Mmmm, pretty.
I like it.
Posted by Screwtape at May 9, 2003 2:33 AMVery gorgeous...
Posted by Jerome Danthinne at May 9, 2003 2:43 AMWow! One of the most professional looking weblogs I've seen so far.
Now, can you please fix the last naming issues in Mozilla Firebird and make a 0.6 release? :)
Posted by David Tenser at May 9, 2003 2:43 AMYou may want to do some testing on layout behaviour when resizing font-size. Overall, nice layout.
Posted by Kris at May 9, 2003 2:48 AMYes, both small font-sizes and very large sizes messes up the layout.
Nice layout, anyhow. Perhaps a bit too wide.
Posted by simon at May 9, 2003 2:55 AMAlready better.
Posted by Stephen Coles at May 9, 2003 3:05 AMAwesome job, Dave.
Posted by Adam at May 9, 2003 3:41 AMLooking Good! Nice work.
Posted by James at May 9, 2003 4:12 AMLooks great!
Posted by Peter Larsen at May 9, 2003 5:21 AMI like it. Good work!
Posted by XiniX at May 9, 2003 5:23 AMit looks "ok" at best
Posted by Dan Benjamin at May 9, 2003 5:28 AMI'm kidding, I love it! White, minimalist, it's all good!
Posted by Dan Benjamin at May 9, 2003 5:28 AMI love it. It's beautiful.
Posted by Brad at May 9, 2003 5:32 AMGreat work! I like the new design very much. Looks so sweet ...
Posted by woeye at May 9, 2003 5:59 AMI really like it!
Apple Guidelines?
;)
the rounded box CSS is slick
Posted by Eric Rolph at May 9, 2003 6:39 AMMaking the font large enough (for me) to read pushes the calendar beyond its box and the input form past the right edge of it's box.
Otherwise, it does look more...surfin.
Posted by Jonathan King at May 9, 2003 6:43 AMMaybe it's just me, but the page's header and sub-heared appear just a lil' too wide. And I dunno about those blue horizontal rules. I could do without 'em. I'm really diggin' the rounded corners, however. Perhaps Safari should adopt -moz-border-radius? :)
Posted by Brian at May 9, 2003 6:57 AMWow, looks real nice!
Posted by Ray Slakinski at May 9, 2003 7:02 AMA small but easily-solved nit: ALT attributes for purely decorative graphics (like box_bottom.gif) should just be "" (an empty string). Text-only browsers, screen readers, and search engine robots don't care about your pretty boxes, they only care about your content.
Posted by Mark at May 9, 2003 7:07 AMAlso, you're very close to valid markup (after you add a character encoding, that is). Validating may reveal some problems that could cause cross-browser incompatibilities (like having an H2 within a SPAN).
Posted by Mark at May 9, 2003 7:10 AMMmm pretty.
Posted by John at May 9, 2003 7:38 AMNot too shabby.
Posted by Alex Bishop at May 9, 2003 7:40 AMLooks great. Only one thing: add a max-width to the content layer, the lines of htext should not be bigger than about 500px. See wired.com for an example.
Posted by Gabriel Radic at May 9, 2003 7:41 AMGroooovy !!!
Posted by Jorge H. Padilla Leal at May 9, 2003 7:41 AMGet a new favicon as well then, the current one bites and does NOTHING for the new re-design.
Thanks,
Ginger Spice
I don't like it. Well, I really do, but the browser on this computer I use at work doesn't. It makes a mess of all the rounded borders and the big-font titles get lost behind the blue text bars and the little gray rounded date boxes get lost behind those big-font titles. Looks pretty ugly over here.
So, what was that browser again? Let's check that out. Oh yes, it's IE. I'll go check it in Phoenix right away.
*STARTS UP PHOENIX*
Yup, just what I thought. Lookin' good!
*KILLS INTERNET EXPLORER*
Good job; looks excellent!
Posted by Bengt Lundvik at May 9, 2003 8:04 AMVery nice, it's very simple. The rounded corners and the grey boxes are a nice touch
Posted by vinay venkatesh at May 9, 2003 8:14 AMI don't like it. Pictures of text is just sad. Your page will lose one of the usability advantages of HTML pages over more static formats, and it doesn't even look good. Why not use CSS? Also, the "cute" boxes on the right use fixed sizes, so my custom font makes the calendar contents bigger than its frame. The web is not print.
Posted by scottv at May 9, 2003 8:24 AMdo you ever get the feeling people use the trackback just to get hits to their weblog up?
Posted by Daniel Andrews at May 9, 2003 8:48 AMVery nice - however, the orange arrows next to each "headline" aren't needed since you don't post multiple things in a day. ;)
Otherwise, very very slick!
Posted by Joshua at May 9, 2003 9:44 AMOh god, my eyes!
