hahaha :) go smoke some goodness and enjoy yer sleep mahn!
On 10/7/06, Mark Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > :) thank ye mate!
>
> My pleasure! And now that Topalov has just crushed Kramnik to take a 5-4
> lead in the World Chess Championship, I can go to bed (in a somewhat
>
Tony wrote:
> :) thank ye mate!
My pleasure! And now that Topalov has just crushed Kramnik to take a 5-4
lead in the World Chess Championship, I can go to bed (in a somewhat
depressed state).
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority
:) thank ye mate!
On 10/7/06, Mark Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > still there?
> > i removed the this morning?
> >
> > :) help!!!
>
> My bad. When testing locally, I also placed the same block formatting on
> the image above it, and this is actually all that's required in
Tony wrote:
> still there?
> i removed the this morning?
>
> :) help!!!
My bad. When testing locally, I also placed the same block formatting on
the image above it, and this is actually all that's required in your
scenario. Put the display:block on the masthead image and then you
should be ab
still there?
i removed the this morning?
:) help!!!
On 10/6/06, Mark Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> > mark, good idea, but no go.
> >
> > still has that gap :(
> >
> > hmmm.
> >
> Hi Tony
>
> Did you also remove the offending break just above that image? Works for
> me
ours is clear yellow and comes with a different horizon.
>yes... you dont?
>
>On 10/5/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdF
Tony wrote:
> mark, good idea, but no go.
>
> still has that gap :(
>
> hmmm.
>
Hi Tony
Did you also remove the offending break just above that image? Works for
me locally here.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarter
mark, good idea, but no go.
still has that gap :(
hmmm.
http://www.davisrealty.com/
here is the url to look at it again...
thanks!
tony
On 10/6/06, Mark Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > im going back to transitional.
> >
> > :) unless someone can explain why that image isnt butti
On 10/5/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> all taken care of :) whatcha think now?
It looks great. Very nice.
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion informati
> im going back to transitional.
>
> :) unless someone can explain why that image isnt butting up to
> the top of that white line?
Without actually testing any code here (I don't have time right now but
I will look again later if you have no joy), try setting the image to
block for starters.
zackly, i could care less what they want, if they want it, cool, ill
do it, but its GONNA COST 'em!
tw
On 10/5/06, Paul Ihrig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sweet
> from 50 to 75 we go.
> even though its dumber, slower & gonna look worse..
>
> On 10/5/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > time =
sweet
from 50 to 75 we go.
even though its dumber, slower & gonna look worse..
On 10/5/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> time = money
>
> simple equation.
> if its gonna take you more time, then charge MORE MONEY.
>
> simple as that friend
>
> On 10/5/06, Paul Ihrig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
l Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:50 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: design critique
>
> strict is fine, in IE, but not FF, can you help me with whats wrong?
>
> thanks!
>
> tony
>
> On 10/4/06, Sandra Cla
time = money
simple equation.
if its gonna take you more time, then charge MORE MONEY.
simple as that friend
On 10/5/06, Paul Ihrig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> design question..
> about pricing..
>
> would you guys charge more or less if you where required to work
> inside some one elses frame
design question..
about pricing..
would you guys charge more or less if you where required to work
inside some one elses frame work, like a shopping cart.
so that the origional design promised to the client would be limited
due to the choice they made in host/cart company...
i was bout to bag a
yes... you dont?
On 10/5/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> much better. DO you guys really get white grass like that?
>
> >all taken care of :) whatcha think now?
> >
> >thanks to EVERYONE!!!
> >
> >On 10/5/06, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
>
>
~
much better. DO you guys really get white grass like that?
>all taken care of :) whatcha think now?
>
>thanks to EVERYONE!!!
>
>On 10/5/06, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly U
hmm me too and maybe it *is* because ut seems headerlike. Perhaps you gop make
it transparent and smaller and superimpose it on the admittedly goergeous
graphic.
>Personally I'd also drop the "Welcome Home" at the bottom or perhaps lighten
>it more (as watermark). It's pinned the bottom of the
I think "welcome home" is a good idea. But visually I'd like it better if there
was some space between it and the bottom of the page. Possibly a somewhat small
font too.
Dana
>actually its meant to be the footer... :) but i know what you mean, i
>struggled with that
>last night... maybe ill jus
fixes a lot of IE6 breaks.
