Rocky: Again, that trick never works. Us: This time for sure. As my regular readers might have noticed we have once again tweaked the design, with a subtle background image and a new logo in the top left corner. We have also started using Site Meter to monitor web traffic (the little rainbow box under the side bar. We will probably never be 100% satisfied with the page design, mostly due to current limits of HTML. Maybe when we can have the level of control of the user experience as we once did in the print medium we will be happy… until then we’ll just have to make do.
6 thoughts on “Hey Rocky, watch us put new graphics on our website!”
Comments are closed.
I’ve seen quite amazing designs done in HTML. Not to be rude, but there are many far in advance of the technique displayed on your page. Perhaps what you want are easier tools? On the print side, consider that monitors have quite poor level of dots per inch. Your average monitor doesn’t even make it to 100. If a printer was that poor, you’d have it put down.
Yeah, I agree with you. My little site isn’t exactly pushing the envelope design wise. But as its just a little bit of fun I don’t really care all that much. It works for the most part. The thing the botheres me more is that regardless of what I do I can not garentee that the way I see my site is the way you see it. For example, I’ve been using PNG graphics cause I like the alpha transparency, but I know that at least on visitor to the site uses a browser incapable of viewing PNG. I could included JPEG versions of the same images and stuff but I hate the idea that I should have to do all the work. In print if I included a graphic, print it and give you the printed doc you see the page as I it was when I handed it to you. And yes, the resolution of computer monitors leaves a lot to be desired, I’ve been bitching about that for years. The whole bit-map mentality is at fault and a throw back that’s almost as old as the Y2K bug. I could move the whole page to a flash based presentation and gain greater control of the user experience, but there is still the problem of the user needing to be able to display flash, different gamma settings of different monitors, different levels of color and different operating speeds, all having a significant impact of the final display. Oh, and I’m not offended. My site does what I have built it to do. It was after all an experiment in CCS originally.
Careful, the bitmap thing is a seperate issue from the dpi thing. The former is software, the latter is hardware. A lot of people have “differently abled” eyes, so they’d see your stuff different even in print. The web is fantastic at deconstructing the assumptions of print. It’s best to just get stuff out there that meets your singular vision and let other people deal with the mess. There are people who care that their work looks the same to them on all platforms known to god, but they quickly stop producing much worthwhile.
‘“Differently abled” eyes’??? Interesting concept, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
Well, some people are color blind (and there’s like 4 or 5 kinds of color blindness), some people have myopia (as I do), or asytigmatism, or synaesthesia, or all kinds of things. When I say “some” I mean “many”. Then people browse differently. Some might use voice browsers. My browser has the ability to turn off all styling - and I do if the style is too aggressive. Some people use braille browsers. It’s sure nice to have a good looking site, but it’s best to relax about these things. I hear the next world’s perfect, so we can just wait for that.
Ah, that’s what I thought you meant, kewl. And not to fear, if I was truely concerned about such issues then this site as it is would never have been made public.