Still doubtful that I'll make the switch, but there are some advantages. I've also gone ahead and figured out how to do comments (not as a simple as it should be, but doable). Would love to hear feedback there (and to see if feedback works).
Go here please.
6 comments:
Yeah. I like the look of the new site... However, I made a comment on your other site - and it first pucked on me. Then it said it worked. But I look on the site again and I don't see my comment. Very unsatisfying. Especially since I was making fun of you. Now, my joke seems stale and tired in my own head, so I'll not repeat it. :(
I rest assured that there'll be more chances to tease you ahead...
Looks good!
I like that the "Podcasts" and "Photos" are integrated into the topmost-level navigation. Makes a lot of sense.
I have to say, I was nervous to hear your voices when I went to listen to the podcast. Oh, you tricksters!
The comments do not work for me. In Firefox and IE6, I just see the InsterCommentsHere text, unlinked in anyway. FYI. It does seem very odd that the software didn't include commenting from the start.
It has a "fresh and clean" look. What do you think about the link to "read more"? I've considered this for blogger to give just this sort of cleaner look, but wondered if people would click through if the post looked at all boring from the first two lines.
Yeah, I don't like the 'read more' frankly. But I do like the look.
The comments work on the second-most-recent post, but they don't work on the latest because I didn't run the script. (I told you it was a pain.) I haven't come to a verdict yet, but I think it's a fantastic way to make a great looking site. It's not, however, the ultimate blogging solution.
Hm...I'm a Windows-er, and I don't have that problem. I'm on a high-speed connection, which may make a difference (sometimes on a really slow connection, the CSS takes a WHILE to load, so that the page first looks really ugly and then catches up with itself).
Although, actually, let me correct myself: in IE6, there is a strange phenomenon wherein images that contain transparency load first with a terribly ugly light-blue filling, which disappears after the page *fully* loads. That's not just you, Sam, I see that at other pages that have used iWeb. I suppose that the reason for this is that iWeb converts images & text to a .PNG image, which is supposed to be the fancy new web image format that was intended to replace the GIF format. However, as is typical, IE's adoption of this isn't flawless and thus it chokes on the graphics a little bit.
I *think*, however, that the overlap of the CV text and the background, as well as the placement of the mountain picture, are indeed intentional...so your crit there is one of design. I say this because, although the background image creates a separation between the left side (lighter) and right side (darker), it's a sort of organic transition created by the image itself. Since the text is actually an image as well, I'd be surprised if this displayed radically differently for the designer (Sam), than for us viewers. I could be wrong.
My critique of iWeb is this very need to convert text to images. From a purely design standpoint, it might make life easier for the designer, but from a user standpoint it's simply annoying and from a web standards standpoint it's a slap in the face. Images are images; text is text. Is there an option to keep text as text in iWeb?
PS: on the plus side, love the "Prev" and "Next" pagination -- sorely missing in Blogger! Also, your comments now seem to work nicely.
OK, perhaps I can sort some things out.
1. On a slow connection, iWeb sites are slow (maybe too slow). On a blazing connection, they are just fine.
2. Dan's right: the text overlap and the mountain image are design criticisms, not criticisms of iWeb. I won't defend the design choice: I spent literally 10 minutes on the whole site.
3. I'll blame some problems on IE's consistent and blatant disregard for web standards, so really, if you want to form a critique of iWeb start by saying you're using Firefox. That said, I also agree with Dan about the problem of switching everything to images. This is a terrible decision, akin to sending HTML email.
Again, iWeb won't replace blogger. And it's not really for folks who have these sorts of conversations about it. It's all about 'the mom'. My mom could build a good looking little homepage in iWeb, and that's what they are trying to achieve.
Yes, blogger. I can't see an argument for anything else in a teaching environment. Sounds intriguging.
Post a Comment