Site redesign, opinions?

[ThomSip]

Hello there,

after hearing your comments and making a logo for myself I decided to redesign my site again, and I was wondering what you guys think about it.

See it here

comments? opinions?

[ThomSip]

At 11/7/07 08:33 PM, ThomSip wrote: Hello there,

after hearing your comments and making a logo for myself I decided to redesign my site again, and I was wondering what you guys think about it.

See it here

comments? opinions?

http://www.daa-studios.com/logo.html

[ThomSip]

At 11/7/07 08:35 PM, ThomSip wrote:

At 11/7/07 08:33 PM, ThomSip wrote: Hello there,

after hearing your comments and making a logo for myself I decided to redesign my site again, and I was wondering what you guys think about it.

See it here

comments? opinions?

http://www.daa-studios.com/logo.html

GRRRR sorry for the triple post but my internet freaked and NG doesn't let me edit my posts

anyways, see the animated logo here

[Afro-Ninja]

too much gradient :(

[condawg]

At 11/7/07 08:57 PM, Afro-Ninja wrote: too much gradient :(

Agreed.
Gradient is good when used cleverly and sparsely. Your design is lacking both of those elements (no offense).

[ThomSip]

At 11/7/07 08:59 PM, condawg wrote:

At 11/7/07 08:57 PM, Afro-Ninja wrote: too much gradient :(

Agreed.
Gradient is good when used cleverly and sparsely. Your design is lacking both of those elements (no offense).

no offense taken. I want to hear your opinions, both good and bad, so I can make my site better when I redesign it again ;)

thanks for the tips guys :)

more comments/opinions?

[Momo-the-Monkey]

Again, no offense. But I find it a bit bland (minus the gradients). It's not appealing, there's nothing BAM about it. It's like I want to leave the site immediately because I can't bear to look at nothing. Again, it might be the gradient, but that's just my opinion.

Strictly criticism

[Snake-Arsenic]

It's hard to see the menu text on the right because of the gradient, that's just plain annoying.

[ThomSip]

Okay, the I'll edit again soon as repost it ;)

thanks for the comments all

[Scarpian]

nice, but its a bit... grey

also, at the far right of navbar, you can't read text..
well not very well...

[Rustygames]

You can tell a developer made this without a designer ;)

[Momo-the-Monkey]

It's just my opinion, but get rid of the adult ads. You shouldn't ever have adult ads on any site. No one wants to visit it with adult ads on their. Even Newgrounds lost some visitors after the adult ads appeared.

[ThomSip]

At 11/8/07 06:08 AM, Momo-the-Monkey wrote: It's just my opinion, but get rid of the adult ads. You shouldn't ever have adult ads on any site. No one wants to visit it with adult ads on their. Even Newgrounds lost some visitors after the adult ads appeared.

WTF ADDULT adds? you mean like porn? wtf it's just google adds I can't imagine they addvertise for porn :S

for the rest, thanks for your comments, I'll keep them in mind when I make a new design :)

more comments still welcome

[smulse]

Logo is cold, doesn't catch the eye and says nothing about you as a company/person.

[StolenTactics]

At 11/7/07 08:57 PM, Afro-Ninja wrote: too much gradient :(

I agree with that also.

[elbekko]

I can't believe the amount of tables in that thing.

[different]

A grey colour palette is not necessarily a bad thing.

http://daringfireball.net

This, however looks amateurish.

[greenkube]

At 11/8/07 11:40 AM, elbekko wrote: I can't believe the amount of tables in that thing.

I still don't honestly understand why people treat tables as a downfall in a site.

[Jessii]

At 11/8/07 03:37 PM, greenkube wrote: I still don't honestly understand why people treat tables as a downfall in a site.

They just take longer to load (and have to reload everytime the page is loaded) and they're not as dynamic as using divs.

[elbekko]

At 11/8/07 03:37 PM, greenkube wrote:

At 11/8/07 11:40 AM, elbekko wrote: I can't believe the amount of tables in that thing.

I still don't honestly understand why people treat tables as a downfall in a site.

They're meant for tabular data, are overly large and complicated and above all suck ass.

[greenkube]

At 11/8/07 03:46 PM, Jessii wrote:

At 11/8/07 03:37 PM, greenkube wrote: I still don't honestly understand why people treat tables as a downfall in a site.

They just take longer to load (and have to reload everytime the page is loaded) and they're not as dynamic as using divs.

That sound reasonable to me. thanks!

[Seachmall]

I don't like the use of images for the menu. Its a personal thing. These images however are compressed too much. I can see those dots you get with overly compressed images.

[Loccie]

The tables. :< Also you splash page is very annoying. Having one all together is stupid but this one opens your site in a new window, why would you do that?

[ThomSip]

At 11/9/07 12:00 AM, Loccie wrote: The tables. :< Also you splash page is very annoying. Having one all together is stupid but this one opens your site in a new window, why would you do that?

what do you mean with "you splash page?"

@Neills

what forum should I post it in than?

overal:
mmmmm not the comments I hoped on :( back to the drawingbourd soon

[ThomSip]

BTW, how can you guys complain about tables?

I mean armorgames takes forever to load. but my site loads in less than a second. Sooo... what's the problem about the tables?

[elbekko]

We told you, try learning to read.

[smulse]

At 11/9/07 09:59 AM, ThomSip wrote: what do you mean with "you splash page?"

*your
simple typo

At 11/9/07 10:22 AM, ThomSip wrote: BTW, how can you guys complain about tables?
I mean armorgames takes forever to load. but my site loads in less than a second. Sooo... what's the problem about the tables?

Because tables were never intended to be used to lay out a page. They're horrible, inflexible and are horrible to try and update and change later on without even touching on the accessibility problems.

[ThomSip]

At 11/9/07 11:11 AM, elbekko wrote: We told you, try learning to read.

first of all, no need to be rude. second of all:

They're meant for tabular data, are overly large and complicated and above all suck ass.

so waht if I use them in another way that they're meant for?
as I said the page loads within a second so so what they're large?
you think they're complicated, I like working with them?
why do they simply "suck ass"?

@ smulse
At 11/9/07 09:59 AM, ThomSip wrote: what do you mean with "you splash page?"

*your
simple typo

I thought you meant that, but I simply don't know what a splashe page is :S

@ Seachmall

I plan on making them in into text ASAP, so that'll be fixed ;)

I'm not looking for agressive arguments or anything, my questions here are meant seriously and I appreciate serious answers. :)

[elbekko]

Urgh. You think that was rude? Try going outside.

so waht if I use them in another way that they're meant for?

Then you're making a semantically incorrect page. It's just like you won't use strong tags to build a layout. It's possible, but why on earth would you do it if there's a better and more semantically correct solution?

as I said the page loads within a second so so what they're large?

First of all, it'll cost you. In bandwidth. Which is expensive.
Should I put it more easily?
tables == dollars--

you think they're complicated, I like working with them?

What's there to say to that... your bad?

why do they simply "suck ass"?

Smulse explained that quite well. They're inflexible.

[Jessii]

Splash page = the index page with a picture and a link on it to the main content. It's unnecessary unless you have a flash layout where you have a preloader and want to load all of the content first before someone views it.