VisorCentral.com - Sneak peak of VisorCentral v3

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=5)
-- Sneak peak of VisorCentral v3 (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=15013)

Posted by dick-richardson on 05-16-2001 03:17 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by JHromadka

...Good idea about subliminal advertising That's not illegal on the web yet is it?

Like we need it.

I spend enough time here w/o doing so subconsciously, thanks.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by creole on 05-16-2001 03:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dalamar70
creole, the point is not to fix the resolution of the page at all. Notice that the columns in the current VC homepage stretch and shrink with the size of your browser window (down to some minimum). Nothing stretches or shrinks in v3.

Dalamar...

I'm a web designer. I know about variable width sites. I was simply responding to ernie's statement.

James...if done right, Netscape would have NO difficulty resizing a page (other than a minor screen redraw).

If you would like assistance, contact me. I have been doing web design for nearly 4 years. I would be happy to advise or assist.

Posted by YBYSAIAH on 05-16-2001 03:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Potus

I agree. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Ditto

Posted by MarkEagle on 05-17-2001 02:00 AM:

About the only thing I do like about it is the new logo... it's a fresher look, IMHO. I think the letter borders are a bit too thick, however (like all the other borders on the page... James made me say that ). The 's' and 'ntra' just seem too heavy to me.

I also like the navigation bar... but I think it would look nicer with white text on a VC blue background that glows VC orange when hovered over.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by kgruscho on 05-17-2001 05:04 AM:

I didn't like the new site's look too much at first until I went back to the old site and decided that it looked old and the new site really does look better.

new logo is great.

One thing that I think would be a great redesign would be to make the discussion section quicker and more obvious to access. Maybe even give hot threads some screen real estate on the main page.

The main thing I do on VC is read all of the forums.

I also think that I would rather have news continue to be chronological, I just prefer making my own decision about what is 'important'. That said, maybe a compromise would be having the central text be by importance and have some connection to the hot threads, and have the text to the right relate somehow to the breaking news aspects.

also I think it would be good to incorporate a little more yellow in the new site. I think taking the yellow out of most things is good, but maybe if the yellow streaked through a few of the blue borders, etc.

oh well, you guys do a great job and as long as you guys are so damn informed, then I'm not complaining.

Kg

Posted by Visor Guy2 on 05-17-2001 05:28 AM:

uugghhhhhh. I'm sorry guys, But what's Wrong With V2?? Nothing! V3 looks too Cluttered, It doesn't have a nice laid out look, I mean the First thing I said was "Sheesh! It looks like a Pamphlet!" It so hideous that I am sorry to say that if It was changed to this New design I would no longer visit VC. Leave it how it is!

Things I like about it:

The Water Mark

Things I hate about it:
Everything Else!!

__________________
NetCaptor and Odigo Rule!
"The Internet is now on computers?"
Homer Simpson

Posted by Rob on 05-17-2001 06:28 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Visor Guy2
It so hideous that I am sorry to say that if It was changed to this New design I would no longer visit VC. Leave it how it is!

Well...let's just see if you never post again after the site design change, shall we?

Posted by Visor Guy2 on 05-17-2001 07:59 AM:

Fine! Change It! Go ahead! See if I care!

__________________
NetCaptor and Odigo Rule!
"The Internet is now on computers?"
Homer Simpson

Posted by Potus on 05-17-2001 03:06 PM:

New look

The new logo is pretty cool however, since change is inevitable, go all the way to Aqua. But keep the news chronological.

__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.

Posted by bblue on 05-20-2001 02:33 AM:

Looks Great!

I'm really impressed! Although, I think you could reduce some of the clutter, and perhaps make the site look more... well, Handspring-ish. Why not give the site a sleek metallic finish (like the blue on the EDGE?) or perhaps the trademark ribbed sides of the Visor? (that goes a bit far...)

Nonetheless, you've done a great job, but now it's time for the fine tuning.

__________________
"Sorry about the whole thing about losing your life savings, but that Palmpilot is property of Enron, so please give it back"

Posted by Galley_SimRacer on 05-20-2001 02:41 AM:

In Opera 5.11, the "about" button appears directly under the "front" button, on a second line at 800 x 600. Other than that, it looks good!

__________________
"Life is what you experience between racing games"
Galley

Posted by ToolkiT on 05-21-2001 12:59 AM:

Re: Looks Great!

quote:
Originally posted by bblue
or perhaps the trademark ribbed sides of the Visor? (that goes a bit far...)

I like that Idea! maybe make a frame that looks like a Visor (dlx?) in which VC runs...
Not sure if it is possible thought. And it must be able to turned off in order to get more useable realestate again for powerusers...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by BEN on 05-21-2001 02:09 AM:

I like it, but I don't like the new organization. I think that you should stay with it how it is. Other than that, go for it.

BEN

Posted by jeff318 on 05-21-2001 08:54 PM:

(1) The word is peek
(2) in "Customize the site"?!?!?! and why is that an image?

__________________
My processing power is contributed to
<a href="http://members.ud.com/services/teams/team.htm?id=E3894ECF-2FDA-4B0E-AD9E-45FEFF2D5AB6"><IMG SRC="http://members.ud.com/img/ud_logo_hdr_fff.gif"><a>
JOIN TODAY!

Posted by creole on 05-21-2001 09:20 PM:

jeff...they probably just took a screencap to make it easier on themselves. It's something that I do all the time when I design sites. It's JUST a mockup after all.

