but i never read the entire thread before posting a message. I normaly read the last few messages in a thread as the topic can change repeatedly through a post. People dont always have time to read 3 pages of posts before writing a reply.

wwwben — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 04:09:17 +0000

This new look is good also .. but your logo in red at the top..the edges are very unclean, or is it meant to be this way?

demonhale — Mon, 01 Aug 2005 03:01:02 +0000

Anyone Else.... Pls...

chicgeek — Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:59:58 +0000

Good stuff! Keep us posted.

demonhale — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:13:12 +0000

Well actually I am planning to split the texts down to fit the page in regular window-size view, I just kinda been lazy splitting up and relinking the pages...
I really appreciate your comments laura, Thanks...
Once I get the look fine, I'll go down to pages...

chicgeek — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:16:16 +0000

demonhale wrote: Sorry for my Persistence but since youve helped giving me ideas on this one, heres a new version of almost the same page...

Please Review...

http://demonhale.tripod.com/template2.html

Thanks

In many degrees it is better with the switch to the simpler and less-distracting background. It is a excellent start. For one, it's much easier to read! You have selected black text on white with orange/red/brown highlights, and it works well. I would reccomend switching the blue text to a less obtrusive/important grey and possibly reducing the font size. The menu and newsbar are too strong with black backgrounds, though.It would be nice if you could emulate the background image(s) and the greys and whites while using your colour palette for some hover highlights. The red is too bright.

I think your next step should be to pare down the content. It doesn't mean discarding content if you would like to keep it (though, I would suggest it to some degree), but you should definitely section off what is REALLY important on your main page. I think anything from the IFRAME down should be on at least two pages - IFRAME displayed with other tricks on a capabilities page, and a page about services (history, how we work, etc.). The "demonhale™ is a Web and Graphics Design Company under the alternate name of CHRYMO™." section is a... somewhat functional mission statement and should not be hidden below all that neccessary definition text. If you wish to have the definitions, then consider putting it as a quirk in a side column or at the bottom?

You should really plan out your pages in smaller sections. This is an example of some of the planning for fomsc.ca. I'm not saying "my way or the highway", but it is one way to make a webpage oraganizationally attractive to its viewers.

Extreme — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:01:27 +0000

I like the simplicity. Its good but the header there is not centered. I would like to say that you center the header and use other color combination rather then red and black.