| 9:12 pm on Apr 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Overall the colors and layout aren't bad.
The main thing I notice is the home page it too busy. There isn't any one thing that catches my eye and draws me in. My eyes seem to automatically jump all over the page as opposed to focusing on one element. This might be a good thing depending on how you look at it though.
| 9:34 pm on Apr 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looks like every other internet.com/Jupitermedia web site.
It's like someone loaded PHPNuke (an Open source CMS) on every acquisition, and forgot load the new templates/skins.
Bet you 20 Googles (new Internaitonal SEO currency - equates to moving your link 20 positions higher in Google) next web site they buy will end up looking almost like it. They will change the background color, of course...
| 9:50 pm on Apr 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Reminds me of internet.com clones......maybe it is?
Actually noticed the advertising on LHS, maybe he was bought out in a "secret" deal?
None the less, I used to get a wealth of info from there in the early days.
| 10:00 pm on Apr 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Scratching my head?… hmmmm
I find my mouse wondering all over the front page wondering where it begins and ends. Usability is an issue… I guess they needed a more complex feel to their site?
digitalghost.. I caught that also...
I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is impossible to validate the document. The sources I tried are:
*The HTTP Content-Type field.
*The XML Declaration.
*The HTML "META" element.
And I even tried to autodetect it using the algorithm defined in Appendix F of the XML 1.0 Recommendation.
Since none of these sources yielded any usable information, I will not be able to validate this document. Sorry. Please make sure you specify the character encoding in use.
| 10:33 pm on Apr 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 12:48 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I always thought it was cool that the site looked so ... grassroots, for lack of a better word ... for so long.
I couldn't agree more.
While the current site might make it a little easier to navigate through the site's content (and I'm not entirely sold on this), the old design was much, much more distinct looking.
| 12:52 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I liked the previous version better.
| 1:31 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Where is the 50k flash intro? ;). Trash everything and start over or, maybe we just might have to get use to it :).
| 3:49 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Danny -- Have you considered using a more scalable design? I mean, the home page is loaded with content. Well, it looks full at least on first glance because the ads on the right, and left, help to fill the screen. But you've got to scroll another mile down just to access all the usable links in the full left-hand-nav.
Oh wait, that's just internet_._com forcing you to link up their stuff! My bad.
| 4:01 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hm! I think I like it!
I found a couple of inconsistencies but they're the type of inconsistencies that I have on my own site so I'll be casting no stones and making a note on my own to-do list.
I wish the content area in the center was a little wider and the market place was a little narrower.
And I agree with the many voices who said that the orange text rollover on the green background is nearly impossible to read.
But ... overall ... I like it. I found what I was looking for and I didn't get lost.
| 6:34 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It`s really a big improvement. :) :)
| 6:56 am on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For me it is too cluttered. I prefer the old version.
| 12:15 pm on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I think the ads column is too wide; I appreciate that it helps support the costs, but it takes focus away from the content, by being more eye-penetrating. If it were one column wide (ie, one ad per line - roughly the same size as the left nav column) then there'd be much more focus on the central aspects of the site - the headlines & content.
Similarly, the two other boxes on the right could be condensed in the same way, making the site much more symettrical.
| 1:19 pm on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think the ad column is too wide, but I would like a touch more white space between the stories and the columns left/right of them.
Other than that, I think it's a vaste improvement. It's far easier to find one's way around the site now.
Tastes like chicken - Looks like Google. (tm)
| 2:48 pm on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm not a big fan of "slick, corporate layouts" but if the content is still there, then it's OK with me...
It's all about content.
| 4:22 pm on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is it me or does it seem that the moment something gets loaded into a content management system the look and feel goes a little out the window?
I know content is kind but when I hit the homepage and scroll down there is a table on the left which has these links in it....
And this is complemented by a large white space on the right hand side? Is that a creative use of white space designed to be the point on your screen into which you can reflect about what you've read? I'm just kidding, but I do sometimes take a look at site and wonder whether I missed something - that a new rule came about while I was sleeping that said "only design for the top 800 pixels of the page, what goes below doesn't matter..no one goes that far anyway?"