Sandra Clark
==
http://www.shayna.com
Training in Cascading Style Sheets and Accessibility
-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:50 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: design crit
all taken care of :) whatcha think now?
thanks to EVERYONE!!!
On 10/5/06, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It suffers from my main complaint with real estate sites. It doesn't
> say where it is located. I also agree with the comment that the
> dividing line needs to be longer, and I wou
> It's attractive, no doubt about that.
thank ye!
>
> Personally I find things a little off-balance: 50% of your layout is
> essentially the masthead. Us Davis's aren't like that - we're a "to the
> point" kind of people. ;^)
those effin' davis'
>
> The fact that you have to remind them to "r
actually its meant to be the footer... :) but i know what you mean, i
struggled with that
last night... maybe ill just remove it?
On 10/4/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with both comments. Or instead of making it longer you could move it
> down a bit so that it is more in t
done :) and thanks for the input !
On 10/4/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love it.
>
> Only one comment.
> the white line dividing right from left is too short. I want it to go
> down farther vertically.
>
> On 10/4/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hi there.
> >
> > whatch
strict is fine, in IE, but not FF, can you help me with whats wrong?
thanks!
tony
On 10/4/06, Sandra Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Switch the doctype to HTML 4.01 strict. That will give you better standards
> compliance across browsers.
>
> I seem to be saying that a lot today (I feel anot
It suffers from my main complaint with real estate sites. It doesn't
say where it is located. I also agree with the comment that the
dividing line needs to be longer, and I would justify the text
describing the properies instead of centering it.
On 10/4/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi t
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:14 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: design critique
>
> hi there.
>
> whatcha think of this new layout?
>
> http://www.davisrealty.com/
It's attractive, no doubt about that.
Personally I
I agree with both comments. Or instead of making it longer you could move it
down a bit so that it is more in the middle. I think you could also use some er
whitespace (bluespace?) below the welcome home. It feels like you can scroll
down more and you can't. If there will eventually be a footer
I love it.
Only one comment.
the white line dividing right from left is too short. I want it to go
down farther vertically.
On 10/4/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi there.
>
> whatcha think of this new layout?
>
> http://www.davisrealty.com/
>
> thanks.
>
> its not totally done, and the s
Switch the doctype to HTML 4.01 strict. That will give you better standards
compliance across browsers.
I seem to be saying that a lot today (I feel another blog entry coming on)
Sandra Clark
==
http://www.shayna.com
Training in Cascading Style Sheets and Accessibili
I actually quite like this one.
The only comment I have is that at a glance, I can't tell what it is you
'do'. I know that if I read through all the text on the front page I can
get the idea... But I think instead of 'welcome to our site and the small
'almost explains it' text in that second 'b
Well, the last time I looked at the site the main picture was a woman cooking.
I said at the time, and still think, that your emphasis should not be on the
cook. The carrots look great, honest, and I am not really someone that gets
into cooking. I haven't clicked any links or looked at any code
boy your mood just keeps opn getting darker, doesn't it...
> Yes, it highlights the radioactive theme started in the a-bomb cloud.
>
> On 3/19/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nice gradient behind the logo. It does make me think of something
> cooking. I also like the artwork much
Yes, it highlights the radioactive theme started in the a-bomb cloud.
On 3/19/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nice gradient behind the logo. It does make me think of something cooking. I
> also like the artwork much better -- I really think this should be about the
> food, not the
cool, thank ya. so... better than last time?
tw
On 3/19/06, Dana Tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nice gradient behind the logo. It does make me think of something cooking. I
> also like the artwork much better -- I really think this should be about the
> food, not the cook. Good color sche
nice gradient behind the logo. It does make me think of something cooking. I
also like the artwork much better -- I really think this should be about the
food, not the cook. Good color scheme
Dana
>hi there.
>here is the near final version of the dinner company site...
>
>all the page headers a
I know I let myself in for that one.
larry
On 3/8/06, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The more things change, the more things stay the same :)
>
>
> On 3/8/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No it must be something from your end. The date on my machine is
> > correct
The more things change, the more things stay the same :)
On 3/8/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it must be something from your end. The date on my machine is
> correct. In 1969 I was still an obnoxious brat.
