I'm working on a new website for a local theatre group I'm involved with.
It's still an early working draft - the "shows" and "concerts" sections, for example, aren't yet there and there are will be spelling and gramatical problems (and, yes, there are a lot of ALT tags currently missing!). Oh, and I know there are spacing lines missing when viewing in Firefox - I've already fixed those but haven't, as yet, uploaded the changes.
Anyway, it's here:
Please take a look and let me know you think about the general look n' feel of it all. It's designed to be "customer-centric" - a seperate and password protected members section will be added later.
To compare, here's the current site (not written by me!) that I'll be replacing:
oh that first one is horrible... i cant even read the moving text! :|
your is nice... i like it... its simple, but gives the information... it could use a some visually, but i don't know what to recommend... hmph...
i think its just that logo thats messing it up for me... idk...
Thanks for the reply.
Any thoughts on what it is about the logo that you don't like? The logo on our official letterhead is just the name in some awful old-styley font, so I know which I prefer
nah its fine... good work!
I think your site looks nice. I have a couple of minor suggestions for sprucing it up though:
1. Due to the fact that both your background and main div are white, it would be nice to add a little bit of contrast here. This page: http://wordpress.org/ uses a repeating background image with a graident to seperate the main div from the background very nicely. Just right click on the background image... it gives it self away.
2. I think that adding a 1px black border around the jesus image would make the image stand out a little more.
3. Tables are bad for layout. you should use css instead.
Thanks for those suggestions. I'll look at them further.
i dont know which one is worst, get a more darker or more involved colour scheme
Which what is worse?
Originally Posted by dera
I don't understand what you mean about the colour scheme - you say to make it darker or more "involved" (by that I interpret "more colourful") which sounds like both ends of the spectrum. Or is that what you're saying - it's too pastel? A neutral scheme is what I've been going for and is, apparantly, very readable by those with colour-vision problems.
Of course, kudos for not going the tables route...
the header is truly bringing this site down - fast!
Forget tradition and get something up there that's
nice-looking and easy to read ;-).
It's clean, neat, informative - not very 'artistic' for
a theatre and musical group - but you get out the
Not going the table route.. ?
The logo, it's just not good quality. The gold should look sharper, not blurry. What quality is the .jpg?
Maybe if the border around the center content was slightly darker than the font of the music notes.
Other than that I like it.
I went with a completely different look for the logo, and took all of about three seconds to create it. Two seconds being me trying to find a font I liked. I'm not sure why my image is so much larger file size wise than yours since mine is smaller in width/height, but mine looks better too. EDIT: Ok, so my image is wider. I could easily make it less wide and thus even shorter.
Last edited by spufi; 07-16-2005 at 12:57 AM.
The spufi logo would fit better with the look me thinks.
What font is that?
A 650 width version. Font is Edwardian Script ITC.
Thanks very much for the replies.
Can I use the logo you did?
Assuming so, can I be a pain and ask you to do it again (same width of 650) but spelt correctly?
It's Beeston Musical Theatre Group (both Beeston and Theatre were spelt incorrectly before - the latter, of course, being the US spelling)
Actually - ignore that. I think I can recreate it myself. In a style
There are certain colours and fonts that have to be used.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)