Screw that other layout I made a while ago. Here’s another one that I like much more and I think has more potential.
[size=3][color=black]Link[/color][/size][size=3][color=black]** removed, see post futher down.**[/color][/size]
No logo this time but it has got what I think is a better concept for the site as a whole. This site is the result of two hours experimentation, a strange fascination with the colour pink and a bunch of Van Morrison albums. It’s got a sort of Japanese feel to it with the colours, the trees and the title font. Tell me what you like and what you don’t. I don’t think I can be persuaded to change the colours btw.
Thanx in advance.
looks nice and all, but the background tree image is kinda strange, looks pixilated and faded… not good. Purple isn’t my thing either :). Other than that… nice work!
It’s pink! The trees are brushes so they’re not as high quality as I’d have liked. I could try applying them, then scaling instead of scaling the brush. Would that make them more clear and precise? If by faded you mean pale then that’s deliberate. The content has to be visible over them. (it’ll be in translucent white boxes) Thanks for the compliments though.
It looks awesome! Much better than the other one.
I agree about the trees in the background of the main body. They just don’t look good/right. Maybe you could re-trace them in vector or something. It might help match the rest of the site too. I like the colors. It’s very pink but it looks good!
I made a little change in the center picutre (hope you don’t mind), I was thinking have a full picutre like that in the center. This was just real quick, I’m sure if it was taken further it would look alot better.
Oh and don’t use the picture I have in the center, I made that one and used it on my site. So I would rather it didn’t go onto another site
I don’t really like it. It’s just not site material. The trees on the background … they’re just trees, they don’t add anything to the layout. It’ll also be hard to read text on the background with the trees. I don’t like the purple either, 's kinda ugly.
3D// I like the idea but that picture is too dark. I’ll try to find something better to put in the content area.
Voets// Why isn’t it site material? It looks like a site to me. There’s buttons, a content area, a header, glowy-ness. What more could you want? What makes it not site material? (I hope I don’t sound angry cos I’m not. I just want to know why you think what you do.)
It’s just, I really don’t think that some trees in a content area qualify to have a site there. Of course, technically seen it is site material, but so are those tons and tons of annoying animated GIFs out there. What I could want more is for example a background, interface elements, more colour than gray, white and purple. It’s too simple.
As many people on this forum have said, ‘simple never goes out of style.’ I really want to push away from the busy techno look of alot of sites at the minute.
Okay here’s a version taking to heed 3D Nirvana and Voetsjoeba’s point about the trees looking crap. If the flower looks pixelly it’s becau I exported it as a 4 colour gif. Now get off my back!
NOTE: This jpg is at 54%. All final site elements will be transferred into flash as png files.
Translucent white boxes baby. They are going to pop in and out of existence inside the big rectangular area. They’ll just look like smaller versions of the header/buttons/content area but they’ll be outlined in the blue.
It’s a good idea, but I think the reason it bothers me is that it’s really “Eye Candy” looking. SOOO many people abused those filters back in like '99, and now every time I see something with that many bevels, it eats away at my soul. Ah well. Good luck man!
Okay Digitalosophy here’s an example of the content windows. I’m not sure to go with or without the drop shadow. (Left box has drop shadow, right box has none) What do you think?
NOTE: Again this is a low quality jpg file, not final quality.