http://www.amiright.com/indexCSS.shtml

I'm planning a new redesign of amIright, biggest change that is visible to you the visitor, is the relocation of the navigation elements on the right hand side of the page.  I think it looks a lot cleaner than the old style.

I can see what you mean, but it does lose some of the balance it had.

I can see what you mean, but it does lose some of the balance it had.


balance?  no I don't think so... if anything it's more balanced, there's no large spaces and divider between the side navigation links now

on pages with parodies, the blue text boxes won't be there either.

If you use Internet Explorer (you should switch!) it will load a heck of a lot quicker than the older design on a slow connection.

http://www.amiright.com/indexCSS.shtml

I'm planning a new redesign of amIright, biggest change that is visible to you the visitor, is the relocation of the navigation elements on the right hand side of the page.  I think it looks a lot cleaner than the old style.


It's different to get used to, but all and all I like it because it puts more emphasis on the two sections most dear to me--Parody Recordings and Parody Lyrics.

I don't much care for it. :-\\ I mean, the top navigation at first seemed like a good idea, but when I clicked on the "Names" section, it said at the bottom that the Stupid Band Names and New Band Names were still discontinued.

I don't much care for it. :-\\ I mean, the top navigation at first seemed like a good idea, but when I clicked on the "Names" section, it said at the bottom that the Stupid Band Names and New Band Names were still discontinued.


the side navigation is still there on the right, unless you have a tiny monitor.  I need to update the index pages (those have always been there anyways)

I don't think I'm going to use it.  I tried a trial run at lunch today, and too many things broke due to Internet Explorer's lack of proper CSS support (again).

When I launch a new design, I think it'll be totally different anyways.

I would say  if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but I'm probably prejudiced, being left-handed  ;) Seriously, left-side navigation seems to be almost a default on the web (other than top).  Seems unnatural on the right.

If you use Internet Explorer (you should switch!)


Chucky, *please* see http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/.
Lots of reasons, including security, why many don't want to use IE.  This site http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp says that 34%+ are using Firefox -- too big a market to disregard.

Tommy

I would say  if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but I'm probably prejudiced, being left-handed  ;) Seriously, left-side navigation seems to be almost a default on the web (other than top).   Seems unnatural on the right.

Yeah...I'm so used to seeing navigation on the left-hand side. That's just about how it is on most every site I go to regularly.



Chucky, *please* see http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/.
Lots of reasons, including security, why many don't want to use IE.  This site http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp says that 34%+ are using Firefox -- too big a market to disregard.

Tommy

Hey, I use IE most of the time. Works for me.

Well, since you're not going to use it, no point in commenting then...

But, I was looking at other parts of the site, and the "parody" link caught my eye:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/

There's no way fragments should be on that page, especially as big as that one is, and ahead of parodies. Makes that page look bad IMO. I've no idea how many people view the site via that page, but I know I wouldn't want to.

Ant

Well there is a saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it...'

Jason

balance?  no I don't think so... if anything it's more balanced, there's no large spaces and divider between the side navigation links now

on pages with parodies, the blue text boxes won't be there either.

If you use Internet Explorer (you should switch!) it will load a heck of a lot quicker than the older design on a slow connection.


I'm using Firefox 2, AmIRight loads fast on my machine compared to IE6, but I think a Javascript-based drop-down menu bar might work, so as not to have a clutter bar at one side of the page...

Well, since you're not going to use it, no point in commenting then...

But, I was looking at other parts of the site, and the "parody" link caught my eye:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/

There's no way fragments should be on that page, especially as big as that one is, and ahead of parodies. Makes that page look bad IMO. I've no idea how many people view the site via that page, but I know I wouldn't want to.

Ant


Generally the fragments were only a few lines... no idea why people are submitting such large ones like that.

Strange no one's used those navigation links before... they're on the current design

Chucky, *please* see http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/.
Lots of reasons, including security, why many don't want to use IE.  This site http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp says that 34%+ are using Firefox -- too big a market to disregard.

