Re: Sneak Peek of Improved UFTWWWP.

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Samuel Reynolds wrote:

> Siefert wrote:
>
> >	I've been playing around with Paint Shop Pro and my HTML editor
to
> >improve the look of the UFTWWWP.
>  
> Ummm... Looks like I'm in the minority around here.

it seems we are. i have held my tongue, but as usual will now produce an
overlong rant. the appearance of "paint shop pro", "html editor" and
"improve the look" in such close proximity can usually only mean one
thing
- another once-fine page is about to die under a hail of graphic design.

> <curmudgeon>
> Let's see...
> Same links to same content. Good.

yes, good.

> More graphics...now takes 50% longer to load. Bad.

ah, but do the graphics add substantially to the page, thus justifying
their addition? no, they don't. a lot of them are little pictures which
contain nothing but text. am i missing something here?

> Drop shadows make the text hard to read. Bad.

makes no difference to me, but again, it's unnecessary. it's a style
choice.

> More of that &@#% font. Bad.
> Entry page *3 screens long* (640x480). Bad.

one and a half even on ridiculous resolution.

> A good start on a redesign would be to drop the background
> and switch to black text on a white background.

i'd say default text on a default background, which usually does the
same
thing, but allows for people who have set their browsers up strangely
for
whatever reason.

> It's a nice
> picture, but white on black is hard to read, and white on
irregular-blue-purple-and-black is harder. You need to decide
> whether the purpose of the site is artistic display or
> communication.

wise words.

> </curmudgeon>

ha!

Tom