Posted by homer on 05-21-2001 10:34 PM:

quote:
I believe that Marcus wants a fixed size because Netscape has some problems with resizing. I would rather have resizing too. If you still want it, better post here.

Any text-heavy web site meant to be read SHOULD be flexible and resize to fit the browser window of the user.

To read text comfortably, one needs to size the type and line-lengths to meet their personal preferences. The only way to do that effectively is to allow the user to also resize the width of the page themselves.

Also, the new site seems to be fixed at 800 pixels wide. That is too big. The ONLY people who view the internet at that size are those with 600x800 screens, or those that insist on always maximizing their window no matter the size of the monitor.

A large number of people with larger monitors prefer to have multiple windows open at once when browsing the internet (and I would assume that a large proportion of VisorCentral users are people like that). These multiple-windows are rarely any larger than 600 pixels or so wide.

If you MUST make the site 600x800, PLEASE allow it to be flexible so that those of use who prefer browsing the web in smaller windows can do so comfortably.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by marcus on 05-21-2001 11:18 PM:

Thank you all for your comments...

Order of articles

This is the solution we figured out so far:
The top spot on the page will be editorial based - it can either be a news item, a review, an article, or a link to a special reports page. It should change daily (as allowed by the supply of news), reflecting that days most important event.

Below it are the five other summarys. These will be in chronological order, with a couple of exceptions.

1. Reviews/Editorials have priority. They will move down the page as more news items are added, but will stay at the bottom positions until they "time out." We think 3-4 days is long enough for them to stay on the front. This will change if we start adding more stories.

2. News items that have been updated moves upwards.

For everyone that demand absolute chronologial order, the right hand side's "Recent Additions" will display the latest stories, reviews, and various other updates in chronological order.

Length and Width

The new site is going to be a little shorter than the current one, reducing the amount of scrolling required.

The minimum width of the site is 740 pixels wide, something that seems to be a norm these days for site designs(news.com, cnn.com, sptimes.com, washingtonpost.com etc)

I both like and dislike page resizing. When the user resizes the page, the page usually loses its intended layout. The width of the articles will be around 540 pixels, a width most people should be comfortable with.

Anyway, here is the Netscape problem for you web designers out there. The blue vertical borders are actually tiny tables. When the page is streched, these borders strech with it (even though they are given absolute widths). This stretch doesn't occur in any of the other browers I tried.

So what happens when the page is streched is that the side borders becomes thicker and thicker... (only in the middle, the corner are images)

If it ain't broke don't fix it

Just wait and you will see what your a missing

Discussion area access

The side bar on the right hand side is customizable by the users, you are going to be able to add and remove various "blocks of data" (and rank their position).

One of these "blocks" is a discussion area preview, which lists the latest posts and some other features.

BTW, this side bar stays constant through-out the site (with some exception)

Welcome to VisorCentral!

That is indeed a graphic (have to fix the spelling...). The reason it is a graphic and not text is that some people have a larger font settings on their computer, and it would make that blob of text occupy most of the right hand side.

BTW, it is one of those "blocks" mentioned above that can be removed by the user.

Thats all for now... We should have a working site up the weekend for additional testing.

__________________
Marcus Adolfsson
Editor

Posted by miradu on 05-21-2001 11:32 PM:

GO MARCUS! I like it.. Listen, If you don't like the new VC, ummm.. You'll grow to like the new one I can't wait.. hehe

__________________
-miradu

Posted by homer on 05-22-2001 12:05 AM:

quote:
The minimum width of the site is 740 pixels wide, something that seems to be a norm these days for site designs(news.com, cnn.com, sptimes.com, washingtonpost.com etc)

No! Please no.

Please re-read my above post. Few people view the web at that width UNLESS they are forced to.

A lot of people equate screen resolution = browser window width. This is a bad habit.

It is NOT that hard to accomodate ALL browser sizes with a flexible layout. Please consider that before making your final decision.

At the VERY least...make sure the discussion forums remain flexible.

quote:
That is indeed a graphic (have to fix the spelling...). The reason it is a graphic and not text is that some people have a larger font settings on their computer, and it would make that blob of text occupy most of the right hand side.

This is non-user centric design. This is bad. The web is about making information accesible to the user. By overiding a person's personal preferences in both page size and text rendering, you are doing a disservice to your audience.

I understand where you are coming from, as a designer, it took my a while to accept that fact, but you MUST consider the USER's needs. Just because the designer thinks that there should be 9pt type here, does NOT mean that the user agree, or even can read that 9pt type.

I am often viewing the internet at a monitor set to 1600 x 1200 resolution. Anything under 14pt type is simply an eye-strain.

I may be alone in this opinion, of course, but it's sounding like the new site may look a little prettier, but will be a lot less useable from a user-centric standpoint.

One last thought...

Why not make TWO templates for the site? One with static widths, and font rendering (the default one) and the other one like the current site? Let the user choose which they prefer.

And while I may sound negative, and while I realize that you may not even care to implement any of the above suggestions, I DO APPRECIATE the fact that visor central asks for user feedback before going through with a site remodelling project. It makes SO much sense to make the actuall users part of the design process, yet SO many sites totally ignore the very people whose opinions actually matter to the success or failure of a site.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by homer on 05-22-2001 12:13 AM:

quote:
news.com, cnn.com, sptimes.com, washingtonpost.com

I guess I would also ask, how many people actually like the above sites from a readability standpoint?

It should be pointed out that most of the above sites fit the entire site within a 600 pixel width, using the right-most 150 pixels or so solely for advertising.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page