[ros-web] Front page
mikko.tikkanen at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 00:40:27 CEST 2005
On 6/15/05, Kevin Hunter <hunteke at earlham.edu> wrote:
> > First of all, you're violating one important rule; You should never
> > ever have more than three colours at your design. Nor more that three
> > fonts. Anything more and it looks like it's just been thrown together.
> > Already at the banner area you have tinted blue, pure blue and cyan.
> Can you suggest a way to fix what you don't like? I will be the first
> to admit that I don't design web pages everyday -- rather, I just look
> at 'em. But the images that jh is sending don't strike me as bad.
> Perhaps you can point us to an example of a web page or site that fits
> your bill?
Everything just seems to be on different hue. I'm counting 8 hues.
Everything from heavily saturated blue, to cyan, purple, yellow,
couple of different hues of grey and tinted blue.
Or you could just experience yourself...
I typed three url's, that came first to my mind: microsoft.com,
apple.com and mozilla.org
The basic functionality never uses more than three different colors.
Now it's quite impossible to predetermine when two different colors
actually are different colors or just hues.. Your eye should be able
to tell the difference, close enough.
Besides, something that I forgot to say, I don't know why, I just did...
You shoud avoid saturated colors on layouts at all costs. Saturated
colors tire your eye(s), which is something we don't want to do.
> > Second of all, why the button-like headers (at the right)? That just
> > confuses people thinking that they are buttons, i.e. do something
> > related to form posting.
> Perhaps you're looking at the first image he sent? In the latter images
> the button-like colors and border have been changed, and to my eye, that
> is used to seeing a button as gray and 3d looking, these aren't buttons.
> If you are looking at the later images, what do you suggest?
I'd suggest giving up the button look-a-likes. Too heavy elements for
> > Third, why did you put the logo partially out from the page? It's good
> > to break straight lines but the logo should always be completely
> > visible. Specially since there is nothing more in the banner. Which
> > leads us to next part...
> I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the logo is
> partially cut off at the top? The amount of it that is cut off is
> minimal at worst. Why must it be *completely* shown?
If you're photographing a human, why the head should always be
completely visible? Because it is the most important part of human and
it is the first spot we focus on.
> > The banner is unbalanced. Everything is crammed to left side, leaving
> > the right-hand side completely devoid of anything.
> What would look better? Should he put another image on the right, with
> filler in between? Should he center the image?
> Hey, I don't want to start a feud, nor do I want to step over any
> boundaries, but may I suggest that when commenting on someone else's
> work, that rather than mere criticism, perhaps we could also suggest
> something different, and/or talk about parts that we like. Presenting
> material for scrutiny isn't the easiest of tasks for most humans. (At
> least this human, and his two closest friend! :-) )
Sounds easy, doesn't it. But actually try it. You have to actually
_try_ which fits the layout and how it should be applied. Of course
you can tell some basic rules but basically you have to try it
yourself. You just can't _tell_ what looks good beforehand. You might
start with an idea which you think is excellent and it just ends up
being crap. If I'd have to make try-out on every suggestion every time
I'd end up doing whole layout over.
That's the way it is done. You show your work to someone and that
someone tells you what doesn't fit. If he/she isn't your
mentor/teacher/mom he/she doesn't tell you what to do.
More information about the Ros-web