Tommy


trust me, I use Firefox for anything non-work related.  Work unfortunately is on Microsoft products, so IE is necessary for corporate crap

I design sites to work in IE, Firefox and Opera.

I would say  if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but I'm probably prejudiced, being left-handed  ;) Seriously, left-side navigation seems to be almost a default on the web (other than top).  Seems unnatural on the right.


It's broken, but just not in a way a normal web visitor would notice.  I use table tags to layout the page, which means in a crappy browser like IE, it takes longer for the page to load, and makes the page unreadable on cell phone browsers.  The content is also further down in the code, so the navigation links end up getting higher preference by the search engines.

The last time I redesigned the site, I took care of most of the table tags, but there's still a couple on every page that are really not necessary,  and prevent me from making a cell phone compatible version.

http://www.operamini.com/demo/

you can see what I mean with that link.  Load http://www.amiright.com/indexCSS3.shtml  into it, and you'll see a much nicer layout than the standard home page.

I do see more right-hand navigation schemes lately.  The thinking is that the upper left is where your eye is focused first, and the navigation links are less important than the page content.  The problem is, the pages have so much stuff on them, it needs to be wider and small screen will cut off the navigation links.  So I either leave them on the left, or use some kind of drop down navigation scheme.  Problem with the later option, is that most drop down menus kind of suck. 

Hey, I use IE most of the time. Works for me.


I have IE because I  don't have a choice in my office environment.

All new things need time to adjust to. There's nothing wrong with the realignment, I guess.

I have IE because I  don't have a choice in my office environment.

All new things need time to adjust to. There's nothing wrong with the realignment, I guess.


well, you won't be seeing it anytime soon, so no worries about readjustment really.

Here's a thought for you: you've been using a few scripted show/hide features (e.g. comments on the authors' latest comments pages), why not shunt the whole navigation bit into a collapsed section of the screen that'll open out when you click on "Navigation", then hide itself away again?


(PS I have IE, but only use it on sites that don't work in Firefox/Opera - the only time I've ever caused a viral infection was from visiting an infected website, and that virus used an IE vulnerability that wouldn't have hit the company if I'd been using anything else... ignoring the other benefits, that is)

I have IE because I  don't have a choice in my office environment.


Likewise, that's what's available on just about every public computer I've used lately.



Well, since you're not going to use it, no point in commenting then...

But, I was looking at other parts of the site, and the "parody" link caught my eye:

http://www.amiright.com/parody/

There's no way fragments should be on that page, especially as big as that one is, and ahead of parodies. Makes that page look bad IMO. I've no idea how many people view the site via that page, but I know I wouldn't want to.

Ant

Good point...I think that the links to the full parodies should be on top, and then fragment(s) down at the bottom. And there should be a limit as to how many line(s) a fragment should contain.

Here's a thought for you: you've been using a few scripted show/hide features (e.g. comments on the authors' latest comments pages), why not shunt the whole navigation bit into a collapsed section of the screen that'll open out when you click on "Navigation", then hide itself away again?

Aargh, another pet peeve --- mysterious appearing/disappearing rollovers, disparagingly referred to as "Mystery Meat Navigation" at www.webpagesthatsuck.com. (a site that every developer should read.)

(PS I have IE, but only use it on sites that don't work in Firefox/Opera - the only time I've ever caused a viral infection was from visiting an infected website, and that virus used an IE vulnerability that wouldn't have hit the company if I'd been using anything else... ignoring the other benefits, that is)

AFAIK, the only (legitimate) site in the entire universe that won't work with Firefox is Microsoft Update itself.
Adding more browser executables -- more scripting and such -- just increases the chance of your picking up another infection. Even if this site is legitimate, XSS (cross-site scripting) vulnerabilities are constantly being found that let bad people inject bad code into the scripts of legitimate sites. The fewer scripts, the better.

