On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:31:50PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote: > So now I have three variants up for consideration: > > (1) http://www.fossil-scm.org/ > (2) http://www2.fossil-scm.org/ > (3) http://www3.fossil-scm.org/ > > #1 is the recent change, with the rock background, which I (being very old > school) prefer. #2 is the original before recent changes. #3 is like #1 > but without the background image.
I don't like the wallpaper background in #1! It reminds me of a 1990's website (and no, it didn't look good back then either). We shouldn't strive to be _that_ kind of fossil. I like the rotated fossil logo because it is more space efficient than the upright version. Whether or not to keep the new outside thick border, I could go either way. The link colors on #1 are nice - I especially like how the unclicked link is a nice subtle blue. But, please leave it a bluish hue for unclicked and a purplish hue for click - if for nothing else but standard convention's sake. I got very confused very quick on the reverse motif of whether or not I had been somewhere (but, I know I clicked on that link and read that doc, why is the link still blue???). -- Christopher Berardi http://www.natoufa.com/ May grace and peace by yours in abundance. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
