|
|
Posted by rossz on 09/25/05 04:30
dorayme wrote:
> Personally I would leave out the + signs, one does not need to
> know that there is further nesting: argument being that if one
> is not interested in the link, it is not likely that one will be
> interested in the details. If one is, one is likely at the very
> least to run the mouse over it and it will be obvious.
I've been thinking about dropping the + signs, but I kind of think they
look cool. Perhaps some "pirate" related graphic would be a better
choice. If more people agree with you, I'll drop them. I'm not that
attached to the cool factor. :)
> Good that
> you let the top link *itself* link directly to the object of the
> first link on the list in the subset. (2 reasons, one that the
> dropdown might not work for all (yes, I know about your Notes
> but that's me, I'm nosey), two that an impatient user might not
> want to wait and fiddle with getting the mouse just so... trust
> me on this or ask further).
I was concerned about mouse accuracy in using the menus. That's one of
the reasons I am hesitant to switch the default version over to the
fancy menus.
The menus probably won't work with IE before 5.x or an old Netscape
browser. Does anyone still use something that old? A full contents
page is available that lists all the links, so there is always a way to
get to things if using a broken browser.
I just downloaded Opera so I can see how things look in it.
> But bad that when you do go to the subset links, you can't
> further navigate without having to use your fancy dropdown. Put
> all the important people, for example in a simple strip text
> horiz list at the top right up to Medina Sidonia (what a
> fabulous name).
That would really screw up the ascetics, I think. I'll have to think
this over.
> Minor thing, maybe don't bother, be nice to have a bit more side
> padding between text and inline pics.
I just changed that from 0.5em to 1em.
> I was going to stop here but I just took a look at hats, shirts
> and so on... more reason to go white bg and save the trouble of
> doing what really ought to be done and that is prepare the gifs
> as transparencies. Forget about colour altogether I would say on
> this site.
I suppose I should finally get around to setting the transparency of
those images. I'd rather not go to a white background. That just seems
a bit too barren for my taste.
> But really, it looks nice and well done - terrific stuff, the
> subject matter!
Thanks.
--
Rossz
God kills a kitten each time someone uses Internet Explorer
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|