Aargh, another pet peeve --- mysterious appearing/disappearing rollovers, disparagingly referred to as "Mystery Meat Navigation" at www.webpagesthatsuck.com. (a site that every developer should read.)


Mystery meat navigation isn't quite that.  If you have a proper hierarchy and just put the main sections up there, it should be pretty obvious what to do.  MMN tends to refer "arty" sites that you have to guess what the button is to begin with... such as a bunch of unlabeled icons that are totally meaningless to everyone (including the designer), and you have to mouse over to figure out what they are.

I still don't like even the proper use of roll overs.  Slate redesigned their site to use them, and it's just plain awful.


AFAIK, the only (legitimate) site in the entire universe that won't work with Firefox is Microsoft Update itself.
Adding more browser executables -- more scripting and such -- just increases the chance of your picking up another infection. Even if this site is legitimate, XSS (cross-site scripting) vulnerabilities are constantly being found that let bad people inject bad code into the scripts of legitimate sites. The fewer scripts, the better.


even MS update works with Firefox to some extant now, I forgot and used it for some software not too long ago, and they have a plug in for Firefox for their authentication system.  It still didn't work right, but they make it look like it will.

It's broken, but just not in a way a normal web visitor would notice.  I use table tags to layout the page, which means in a crappy browser like IE, it takes longer for the page to load, and makes the page unreadable on cell phone browsers.  The content is also further down in the code, so the navigation links end up getting higher preference by the search engines.

The last time I redesigned the site, I took care of most of the table tags, but there's still a couple on every page that are really not necessary,  and prevent me from making a cell phone compatible version.

http://www.operamini.com/demo/

you can see what I mean with that link.  Load http://www.amiright.com/indexCSS3.shtml  into it, and you'll see a much nicer layout than the standard home page.

I do see more right-hand navigation schemes lately.  The thinking is that the upper left is where your eye is focused first, and the navigation links are less important than the page content.  The problem is, the pages have so much stuff on them, it needs to be wider and small screen will cut off the navigation links.  So I either leave them on the left, or use some kind of drop down navigation scheme.  Problem with the later option, is that most drop down menus kind of suck. 


Did you just say Opera Mini, Monsieur Chucky? I use that in browsing Am I Right on my cellphone, although it does have issues with the comment submission section...

Did you just say Opera Mini, Monsieur Chucky? I use that in browsing Am I Right on my cellphone, although it does have issues with the comment submission section...


yup, didn't know anyone really used it.  If you check the link in that previous email, the homepage should look a lot neater with it.

Hey, the little "sign" for the Parody author/original performer is cool!  8)

But someone needs to retype/redesign the introductory paragraph on the Home Page, stat!  ???

EDIT: I may have been overzealous in how I said that..just needs some proofing in the text.

Hey, the little "sign" for the Parody author/original performer is cool!  8)

But someone needs to retype/redesign the introductory paragraph on the Home Page, stat!  ???

EDIT: I may have been overzealous in how I said that..just needs some proofing in the text.


yeah, it came out a bit awkward when I wrote it.  Trying to make sure I get the proper keywords in there.

Trying to make sure I get the proper keywords in there.

Does "chrisitan" constitute the same sort of keyword as "athiest"? ;)

Does "chrisitan" constitute the same sort of keyword as "athiest"? ;)


I guess... though I've never heard anyone talk about atheist music.  At one point it seemed like I got a lot of Christian stuff submitted, now I don't think much is submitted at all.

I was joking more about the juxtaposed letters... you know what they say: first rule of comedy - if you have to explain it, it ain't funny.

I was joking more about the juxtaposed letters... you know what they say: first rule of comedy - if you have to explain it, it ain't funny.




probably would have been funnier if I had noticed I misspelled it in the first place >grin<

I touched up a bit.  It's still awkward though.

I think that this design should be the British version of amiright.com