Missy Posted December 3, 2005 Report Share Posted December 3, 2005 From the new mainpage: Welcome to the newly designed Earth-2.net. While some elements have remained unchanged (i.e. the layout of the reviews and archives), everything else has received a facelift. As you can see, the navigation bar is no longer up top — but on the left. Both it and the "latest five items" box are now black. The header sports rotating images (refresh the page to see them), most of which allow the Earth-2 logo to "pop" off the page. (More images, especially those featuring DC Comics and video game characters, will come soon.) The biggest change, however, is this very page. Like it? As it is now, only the five most recent items line the screen; eventually it will grow to 10. Just give it time. Make sure to refresh this and other pages, otherwise old / cached images may linger — thus ruining the new design. (It may take several tries.) I hope this new layout is well-received. After several attempts, the site is finally coming together just as I initially imagined. If you have any comments about the updated look and / or if there are any errors, please e-mail me. Michael David Sims 03 December 2005 PS The "info boxes" (as I call them) are still white despite being on the left with the now-black navigation bar and recent items. The reason for this is because they're part of each review, and so they should have the same color scheme. (An added benefit is that your eyes are drawn to those stark white boxes now that they're hovering above the contrasting black ones.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted December 3, 2005 Report Share Posted December 3, 2005 I love the rotating banners. Nice touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Molinero Posted December 3, 2005 Report Share Posted December 3, 2005 Neat-a-riffic! I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drqshadow Posted December 6, 2005 Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 Very nice improvement, although I'd like to see the title of each main page story / download also click through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted December 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2005 I'm not sure I know what you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drqshadow Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 I'm not sure I know what you mean. The titles of the posts, for instance, "100 Words: 001" and "Earth-2.net: The Show — Quickie 01," should probably click through to the posts themselves and stand out as headlines somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted December 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Ah! I always assumed everyone knew the image was the link. But I see what you mean. And it's actually "> 100 Words" (as in "less than"). That's not an html error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drqshadow Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Ah! I always assumed everyone knew the image was the link. But I see what you mean. And it's actually "> 100 Words" (as in "less than"). That's not an html error. Yeah, it's fairly evident after you've been around the site for a couple of visits, but when it comes to usability you want to shoot for the lowest common denominator. Wouldn't "< 100 Words" be "less than 100 words"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted December 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Wouldn't "< 100 Words" be "less than 100 words"? Truth be told, I was wondering about that too. I was taught that the point, well, points at the smaller of the two items. (Or that the wide end "eats" the larger number.) So I figured "> 100 Words" was correct. But I could be way off. Can someone please give me a definitive answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James D. Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Wouldn't "< 100 Words" be "less than 100 words"? Truth be told, I was wondering about that too. I was taught that the point, well, points at the smaller of the two items. (Or that the wide end "eats" the larger number.) So I figured "> 100 Words" was correct. But I could be way off. Can someone please give me a definitive answer? Quite simply, it's the sign, and the sign only, that determines whether or not you say "greater than" or "less than". "> 100 Words" = "Greater than 100 Words" "< 100 Words" = "Less than 100 Words" I'm 100% positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted December 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Thank you very much. It has been changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.