>
> larry
>
> On 3/8/06, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
Huh. Weird, it's gone now.
Welcome back. :)
Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> No it must be something from your end. The date on my machine is
> correct. In 1969 I was still an obnoxious brat.
>
> larry
>
> On 3/8/06, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe I'm off here - but I think my favor
No it must be something from your end. The date on my machine is
correct. In 1969 I was still an obnoxious brat.
larry
On 3/8/06, Ray Champagne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm off here - but I think my favorite thing with the old design
> was that yellow color. It was warm and inviting, v
Everyone else has already gone in depth ... My answer was perfect
considering all the other's already wonderful answers. Do I really need
to go into detail and repeat what the others have said?
Not trying to be difficult at all, just confused ...
Cheers,
Erika
Maybe I'm off here - but I think my favorite thing with the old design
was that yellow color. It was warm and inviting, very down-home, nice,
warm, fuzzy, etc.
I think that the info could be better organized on the old site, though.
I think if you somehow combined the way you organize the in
Tony,
the site would work in about 5 or 10 years when myDinnerCompany is a
multinational firm with hundreds of franchises. It has the same
corporate feel. The older one "felt" better and is closer to the image
the company wants to project.
larry
On 3/8/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nothi
Reminds me of the Mad TV sketch about the TV game show called "Vague".
"You know how it works. I ask you some questions, you give me some
answers, and you might win some of this stuff!" and they pan over to a
stack of boxes wrapped in plain brown paper. :P
> nothing like some good ol' fashioned
nothing like some good ol' fashioned vaguity :)
thanks.
tw
On 3/8/06, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Little of both :)
>
>
> Cheers,
> Erika
> --
>
> ##| -Original Message-
> ##| From: Tony
> ##|
> ##| so is it layout + colors
Little of both :)
Cheers,
Erika
--
##| -Original Message-
##| From: Tony
##|
##| so is it layout + colors that are not jiving?
##| or just the colors?
~|
Message: htt
so is it layout + colors that are not jiving?
or just the colors?
believe me, i trust y'alls opinions, and it doesnt hurt
me to hear anything.
:) tw
On 3/8/06, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Real. I don't like the new one either. It is the first design you've
> posted that I absolu
Real. I don't like the new one either. It is the first design you've
posted that I absolutely shuddered at. As far as design for topic goes.
I liked the first one as well. Clean, simple, "foody".
K.I.S.S. principle.
:)
Just because you like purple, doesn't mean 80% of your audience likes
purple
i forgot about this one, was that a jab? or real :)
tw
On 3/6/06, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes.
> --
>
> ##| From: Tony
> ##|
> ##| ug i hate the old one :( too simple, 5th grader-ish i thought.
> ##|
> ##| wow. am i that of
good ideas dre. ill be doing that , thats a good idea.
thanks.
tony
On 3/6/06, DRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the first one as well. It was easier on the eyes and made me want to
> look around more than the other.
>
> What do you ask them when you show it to them? I've found "Do you like
they will go on the next version, tonight.
tw
On 3/6/06, Robyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd get rid of the picture of the people and put instead a picture of
> some of the food, or a stock image of people or food... It's the first
> thing that jumped out at me, too.
>
> Loathe wrote:
>
> >Du
your right on all points.
:) tw
On 3/6/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why you always ask more than one person. Design is so
> subjective. And why you often give the stakeholders opinion a little
> more weight. They have to live with it. I don't.
>
> But, you also need to do
I'd get rid of the picture of the people and put instead a picture of
some of the food, or a stock image of people or food... It's the first
thing that jumped out at me, too.
Loathe wrote:
>Dude, fat people don't sell.
>
~|
I like the first one as well. It was easier on the eyes and made me want to
look around more than the other.
What do you ask them when you show it to them? I've found "Do you like it?"
to be not so useful. Sometimes, I show somebody the site and then take it
away and ask them questions about it t
That's why you always ask more than one person. Design is so
subjective. And why you often give the stakeholders opinion a little
more weight. They have to live with it. I don't.
But, you also need to downgrade the stakeholders opinion a little bit,
since sometimes they equate "different" with "be
s'all good, i can take it :)
trouble is my wife loves it, and some of our clients
that we have shown love it :(
so, im not sure what to say.
feck
On 3/6/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For me, yeah.