Personally I'm not a fan of sites that put so many logos on the homepage that it's as if you've hit the jackpot on the first visit to the page. But having said that, the site, which is now sitting behind this window as I type, seems to have calmed down a little.
Hold on.. I just went to another level
and got that fruit machine effect again.
Also the page is much bigger than the homepage. I'm getting 159 links on that page which is quite a lot but Danny knows far more about search engine optimisation than me so I take it that the strategy is load up the links and present that food to the spiders.
Still I've no doubt the site will continue to do what is has done for many already, help people grasp the new concepts as they are developed. And I'm sure once I've visited a few times the channels will become clearer to me.
| 7:00 pm on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Those who hated the old mouseover color will be happy to know the designers have read this thread with interest, agreed with the general consensus and changed things to make it more readable.
|Well, it looks full at least on first glance because the ads on the right, and left, help to fill the screen. But you've got to scroll another mile down just to access all the usable links in the full left-hand-nav. |
Mentioned this briefly earlier, but you will see some changes that should make the content stand out more. In particular, the ad above the "Departments" navigation links will be moving down. There are some contractual reasons why it has to stay where it is for the next month. But after that move, I think it will make it much easier to see at a glance both the standing departments within the site as well as the individual articles we're featuring.
I'll also be adding descriptions of the various departments below the article listings, similar to what I used to have. It'll just take a bit as we still move some of the content over and fine-tune.
|I know content is kind but when I hit the homepage and scroll down there is a table on the left which has these links in it.... And this is complemented by a large white space on the right hand side? |
When you go into an article, I think you'll find that white space no longer exists, because most of the articles flow longer than the nav links in the left-hand side. It will also get better even on the home page, because when department descriptions are added, they'll flow further down the page. It will make more sense in a week or so.
|Also the page is much bigger than the homepage. I'm getting 159 links on that page which is quite a lot but Danny knows far more about search engine optimisation than me so I take it that the strategy is load up the links and present that food to the spiders. |
The internet.com links in the bottom of the left-nav area are more an issue of internet.com having standard links between the many different web sites they run, rather than something I'm a big fan of. One set of them was long part of Search Engine Watch, just in a horizontal format at the bottom of pages rather than vertically along the side -- the margins of the old site simply didn't allow them.
In general, SEW is part of the internet.com network, and networks do have a tendency to use common network navigational elements.
So, yes, the site will lose some of the distinctive and grassroots feel it had when it was done by me and FrontPage. But moving into the new content management system will free up some logistics time for me and Chris to spend even more on content. That's what we like to do the most.
Again, thanks for all the comments, pro and con. I and others will be looking at them all, to see how to tweak things as much as possible.
| 9:42 pm on Apr 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For my taste it's too "heavy":
Size of main page: 41911 bytes
Size of inline elements: 110618 bytes
Size of main page: 3764 bytes
Size of inline elements: 12748 bytes
Not quite the same. Think, I'll try the SEW feed...
That's more like it. :)
| 12:25 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I might just be a picky *** but is there a pixel of grey/black missing from the top-bg background gif? |
Yeah, it's definitely missing. I was gonna post that but now I just get to reiterate, ha.
|I know it's only a little thing i am extremely anal about things like that. |
Me too. My eye gets drawn to it every time =/
|am I just missing the point? |
I don't think so. That line is important to finish off the design. If I did such a thing without noticing I would want to be told about it even though its just a 'line'.
Does that make us anal jerks?
[edited by: eelixduppy at 10:00 pm (utc) on Feb. 18, 2009]
| 12:28 pm on Apr 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The new design looks really nice, but I miss the unique feeling of the old site. Now it looks like any other portal about search engines.
|There are many people who come thinking Search Engine Watch IS a search engine. Putting a big search box up there just reinforces that mistake. |
Nice to hear that you've got the same problem. I sometimes even get a harsh mail saying: "Your search engine is really bad!" And at least half of all queries on my site about SEO have nothing to do with SEO ...
| 9:33 am on Apr 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
i don't care what it looks like,i only care about what it says.
| This 51 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 51 ( 1  ) |