Comments
On March 8, 2005 9:34 AM Niels Wouters said:Nice ! Not only the design is special, but also the site's concept.
Perhaps the image on top is a little too large?
Nevertheless, to summarize: clean and nice, and that's what webdesign is about, I think?
Regards,
Niels
On March 8, 2005 10:17 AM Kyle said:None of the images for the sites are working in IE and Firefox.
On March 8, 2005 10:29 AM Mark said:Everything seems to work fine Kyle, ni IE and FF...
Nice site btw!
On March 8, 2005 2:59 PM tobyjoe said:Thanks for linking us up! Kylie - there was a brief moment of htaccess buggery that might have prevented some images from being served, but it should have lasted for only a moment.
On March 8, 2005 9:36 PM Preston said:Why is this site featured in CSS beauty? I was appalled by the lack of ingenuity involved in this site. The layout was unimaginitive and stretched down too long. In Firefox, the navigation did not work and took an eternity to load. The links are not unique, either. I'd say the designer has a long way to go if he were to be featured on a CSS Beauty of my own.
On March 8, 2005 9:46 PM Steve J said:I actually like the site, the navigation works fine in FF, and it loaded pretty quick... Not sure what you are talking about Preston... and not sure what you mean by saying the links are not unique. Anyways, each to his own...
On March 8, 2005 10:55 PM Ryan said:Great design. I'm using FF and all images are working for me with fast load times. A great example of CSS beauty, imo.
On March 8, 2005 11:07 PM mihow said:Thanks for the comments everyone. Toby Joe and I spent a few hours tonight trying to lessen the size of the header. While it's still pretty huge, we did manage to cut it down by about 55 pixels.
The site was designed and created in a very short amount of time. I guess, for some, that shows (I'm talking to you, Preston. :]) Either way, it's really just a site helping people be noticed. It's just a friendly MeMe! sort of thing. We're not out to change the world. :]
I'm pretty sure it works in every browser, though. So I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Either way, thanks for the link-love. I'm sure our members will appreciate it as well.
- On March 8, 2005 11:17 PM tobyjoe said:
Everything works great in FF for me on Apple and Windows. I don't have an X install to test on Linux at the moment.
Preston - no offense, but judging by your site your markup has a long, long way to go before you take on the task of building your own CSSBeauty.
I'm sure that before that distant day comes Michele and I will have learned a ton, so perhaps there is a chance for us yet.
- On March 9, 2005 10:25 AM Kyle said:
What are the site images being served/generated as for a mime type? I think my firewall at work is blocking the individual site images. I can see the header and other images, but I can't see the screenshot for bluepoppy or others.
I like the site. It looks nice.
- On March 9, 2005 11:46 AM tobyjoe said:
Kyle - the mime types are correct. Stock Apache mime.types file. Hotlinking is enabled, so even if you're proxying the images there shouldn't be a problem. It's curious that you're having problems. I'll continue to sniff it out. If it suddenly works for you, and you have time, send me an email so I can know I've squashed the bug.
- On March 9, 2005 10:18 PM Preston said:
Tobyjoe...Although I might not be an accomplished designer yet (at thirteen years old? come on), I know when I can recognize good and bad sites. And I never said I was going to make my own CSS Beauty...not sure what you're talking about. And Steve J...what I meant was that the links are bland and anyone can make links look like that. But I know how harrowing it is to make a site in such a short time, but was I able to know that? No : )
- On March 9, 2005 11:45 PM Kyle said:
I just wanted to say that the site works well at home. So, it must be my works nutty firewall. Good job!
- On March 10, 2005 9:54 AM tobyjoe said:
Preston - I had no idea you were so young. It's great that you're interested in standards and design at your age. Kudos.
The sentence: "I'd say the designer has a long way to go if he were to be featured on a CSS Beauty of my own." is what I was playing on when I mentioned your own CSSBeauty.
When you say that the links are boring and "anyone can make links look like that" do you mean the pages to which they link, or the actual styling of the anchor tags used in the site? I'm sure you understand that the pages to which SPD links are not built or maintained by us but are instead the sites of folks who want their self-portraits to be featured.
Thanks for the feedback. My only advice would be to strive for a little more clarity in your complaints so folks don't have to ask as many questions. Think of it as complaint accessibility ;)
- On March 12, 2005 3:27 PM Preston said:
Thanks for the nice comments, Tobyjoe...what I meant was that the links should be different upon hover and when there is no hover, so that the user stays immersed in the site. And I will try to clarify me criticism...thanks! : )
On April 18, 2005 7:18 PM tom said:apart from it being a very well thought-out design; i really like the idea.
On May 26, 2005 9:33 PM char said:Simple design with a unique concept. I don't believe every design using CSS has to be overly complex...CSS can be simplistic or complex the site is pleasing to the eye.
Post a comment
Note: The author reserves the right to delete inappropriate comments.
- Foul and offensive language will be edited or deleted.
- Personal attacks will be deleted.
- Advertising or spam will not be tolerated.
Formatting: Linebreaks will be converted automatically. Basic HTML tags allowed: a href, strong, em, ol, ul, li, blockquote, code, acronym title, abbr title.
Gravatars are enabled.