>
> The current one IS simple, but so is your idea.
>
> The design of the current
For me, yeah.
The current one IS simple, but so is your idea.
The design of the current site does not get in the way of the message.
There is TOO MUCH information on the new one. I don't know where to
look. The text is too small, the picture is too small. You lost the
"punch".
The current colors
Yes.
--
##| From: Tony
##|
##| ug i hate the old one :( too simple, 5th grader-ish i thought.
##|
##| wow. am i that off?
~|
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.c
ug i hate the old one :( too simple, 5th grader-ish i thought.
wow. am i that off?
tw
On 3/6/06, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the old one better, too. I'm vaguely annoyed that the width of the
> site changes from page to page. It's too "jumpy." And, the colors on thi
I like the old one better, too. I'm vaguely annoyed that the width of the
site changes from page to page. It's too "jumpy." And, the colors on this
one are less appetizing. The old site makes me think "bread and butter" and
this one makes me think "techno garble."
On 3/5/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED
"I see fed people..."
On 3/6/06, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dude, fat people don't sell.
>
>
> --
> Tim Heald
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 703-300-3911
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:50 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Desi
Depends what you're selling. :)
They don't _usually_ sell sex... usually... :)
But as this site is about food, well...
> Dude, fat people don't sell.
> --
> Tim Heald
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 703-300-3911
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 05
I like the old one better. It felt more "homey". This one feels too
"corporate". The out of focus pixels/gradations don;t work for me. The
new colors are not as friendly. It doesn't feel as "hand crafted" as
the old one.
Sorry.
I really like the old one.
On 3/5/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Dude, fat people don't sell.
--
Tim Heald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
703-300-3911
-Original Message-
From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:50 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Design Critique
http://www.mydinnercompany.com/website%5Fideas/
whatchy'alls think :)
thank
camden avenue is probably the oldest and has some of the most beautiful old
houses in salisbury.
VERY steeped in history, camden avenue is. while in college,
i lived in a house, from the 1900's that had some old
prohibition era "still" looking thing in it :) behind a bricked wall
in the basement!
If possible, I would change the rentals image to show the end of the
rental storage unit, where the doors are. The current pic sort of looks
like another dumpster to the right.
The development pic is not telling me the whole story, either. What
would be cool would be an aerial view of a new hous
The only thing that springs to mind is that the menu-item text isn't
contrasting enough. Over my ICA connection where graphics aren't the highest
quality, I can barely make out the words.
>ok.
>
>here is the revised flash interface/splash
>and then you can click on a section
>to get to the cont
On 2/13/06, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I really like the template of the inside, but I think you're right
> about the actual text in the content blocks still being a little
> unrefined. It's a really tightly designed layout, with the boxes
> having a particular proportion to each oth
I really like the template of the inside, but I think you're right
about the actual text in the content blocks still being a little
unrefined. It's a really tightly designed layout, with the boxes
having a particular proportion to each other. I can tell you did the
boxes before you did the text.
T
that's ok ... they like that part :)
as long as the inside page is ok... thats all good.
i want to tighten up the text/font inside the content
pages since i like the general design, i just feel like
the content/text on the left and in the middle and
hell, in the bottom section, are a bit childish
I like the secondary page a lot - professional, clean, interesting. I still
hate the flash page. :)
On 2/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ok.
>
> here is the revised flash interface/splash
> and then you can click on a section
> to get to the content page layout to follow:
>
> http://www
ahhh in a short monitor view.
i get ya.
ill play with that.
thanks!
tony
On 1/21/06, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Flip the position of the image of the book and the menu... not good
> when only one item of the menu is visible
>
> On 1/21/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
Flip the position of the image of the book and the menu... not good
when only one item of the menu is visible
On 1/21/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hola peeps
>
> http://www.revolutionwebdesign.com/clients/margo/interface_idea_1.jpg
> take a look at this graphic, let me know what you think
I have my screen set at 800x600 and the text below the apartment
building is not visible. I can't see the rest of the text that, in my
opinion, is important enough to be visible without scrolling.
I like the ghosted image, but can you shrink it down so that you can
move the building up a bit?
I
el T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:50 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: [Design Critique]
>
>
>
> > From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > like the idea?
