Corn.

[dolari]

I've been told specifically by two people close to me that my website isn't all it could be. One said "You going for retro?" the other "I can't see how you still use that style."

Am I the only one who hates Web 2.0 with it's eyeglaring black text on white screens and mystery links?

Could my website be better?

Should I junk it and go back to my original website style ( http://web.archive.org/web/19981202050527/www.dragondata.com/~dolari )?

I kinda like it as it is, really, especially the AWFW neon look....

Comments

[madrona.livejournal.com]

The original style looks much more readable.

You are the only one who hates Web 2.0

[amw.livejournal.com]

I am a big fan of Web 2.0, but it's very hard to do if you don't program server-side aswell. Ajax is the best thing that ever happened to the web, it makes the whole experience so much more seamless. Love it. Your page does look very retro - but if it's a look you're going for then who cares what people think? Personally i'd lose the underlined links and large font with italics etc, "primary" colors - but then it's not my comic :) Do what makes you feel good.

[jazonbladen.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, I also hate web 2.0.

It's just gradients and crap thrown together to make people think that the Internet is totally different now from the days before the dot-com crash and appeal to the swingin' hipsters of today's youth.

Bah, youngins.

[kalibex.livejournal.com]

Sometimes less is more (ie, not having all the current 'in' bells & whistles).

Just keep those 2 criticisms in perspective - 2 out of how many viewers?

[aspasia13.livejournal.com]

As someone who does programming for a living, including both back-end and user interface design, the main thing that is important is usability. FAR too many "Web2.0" designs forget this basic rule (forgetting for the moment that "Web2.0" is a vague term, and people seem to use it when they use anything on their web page other than HTML). The basic purpose of a web page is to convey information from the supplier to the user.

So the questions you first ask yourself are: Does it convey the information I want to convey? Is it easy and intuitive for a user to navigate and find what they are looking for?

AFTER that you can start asking further questions: Does the look and style convey what I'm trying to convey? Does it leave the user with the impression I want them left with?

If you are applying for a job in digital graphics arts or web-page design then you'd want your page to show examples that you've mastered the latest trends in design and development and keep it up to date (employers in many places will google potential employees these days, check for facebook/myspace accounts, etc).

But as far as "make your website better", just go back to the earlier questions: are people finding it difficult to navigate and find what they want? If not then it meets the usability criteria. Does it reflect the style that YOU want reflected by your work? If so then it meets the style criteria.

[ghostangel.livejournal.com]

Thank you. You've pinned down my #1 pet peeve of the web: Usability. I'm glad SOMEONE still cares about that D:

[kowaiyukidono.livejournal.com]

You know what?

I don't like most new web designs.

I like the current design. The colors are pretty subdued, I don't hurt myself trying to read it, it's not a pain to navigate, I can generally get from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss.

I can even navigate your archives. Talk about wow.

The other design, and ones similar to it, mess with my dyslexia. I find them difficult to read and navigate because my brain has rules set for how things look, because I am physically incapable of making out straight lines.

Bells and whistles tend to disrupt that flow a lot. Example: Most artist websites are impossible to navigate, and take forever to load anyway because the artists want to make it shiny and look good.