[Emporium]

hey i just finsihed my site and was looking for some feed-back. http://terraforming.cjb.net
It is my art site and i would really appreciate it if you took a few seconds to look at it.

Thank you

------------------
My Digital Reality
http://terraforming.cjb.net

[faustgfx]

the navigation images on the top and left are annoying to read. maybe a little bit of work on 'em?

also, the table graphics should be a little more contrasted/stronger, methinks.

other than that, it's neat.

will scan through the actual content later on....



------------------
http://www.faustgfx.com
icq#35983387
the owls damn sure aren't what they seem.

[Oscar Alexander]

Awesome! Texturing worked out really well... buttons on the left *might* be a bit too dark, but that adds to the overall look of the site. Oh, you did a great job ripping 3D Palette's links too

[Spitfire]

w00t! very, very impressive. Though im not much a fan of the rusty industrial type of interfaces. One question : does it work on low resolutions as well? Im on 1280x1024 and it appeared a bit crampy to me...

Other than that, kick ass!

/Spitfire

[Emporium]

If you have trouble reading the menu bar thats what the Quick links table is for (located on the index page, also the roll-overs might not have worked for you).

It "DID" work in other resolutions but to many problems where encountered.

thanks for the feed-back

------------------
My Digital Reality
http://terraforming.cjb.net

[Starman]

"did" must become "does"

tis very bad to have webpages that little
800-600 or worse 640 - 480 users can't view
for instance the TAFE computer i am on now............

other then that Faily good... but i agree with the other comments made in the post

[Emporium]

trust me i thought about it but basicly what is the point it is not a Gamming News site where you have 1000's of people a day visiting it. It is my personal art site which will only be frequented by people much like myself, and people with resolutions like 1600x1400

[Spitfire]

In all honesty.... -even- in the artworld you wont find many people running 1600x1400. At work im on a 19" and run 1280x1024. When making a website, no matter how limited the target audience, one should allways consider -at least- 1024x768. 800x600 isnt too important now most 'puters come with 17" screens and it also limits you, but optimizing a website for 1600x1400 is plain madness, pure and simple.

Just my 0,25 euro...

/Spit

[Nex]

Hi!
here's my 0,20 (a bit less..) Euro:

Pro:
* Cool style / design
* does not load too slow

Contra:
* Can't read buttons well

* If this site should be used to get work ie. attract employers a reqiured resolution of 1600x1400 is totally inacceptable.
This resolution is MAYBE used by the artists but not by the guy who gives them a job in his gaming or whatever company.

The most common resultution peolpe surf with is still 800x600 and 1024x768.

Tip:

to test this enter:

javascript:window.resizeTo(800,600)

into the (java enabled) browser in the Location bar.



------------------
- Nex

http://www.geocities.com/nexxus00/

[sfr]

I agree with Spitfire. I'm running 1280*960, but I keep my browser windows at about 800*600 and your site is much too wide. Or did you seriously think everyone uses maximized browser windows? I'd bet most people don't...

Saffron / Sunflower

[Emporium]

basicly it will run on 800x600 but not yet. What is the trouble with simply scrolling over anyway? For what is designed for 1024 is fine.

[Emporium]

oh i also forgot to mention that the site was originally designed for 800x600 but i had to change it becasue to many people requested a larger res. I am coding it specificly so it will fit in ANY browser size but when you drop below 80x600 some images start to get cut off. Happy now?

As i said before if you have trouble reading the buttons there is a simple quick nav for you.

Sheesah talk about a tough crowd.

[Emporium]

.

[Emporium]

hang on sorry. Testing something

[Emporium]

.

[Emporium]

ahhhhh stuff it.