CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Ok here is the web layout I came up with for my website tell me what you think! 1024x768 I still have to add content as you can all see lol Site Design Copyright Josh Somerville 2004 !Dont touch it!

Holy Monkey that awsome! Who is that guy with the sword?

He is from War Of Genesis

How does it translate to 800x600 (the most common size used on the internet)?

Looks pretty good otherwise, a bit "yellow" though.

Its really yellow... it looks nice but is a little blazing on the eyes. Especially around the guy... that flare is pretty bright.

madphilb wrote:How does it translate to 800x600 (the most common size used on the internet)?

Yes well that would make me the only graphic artist on the net with a 800x600 website XD

The yellow dosnt bother me either if enough people dont like the I will turn it down a bit though

Sure thing Ink It would be great to do a concepte

WhiteBlaze wrote:Yes well that would make me the only graphic artist on the net with a 800x600 website XD

If indeed that was true (and I can be pretty sure it isn't) then it would also make you the only graphic artist on the web who bothers to make sure the largest number of people can share in your site as possible.

Or to put it another way, it wouldn't make you a high-rez snob

[quote="madphilb"]If indeed that was true (and I can be pretty sure it isn't) then it would also make you the only graphic artist on the web who bothers to make sure the largest number of people can share in your site as possible.

Or to put it another way, it wouldn't make you a high-rez snob ]

Yeah true but all of the graphic artist I like and know use 1024x768+ so I kinda take after them. Sites that big still look ok using 800x600. (trust me I had to do this until a couple months ago) I would definitely used a 800x600 compatible site on something besides a personal site though but mine pretty much is a personal site (besides the tuts and some anime stuff) good point though phil! Mine works fine in 800x600 though all you really need to see is the middle panel and the navigation

Really sweet, but on my monitor the navigation bar text is hard to read the white against the yellow kinda thing.

Has it occurred to anyone that having websites keyed to a particular screen layout at all is a really bad idea?

WhiteBlaze wrote:Yes well that would make me the only graphic artist on the net with a 800x600 website XD

The yellow dosnt bother me either if enough people dont like the I will turn it down a bit though

Sure thing Ink It would be great to do a concepte

CAA is designed for 800x600 (although some people have voided this with their sigs)

Well I created an 2nd version that works for 800x600 users XD so I mite implement it I'm not sure though

shooraijin wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that having websites keyed to a particular screen layout at all is a really bad idea?

[color=DarkGreen]Got a question - how would you do a site that isn't for a specific resolution? For example, when I do mine, they have to be a certain res because they're slices in tables and any kind of changes to conform to other sizes mess up the images or the table...-_-]

You could make a site like this one it works well in the first three resoulution settings http://www.webdiod.com/ its kinda like CAA in the fact that it is not very wide thats really the only style that works on allmost all resolutions

inkhana wrote:Got a question - how would you do a site that isn't for a specific resolution?

I think you have to start with the idea that the page isn't set one way, then change the size of your browsing window several times to get a feel for how it arranges. Opera was good for this as you could tell it what resolution you wanted to view the page at (for instance, you could see how the page looked at 640x480).....

Hopefully Shooby can help with this, esp. in light of a very graphics intensive style page.

I think you have to start with the idea that the page isn't set one way, then change the size of your browsing window several times to get a feel for how it arranges.

Right, but even more so, the idea is that HTML was never built as an exacting page-description language and everything else is just grafted on.

When I build sites, I make sure that all tables have relative rather than absolute sizes, and I shy away from stylesheets that have direct pixel-aligned positions. Allowing text boxes and table cells to shrink or enlarge in relative proportions rather than fixed inflexible widths means the site will look roughly as intended at any resolution.

Sites that depend on text being a certain dpi, or browsers having a certain width for controls, and so on, is just asking for trouble (resolution of the screen is the least of their worries). The whole concept of HTML was to divorce the viewer from the document, and this really seems to have been forgotten.

Nevertheless, if you must do things like that, just sitting there and growing and shrinking the browser window is a great way to see what portions of your site can be flexible and which can't. Rather than several fixed resolution views, one general view is just a better idea.

One way I've found to compensate for this is to centre the entire assembly (enclose it in a table if you must have more precise positioning control over elements within it, and then centre that). At least this way you can write off the excess space if it's larger than the "target" as gutter space.

i really like your layout, i think it looks cool, it looks like it will be hard to implement though

There is another way to take things... just fix the entire site at width 800px. The BBC website does this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/

You can get also get some pretty sweet non width dependant effects by using repeating images in the background for certain table cells. - eg.

