|
| Discussion on Romance.ucam.org
| Topic: "New look for the site" |
| Date: 31st January 2006 |
| Introduction: The original version of this site was designed over 5 years ago, and the design is, perhaps, a little dated. We have had a couple of excellent suggestions for how it might look.
What do you think? No plans to change the functionality, only to update the design. What do you like (and dislike) about the current design? Which of the new designs
do you prefer? What aspects of the 3 designs (current,
New Style #1
and
New Style #2 do you like best and least. We want your feedback! |
| [ Reply ] [ Help ] |
|
The New Style 1 is good stylistically, but less good structurally. I'm one of those people stuck with
1024x768 resolution, and New Style 1 is wider than that, which is BAD.
Also why such a conspicuous register form?
& New Style 2, I can't really get an idea of what it's like with such empty pages. What will go where?
Now I admit: I suck at web design. But I think it's best to keep the page layout as it is now, with the 3 panes, and change the
style. | | [ Reply ] |
|
| hmm number one's a bit starchy, sorta looks like a train ticket website! hehe. number 2's much nicer!
i like this one but if we're gonna change, let's have number two! | | [ Reply ] |
|
| New style one, definitely! | | [ Reply ] |
|
Style 1 is definitely good, I find the current design feels very dated although it is definitely very functional.
Style 2 as far as I'm concerned is a big no-no, but that could be my 17" widescreen displaying it twice across... It looks just like the current design, except a step back (like when a kid tries to design his/her first website and puts a horrid background colour - white is definitely the way to go).
So I'd say definitely upgrade to style 1, which is still functional, feels more modern, and generally looks better! | | [ Reply ] |
|
Style 1 is by far and away the best.
It's fantastic - the design is both sleek and elegant, and it looks like it'll be much more useable and readable.
And no Comic Sans.
Thank god. | | [ Reply ] |
|
I really like #1, it looks much more professional (I want to say sophisticated but maybe that's not entirely appropriate!)
I don't know what you mean about it not fitting on 1024*768, it's fine for me.
Nice job. | | [ Reply ] |
|
| I've always been a fan of the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", and it seems to apply particularly well here. There are already a choice of over half a dozen styles, so why, RUO web people, do you wish to create more work for yourselves, when you already do such a great and selfless job for all of us who use your site? | | [ Reply ] |
|
New Style 1 looks very smart (I voted for it), but I deplore the fact that half the headings are images instead of text -- and all in aid of an only slightly different font, too.
I would guess that with carefully-structured HTML the difference could be pretty much done in CSS -- so something very similar to the old modes could be available for those who don't like change. (I realise the content of the sample page isn't exactly that of any current page but it's hard to tell how much is for show -- e.g. the sample page has a "create id" box but also tells the user they have a new message. I'm just reading it for look-&-feel.)
I'm surprised Tom found it worse with a small screen resolution. I tried making my window very small, and New Style 1 comes out an improvement, because the links that currently take up a vertical strip of screen real-estate down the left of the window are now disposed of in a single line of text (the important ones -- the rest are banished to a line at the bottom of the page). At present, even on a decent-sized screen I have to scroll down to get to the "Log out" link. | | [ Reply ] |
|
| Love New Style 1 - when can I use it?! | | [ Reply ] |
|
| Indeed. Are we ever going to see the new look? | | [ Reply ] |
|
| I like this style. It's ideosyncratic, kind of home-made rather than corporate, and so captures the spirit of the enterprise. Why change? | | [ Reply ] |
|
