Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubbe
like many people said i don't think it has a persistant style, all the pages look different to me, they could just aswell have been different sites.. I also really think that if you're going to use the half / half navigation of the image you should atleast make some transparrent arrows that can go on top of the image or whatever, because its really kinda hard to know for many people that it works as nav.
and to kristarellas post, i totally agree.. i also do my best to get it as close to being xhtml / css valid, but i really think people do it to too much of a deal.. i don't think you should let xhtml / css validation restrict you... you can easily have a site that works fine in all major browsers that isn't valid.
|
As for the xhtml/css - I started this thread with the idea that people make the web, not standards. Especially not the erratic ones that exists now, with all those developers thinking they rule the world.
About the design:
In a way you are right, in a way - not. I think people in this world are those who like a design, and those who don't care about it. I consider myself from the former, yet you say I'm from the latter. The absence of complexity - is a design. The simple fact you don't see graphics or complex positioning does not mean my site is generic. Coherence - the way you define it, may not be present, yet for some reason I think your thought is flawed. Anyways, I posted to get feedback, as much positive as a negative one. So thanks for you input.
Oh, almost forgot! The arrows. If you would have read the my answer to the post above, you'd see I'm considering them. Moreover, I don't even know how to to do this overlay, wanting it to be strictly outside the image itself. On a final note, accessibility is not a design feature, it's a functionality of the website.