Code: Select all

<table width="95%" height="57" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr>
   <td>
      <img src="images/headerfooter/caa_button_up.gif"
         border="0" name="caa">
  </td>
  <td width="100%" align="right" valign="bottom"
     background="images/headerfooter/top_repeat.gif">
  </td>
  <td>
     <img src="images/headerfooter/affiliates_mapped.gif"
        border=0 alt="Our Affiliates">
  </td></tr>
</table>

(clutter removed)

glitch1501 wrote:i really like your layout, i think it looks cool, it looks like it will be hard to implement though

Actually its going to be very easy to implement its a little thing called I-frames

yea, i use iframes on my site, i thought you were going to do it all in flash, you know, animating and stuff

Yeah Flash would be nice except its already rather large in size and adding flash would definitely exclude all users of dialup maybe in V2

*shudders* iframes. Ug.

WB: Very nice. The graphic design elements are superb! In terms of how it will work on the internet, though, you would be wise to head the advice of some of the people here. What do you want the site to acomplish? If you are in it to show your work to other graphic artists, then by all means be a resolution snob. (Seriously!). If you want to appeal to other people, and perhaps get hired to do some work, then you really should go to 800x600. Why? Think of this. Joe employer is looking to hire a graphic designer. He doesn't know much about resolutions, etc. That's what a graphic designer should know, right? He hit's your 1024x768 site, and BOOM! His web browser is doing weird stuff. "Hmm," he thinks to himself. "This guy can't even make a website that doesn't break my computer... Where's the next resume...?" Just somthing to think about.

And Shooby:
You are right. That's what it was designed for. But wait! Aarp (heh heh) net was designed to let people just share ideas, etc. And now the internet does ecommerce. You'll never get it back. Deal. If you really want to share text only, use gopher. If you want to do something that looks nice, you have to appeal to the widest demographic, but still be of the artist mindset. Use dreamweaver if you have to, or frontpage (but ONLY if someone is going to kill you if you do anything else!) In otherwords, it's all about target audence. I cannot overemphisize this! (Well, I guess I could say that poorly designed websites are the number one cause of premature death in asia. yeah... That would be overemphisizing it, I guess...)

Hey thanks oldphil that was a very helpfull post!
I had actually created a different layout that worked on 800x600 and still looked good but it seems that thread has be deleted oh well
Thanks again!

It's awesome on a design level...I know you mentioned that putting it in Flash would eliminate dial-up users from viewing it. But imagine how sweet it would look with animated text and who knows maybe some animated bolts of electricity or something. I found the only problem was the text...white contrasting with yellow did go too well on my eyes, but that's just me. Aside from that definate thumbs up!

oldphilosopher wrote:*shudders* iframes. Ug.

WB: Very nice. The graphic design elements are superb! In terms of how it will work on the internet, though, you would be wise to head the advice of some of the people here. What do you want the site to acomplish? If you are in it to show your work to other graphic artists, then by all means be a resolution snob. (Seriously!). If you want to appeal to other people, and perhaps get hired to do some work, then you really should go to 800x600. Why? Think of this. Joe employer is looking to hire a graphic designer. He doesn't know much about resolutions, etc. That's what a graphic designer should know, right? He hit's your 1024x768 site, and BOOM! His web browser is doing weird stuff. "Hmm," he thinks to himself. "This guy can't even make a website that doesn't break my computer... Where's the next resume...?" Just somthing to think about.

And Shooby:
You are right. That's what it was designed for. But wait! Aarp (heh heh) net was designed to let people just share ideas, etc. And now the internet does ecommerce. You'll never get it back. Deal. If you really want to share text only, use gopher. If you want to do something that looks nice, you have to appeal to the widest demographic, but still be of the artist mindset. Use dreamweaver if you have to, or frontpage (but ONLY if someone is going to kill you if you do anything else!) In otherwords, it's all about target audence. I cannot overemphisize this! (Well, I guess I could say that poorly designed websites are the number one cause of premature death in asia. yeah... That would be overemphisizing it, I guess...)

Yay! *claps* That was very well said! Unless it's a webpage just for me (like my blog or something) I make all my webpages set for 800x600 monitors. My take on it is this: look at the big company websites like yahoo, people magazine, and the M & M site. They are all set for 800x600 monitors. Unless you have a site that is really text based (like the Wall Street Journal) you pretty much have to make it for an 800x600 monitor if you want to make it viewable by most people and be pretty graphically.

Plus if you are making a graphic intense site for 1024x768 resolution chances are it will take forever to download on a dial up. So you'd loose your dial up audience and your 800x600 audience.

mm how do you (typically) set the size of a webpage... I'm making a webpage and the background gets repeated if its small...how can that be eliminated?