Posted by Kevin at May 9, 2003 10:48 AMWhat's wrong with some of you people? You think the man doesn't know about W3C validators et al? The dude's just makin his blog look nicer - no preaching necessary. Welll done, I say. It looks cool.
Posted by JR at May 9, 2003 10:54 AMI see you like rounded corners - how about CSS border-radius support in Safari?
Would make your site require less code (not to mention one I'm developing)!
Posted by Goynang at May 9, 2003 11:17 AMLooks nice, but you are sinning against the gods of structural markup and pure CSS.
Posted by Adam Rice at May 9, 2003 12:20 PMBah. :)
I love rounded corners -- hence my blog having them in N7, et cetera. Looks nice to me. It's easy to read and much easier to look at than the previous version.
Posted by Suzanne Carter-Jackson at May 9, 2003 12:42 PMI love it! This is teh bestest blog in the world! But seriously, this is indeed one of the best blog designs I've ever seen.
(Note: I am the third or fourth Adam to comment on this post. I am not any of the other ones.)
Dave, *every* entry says "Posted at 04:16 PM." You might want to fix that. :)
Posted by Adam at May 9, 2003 12:53 PMHahahahaha, you really did go change your favicon as I suggested....you little rascal you.
Thanks,
Ginger Spice
um...adam #3 or #4: my blog looks nice.
hyatt: about the images vs. text for accessability. i just read recently something about make a div with a background image that is your "image text" and then inside that div have a span with the "real text", but make that span hidden. when i saved the sample page as text, it replaced the image with the span text. im guessing you could also serve up the correct stylesheet depending on the reader, with the "real text"/"image text" on or off.
Posted by BG at May 9, 2003 1:37 PMWhat Bengt reported about the titles and the blue line -- I have the same problem in Safari!
When the story title wraps to a second line, it is superimposed over the dotted blue line. Please find a way to make that dotted line stay under the last line of text.
My window is 512px wide. The page does look nice, apart from that [positioning?] problem.
Oops, I spoke too soon, The "Posted at" text is positioned wrong as well.
Here is a screenshot:
http://www.natural-innovations.com/misc/surfinsafari.gif
-Walter
PS. One last nit: the right column creates a terrible waste of space below the four cute boxes. How about a design which does not waste all that space?
Just had another thought. Maybe it's a v73 thing? Maybe Dave's internal build positions things better?
Dave, you'll just have to resize your browser window to 512px and see if you get the same wonky positioning as I see in v73 (Jaguar 10.2.5, TiBook 550) as shown in the GIF I just posted.
This redesign looks like a perfect example of why CSS-based layouts suck. If it was a normal HTML layout, the main post section and the boxes on the right would be two columns in a table, and they could be autosized based on the actual content width. But with this page, as with most sites I've seen with "new" "improved" CSS layouts, it uses a pixel width for the right column. So, if you have a big font, it sucks for you, half the content is hanging off the right of the page or everything is overlapping.
#right {
margin-bottom: 20px;
width: 180px;
position: absolute;
top: 126px; right: 20px; }
Everything's in pixels...how is that an improvement over using a nice simple table to contain the columns? I don't see why so many people insist on claiming that using a table to do positioning is such a bad thing. I've never seen a table-based layout that makes everything overlap if you use a non-standard font yet nearly all CSS-based layouts have this problem.
Posted by Foom at May 9, 2003 9:57 PMI would like to add, however, that I do like the way it looks when you have the font-size set to what dave expected. Very pretty.
Posted by Foom at May 9, 2003 9:59 PMWhy use pixels for layout when you can use ems? It solves many of the problems mentioned by Foom.
Also, why set a font size in the body at all?
And, ugh, please don't use "absolute" font sizes in pixels. Use relative sizes (large, smaller, etc) or percentages, please.
"#left" and "#right" are poor names for ids -- give them something nice and functional, in case next week you decide to swap your columns around.
--Kynn
PS: Oh, and my pet peeve: I can't stand sites which put the main body text as something smaller than the user's 'medium' setting. If you use relative font sizes, please don't make the mistake that many other people do. Allow the user's medium setting to be respected.
You know a png webicon with transprancy is much much better looking :)
Posted by Bart van de Biezen at May 10, 2003 10:28 AMfont-size issues aside, the thing that kills me is the fact that the line-height is 14px. My 20px Palatino (minimum font size, not allowing webpages to change fonts) is a little large for that. The ascenders from a line of text overlap the descenders of the previous line, making it very hard to read.
Posted by Daniel Brooks at May 13, 2003 5:29 PMOn the other hand, I suppose you could argue that Mozilla should ignore the line-height for text that's below the minimum font-size. Perhaps it should scale it to be in the same proportion to the new font size as it is to the old, or something fancy like that?
Posted by Daniel Brooks at May 13, 2003 5:32 PMDo give books - religious or otherwise - for Christmas. They're never fattening, seldom sinful, and permanently personal.
Posted by Katcher Elana at January 25, 2004 8:38 AM