..:: NoiZ 22 ::

[email protected]

Let the Tunes play!

:slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Trying for the SOTW, comments welcome.

I guess not very many people like to reply to posts here?
all I’m asking is, if my site makes good candidate for the site of the week.


Hey noiz,

It is nothing personal if no one replies, this section doesn’t get visited by many people, it is a good thing you bump this thread up or I wouldn’t have visited it.

Your site is good, but on an 800x600 monitor (like mine), the content viewing area is too small, so I have to hit F11 on my IE (which not everyone knows about, and Netscape users, or Mac users don’t have that option).

Your site is mostly HTML oriented, and the SOTW is supposed to be around 90% Flash oriented. It is up to Ren to decide if it qualifies for entry, so you will have to wait on her to see if it qualifies.

When I view the site in “F11” mode, your site is very good. I think you did a great job on it.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off rude or anything like that.
thanks for your input,
I built the site so that it fits perfectly into a 1024x768 browser
I don’t think very many people use 800x600 at this day and age.
but thanks again.

Recent Stats (true stats)

800x600 = over 60% web viewers
1024x768 = about 40% web viewers
higher = small percentage of web viewers

Ok, so not accurate numbers, but those are the rough numbers.

You can ask reverendFlash (member of the forum) where he got the numbers from, he is the one that told me.

Nay! Most people on the web surf on an 800x600 site: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

And contrary to popular belief (or what people want to believe) - not everyone surfs with their screen maximized. My screen is set to a high resolution but my browsers are sized down to 800x600 and I have browser resize disabled.

For the purpose, which I built the site to serve as resource to designers, I would think that most designers would use at least 1024x768.
Is it an important criteria to have the site fit into 800x600 to qualify for the SOWT?

Well viewability is definitely a plus, but its not the whole thing.

The site must be mostly flash.

Ren: Was that a nay to my stats (which were wrong, but as I said, I got them from rev, so take this up with him :P) or a nay to his site being able to win SOTW for being mostly HTML?

PS: A lot of designers do use a bigger monitor, but I am also a designer (self proclaimed) and I use an 800x600, designers are regular people too…lol :slight_smile:

Hmm… well I’m a designer and Lost is a designer, and so is Rev…

In fact I don’t view sites maximized so I can make most of my screen real estate (as most designers usually do). And professional web designers and developers know that web designs should fit in an 800x600 resolution.

Anyways, it’s not required for you to consider those with smaller screens, just like it isn’t “required” for you to consider people with a 56k connection or people who don’t use IE. But understand the potential for your site to be ignored when it’s not viewable to over 50% of web viewers.

Anyway, let’s return back to the site. A good way to determine how you measure up for SOTW is to check out previous winners. You’ll notice that many of these sites are full-Flash, from the interface to each section. Your site is good but it seems to be lacking in Flash, which is one of the basic qualifications for the award.

I like the menu - it is unique and the header bar looks very trendy - but it makes my computer run super slow. Consider optimizing it or double check your actionscript to see if there’s anything in there that could be eating up a lot of memory.

Just my two cents.

Dangit Lost! No it was not a “nay” to you - it’s a “yay” for you!

Now quit replying while I’m replying. :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks for all your help and input.
I know the site is not all flash, I made it half flash and half html for fast and easy updates. well it was worth a shot.
Thanks again.

Wow. That top flash Kicks ass. Very Sweet. It is a very nice Hybrid site it can be really hard to make a flash HTML site that looks good. The only thing I didn’t like is the clamps that come out and suround the button. The animation was chopy and it just didn’t look good. What did you make th little spining triangle things in the top corners with? THey looked pretty sweet.

All and all the site looks good but because of the Flahs to HTML ratio and the resoluton problems I wouldn’t give it SOTW. THis isn’t to say it is not a very impressive site. Nice work:)