New Design

[Stone]

Shortly I will be starting work on a new design for Rorta.net

For design reasons, we will no longer have the 'liquid' display that we currently have. By liquid, I mean that the page will no longer resize to the width of your browsers screen size (which is dependant on your screen resolution. I would prefer to work on a site 1000 pixels wide (for screens that use a resolution of 1024x768 or bigger) rather than a site that is 780px wide (for resolutions of 800x600).

Does anybody have any arguements against a size of 1000px? By now, the majority of people have a gfx card with more than 16MB VRAM and a screen of 17" so there is no reason to be using such a small resolution as 800x600 unless you have severe eyesight difficulty. In that case BUY NEW GLASSES!

[DoctaD]

Ive been using 1280x1024 since the old days, so I barely remember what ye olde 1024x768 looks like. Big, I would assume... ;)

[Stone]

Same here. 1440x900 on my laptop and 1280x1024 on my desktop or in college. I need my space!

Most people would still only use 1024px on a 17" screen though.

[torcher]

im using 1600x1200 so yeah i got no qualms about that.

[duiker]

No wonder all computer nerds wear dual magnifying lenses on their faces!

[weirdcrap]

whoa...i just realised that my graphics card and screen can go past 1024x768. NOW EVERYTHING IS SO SMALL! However I prefer 1024x768 for graphic design reasons (and seeing the code im writing).

[Stone]

Just try it on 1280 for a small while. Getting used to it easy and it's alot more practical to be able to fit everything onscreen.

[blaksun]

so stoned how's the design going, huh huh huh.

can you upload someone else's skin in the cruel time, because god damn. eyes and all.

[Stone]

The design has to take a back seat for a small while until I have my other work done. It will be done though.

[Stone]

Thanks for the offer FireXtol. One thing I've tried to do is keep the site accessible for as many people as possible, which means a lack of heavy graphics. As you'll notice, only the header will be graphical. One of the plans for the future though is a user selectable choice of stylesheets to make the site look like you want.

[Stone]

The attachment is way to saturated and dark. It doesn't have the same 'worn paint on concrete' feel and alot of the detail is lost. My banner is split into three parts and altogether are 2K smaller than the attachment you have posted.

I hand code all my XHTML, CSS, PHP and SQL. I use Dreamweaver because it has a built in FTP client and has some nice features such as code colouring, search and replace within all files on site, etc.

I use table-less layout, as in all my positioning is done with CSS, and I use semantic markup. All my sites are 100% accessible, and validate with the W3C for XHTML and CSS. It is much easier to do all that with code than the design mode of Dreamweaver or GoLive. And when I put my mind to it, I can learn a language pretty quickly.

Thanks for the input, your criticism is noted.

[torcher]

The attachment is way to saturated and dark. It doesn't have the same 'worn paint on concrete' feel and alot of the detail is lost. My banner is split into three parts and altogether are 2K smaller than the attachment you have posted.

I hand code all my XHTML, CSS, PHP and SQL. I use Dreamweaver because it has a built in FTP client and has some nice features such as code colouring, search and replace within all files on site, etc.

I use table-less layout, as in all my positioning is done with CSS, and I use semantic markup. All my sites are 100% accessible, and validate with the W3C for XHTML and CSS. It is much easier to do all that with code than the design mode of Dreamweaver or GoLive. And when I put my mind to it, I can learn a language pretty quickly.

Thanks for the input, your criticism is noted.



i dont know what any of that is...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/torchersapyro/suicide.gif