still more fiddling with the website

[julesjones]

The main page:
http://www.julesjones.com/main.html

and the index page for the fiction section:
http://www.julesjones.com/fiction/fiction.html

Are they horribly broken? If this CSS looks sane, I'll finish the edits on the new L&M short story, and put together the story's page for uploading this weekend (assuming that Other Half doesn't insist on dragging me into the big room with the blue ceiling all day).

Comments

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

First impression: it's too white. Please consider a slightly tinted background; they're easier on the eye when you have a lot of empty screen space and few strong graphics.

Second: I'd make the links slightly bolder so they'll stand out more, otherwise they're fine. The first screenful of the homepage is fine - but the page itself is too long, and too rambling. One bit of text runs into the next, with lots of links. I find the light blue difficult to read, and links in red scream 'I already read this', because that's the usual convention - blue for unread, red for read. If you want all of that stuff on your front page (I'd put the contact stuff on a contact page, and teh current news on a seperate page as well) then please consider using graphics to separate them. As it is, it's too dense and my eyes glaze over.

[julesjones]

Ta. I've been in two minds about the background -- I'm contemplating a faint wash behind the main body, and a deeper but still fairly pale colour behind the sidebars. However, getting the positioning and side menu to work was the first priority. *That* took most of yesterday, since I'm learning CSS as I go along. (I am so grateful that my html was always structured with CSS in mind.)

The original CSS came from someone who design accessible websites for a living, so it was heavily slanted in that direction, at my request. But the red links are too damn distracting, and have been on the to-do list for far too long. I've been looking at the colour charts on BT's page about designing for the colour blind to find suitable alternatives, but was too tired last night once I'd got the basic layout working to do anything more with it.

[sallymn.livejournal.com]

Please consider a slightly tinted background; they're easier on the eye when you have a lot of empty screen space and few strong graphics. Or maybe a very subtle seamless background? I use these freebies (http://www.grsites.com/archive/textures/) a fair bit for icons and wallpapers, washing them out to make them as pale as possible if there's writing over the top...

On the question of links & stuff, I tried most of them out and couldn't see any duds :)

[julesjones]

I hate *any* background texture other than a slight gradient, but that gradient maker looks very useful. And the other toys. Thanks for that link. :-)

[sallymn.livejournal.com]

Which is fair enough... I like a very pale one (as you can see on my own) but most are too brassy for me. Glad you found something on the site - I sort of fell across it one day and it's come in handy.

[doire]

First impression were fine for me, but once I scrolled down to the text I was puzzled that I seemed to have already visited most of the links. I think underlined blue for virgin links has become a convention disregarded at your peril.

And now I'm wondering if my "other" journal knows of you. Probably not though it's just possible. That would make the third person this year that I discover I know twice. That's too many;the world's not that small.

[julesjones]

It was wanting to change those links to something more in keeping with what people expect nowadays that set off the whole "must update website design" in the first place. :-)

It's not that difficult to work out who else I am, but it's a lot easier if you already have some idea of where to look.