> > http://www.revolutionwebdesign.com/clients/drawbridgevil
yeah, i agree with ya on that, the blue bar. might tone that puppy down.
On 6/21/05, Michael T. Tangorre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > like the idea?
> > http://www.revolutionwebdesign.com/clients/drawbridgevillas/
> > would you want to move he
On 6/21/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks nice and fuzzy.
cool.
>
> Who's the audience? Singles around 25 - 30?
nope, mid 40's and up i'd say, since its a small town and they are
like $350's and up.
>
> Also its pretty graphics heavy, what's the load time on the page going
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:50 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: [Design Critique]
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> like the idea?
> http://www.revolutionwebdesign.com/clients/drawbridgevillas/
> would you want to move here!!???
Looks good tw. My only c
> From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> like the idea?
> http://www.revolutionwebdesign.com/clients/drawbridgevillas/
> would you want to move here!!???
Looks good tw. My only comment is the blue bar with the links... for some
reason that stands out too much for my liking. Other than tha
Looks nice and fuzzy.
Who's the audience? Singles around 25 - 30?
Also its pretty graphics heavy, what's the load time on the page going to be?
Overall it looks quite good.
larry
On 6/21/05, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hola mi peoples
>
> working on another new site, and this is t
I find the paragraphs too long on the new page. On the old page you
kind of read them automatically, whereas the new one makes me say, oh,
lots of stuff, don't have time to read it right now. Fewer exclamation
marks might be good though, as someone said.
Also, this is a bit hard to explain but th
ahhh, ok, well it made it to the design i cut up and am using :)
tw
On 5/26/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On this page? Nope:
> http://www.mydinnercompany.com/website_Interface_innerPages_version2.jpg
>
> On 5/26/05, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > t'is now tho' righ
On this page? Nope:
http://www.mydinnercompany.com/website_Interface_innerPages_version2.jpg
On 5/26/05, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> t'is now tho' right?
>
> tw
>
> On 5/26/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It wasn't at the top above the site name anymore.
> >
> > On
t'is now tho' right?
tw
On 5/26/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wasn't at the top above the site name anymore.
>
> On 5/26/05, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is the tag line gone?
> >
> > tw
> >
> > On 5/26/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I mi
It wasn't at the top above the site name anymore.
On 5/26/05, Tony Weeg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is the tag line gone?
>
> tw
>
> On 5/26/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I miss the tag line - I feel so uptight now...I can't relax...is
> > dinner done yet?
> >
> >
>
>
~
is the tag line gone?
tw
On 5/26/05, Deanna Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I miss the tag line - I feel so uptight now...I can't relax...is
> dinner done yet?
>
>
~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's cu
I miss the tag line - I feel so uptight now...I can't relax...is
dinner done yet?
~|
Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble
Ticket application
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48
:) be happy jer
thanks.
tony
On 5/25/05, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, it is less hectic and somehow "nicer", but without similar text
> content I can't tell if it is better. The first design had BOLD
> headlines and STATEMENTS! about what was what.
>
> I can't tell on the new
Yes, it is less hectic and somehow "nicer", but without similar text
content I can't tell if it is better. The first design had BOLD
headlines and STATEMENTS! about what was what.
I can't tell on the new design if that will stay, or if you are moving
towards a more paragraph centric approach. Whic
tony.
looks pretty nice
have you tried printing any of the sample pages.
i think alot of people do this. i know my mom would.
over all color usage is great
not sure about vegie placement on upper right.
they seem to just site flat.
i would either drop shadow them or take some photos of them sittin
yeah, a gutter of sorts on the right or left side...
gutter is such an ugly word, maybe side bar of data :)
tw
On 5/24/05, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I liked both. The new one is more in line with contemporary web
> design. Simple text menus instead of big, graphic laden ones.
>
I liked both. The new one is more in line with contemporary web
design. Simple text menus instead of big, graphic laden ones.
The text content width feels a little wide now though. If you're going
to go that wide, I'd set the line-height higher, maybe try 150%. Or
what I'd really do is add a sideb
I think it looks great, but I'm not a fan of the faded bars. I think I
would lose the fade between the top-left image and "the dinner company"
text. It almost looks like the parchment is burning.
I really like the small images of the food. I assume these will be
clickable links?
What would it
93 matches
Mail list logo
