Sneak Peek of Improved UFTWWWP.

Hello All:

I've been playing around with Paint Shop Pro and my HTML editor to improve the
look of the UFTWWWP. If you guys approve, it will become standard. Here's the
URL:

OoohHHHoooohhhh...Snazzy!! The Narn Regime officially Sanctions your efforts!

Michael Wikan Game Design Slave Zero Accolade, Inc.
http://www.slavezero.com
mwikan@accolade.com wikan@sprintmail.com "We sleep safely in our beds because
rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm."-George Orwell

> -----Original Message-----

Looks good.
But the links don't work. ;-)

The only problem with the white text is it won't print. Which is why I'm going
to change the colours of my own page's background pic (Lilac nebulae look
so... purty) so I can use black text, eventually.

'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
        - 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy

[quoted original message omitted]

> I've been playing around with Paint Shop Pro and my HTML editor to

I think "Way kewl!"
Then I think "The links--don't!"
Then, after about a five second pause, I think, "Preview page, right."

> At 02:26 PM 2/17/99 +1100, you wrote:

At first, I thought it was because it was a preview page.

Then, I replaced "preview.htm" with "index.htm" to view the original page,
since it's been a while.

The links look the same. They work the same, too.

Um, Mark...? Did you do something? Or am I just getting something wierd here?

They do look neat, though you might try giving the lettering a bit of a border
(like the Full Thrust at the top of the page) to ease the impact a little...
the letters seem to be hard to focus on, though not as bad as red letters on
blue background.

Later,

> Mark A. Siefert <cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:

Looks nice but...
    The "Communications" button/graphic doesn't fit, you need to either
make the background wider and then do the same for the rest, or change the
text to something smaller, like "Comms" or "Comms Link", etc. The drop shadow
behind the link is too far down and too far to the right. Try just one pixel
for the drop shadow, and I'm sure that you will like the result. I would
eliminate the grid background. It doesn't mean anything except to help you
line up the buttons. For which you can...
    Instead of one table cell holding all of the buttons/graphics, use
multiple table cells. Use a 3 by 3 table, and you won't need to use any
"&nbsp;".

Just my opinion, but it will look nicer when these modifications are done.

> Aaron Teske wrote:

> Then, I replaced "preview.htm" with "index.htm" to view the original

> Someone who had a Galaxy named after him (almost) wrote:

> I've been playing around with Paint Shop Pro and my HTML

Excellent.

In a message dated 99-02-16 21:55:57 EST, you write:

<< OoohHHHoooohhhh...Snazzy!! The Narn Regime officially Sanctions your
efforts! >> As does the Union of Border Worlds.
-Stephen

Looks fine - takes longer to load. thought about rollovers on the new
buttons. Drop shadows may be a bit too offset. Is the bottom background meant
to be a single graded tone, I get a pattern effect so it looks like cloth
(plaid)

> Tim Jones wrote:

The background in the tables are supposed to be a green grid on black for a
"high tech" look.

Later,

> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Someone wrote:

> Tim Jones wrote:

Maybe make the green bits a bit more obvious, then - it looked kind of
like grey & black plaid for me too. (Netscape 4.5 at 800x600)

How'd you do the sun flares off the letters? They look good - was it
entirely hand-drawn in Paint Shop Pro or is there a little lens-flare
filter somewhere I haven't found yet in the program?

The link graphics look good too...now you need to finish coding the HTML for
active links!

Nice work,

> The background in the tables are supposed to be a green

What are the tables? I'm talking about the image buttons 'whats new'
'e-mail'
etc.

> Hello All:

Ummm... Looks like I'm in the minority around here.

<curmudgeon> Let's see... Same links to same content. Good. More
graphics...now takes 50% longer to load. Bad. Drop shadows make the text hard
to read. Bad. More of that &@#% font. Bad. Entry page *3 screens long*
(640x480). Bad.

I'd have to say: Keep the old one. Except it seems to be gone.

A good start on a redesign would be to drop the background and switch to black
text on a white background. It's a nice picture, but white on black is hard to
read, and white on
irregular-blue-purple-and-black is harder. You need to decide
whether the purpose of the site is artistic display or communication.
</curmudgeon>

- Sam

> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Samuel Reynolds wrote:

> Siefert wrote:

it seems we are. i have held my tongue, but as usual will now produce an
overlong rant. the appearance of "paint shop pro", "html editor" and "improve
the look" in such close proximity can usually only mean one thing
- another once-fine page is about to die under a hail of graphic design.

> <curmudgeon>

yes, good.

> More graphics...now takes 50% longer to load. Bad.

ah, but do the graphics add substantially to the page, thus justifying their
addition? no, they don't. a lot of them are little pictures which contain
nothing but text. am i missing something here?

> Drop shadows make the text hard to read. Bad.

makes no difference to me, but again, it's unnecessary. it's a style choice.

> More of that &@#% font. Bad.

one and a half even on ridiculous resolution.

> A good start on a redesign would be to drop the background

i'd say default text on a default background, which usually does the same
thing, but allows for people who have set their browsers up strangely for
whatever reason.

> It's a nice

wise words.

> </curmudgeon>

ha!

Tom