PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Topic: Layouts



Dragonfree
19th February 2006, 2:17 AM
What kind of layout do you go for in your web design?

I like simple, fast-loading layouts personally, but I also believe in variety which is why I made a style switcher with many very different layouts. My site is very content-oriented, so I don't generally waste much time or energy on layouts, though.

DigitalKaede
19th February 2006, 2:27 AM
Personally, I like most blue and red layouts. I don't like those really light layouts which I can barely see.

Virtual Headache
19th February 2006, 3:31 AM
I also like making layouts which are fast and simple, since I want everyone to access my site without any problems.
Well, I'm not too good at making professional layouts anyway, but that's a different story^^;
Some sites I've seen might have professional layouts, but sometimes they are just too overloaded, which makes them look kinda ugly.
Style changers are a nice idea, but I can live without them^^

chaos on the internet
19th February 2006, 4:02 AM
Anything that isn't 3 column with links on the left side and affiliates/topsites/other stuff nobody clicks on the right.

Jetx
19th February 2006, 2:51 PM
I like to go for a bright green type. Well a green that's light on the eyes. But i can't really to much about this as I am still struggling with HTML.

Goldyoshi
19th February 2006, 9:47 PM
I like layouts that aren't eye hurting, are easy to use, etc.

Also, it's hard for me to use Horizontal Nav. since I have so many categories, the page stretches. I really have no choice. :l

haruka~
20th February 2006, 5:40 AM
I like simple layouts with a white background and not bright colours that are easy to see, but dark layouts are okay too I guess. I don't like graphics unless they look okay. I don't like frames either.

Guitar dude bill
26th February 2006, 8:29 PM
I like layouts with black and red. And similar to Dragonfree's layout (I love that layout)

JKaizer
27th February 2006, 12:52 AM
I like dark layouts... and I like it to be slightly image based.

Phaarix
28th February 2006, 11:05 AM
Simple, sure seems to be THE style at the moment. It's used very effectively in iPOD style designs etc. I really dislike a page where TOO much is going on. Before you make a layout final, it's always good to look over each element in your site and ask yourself "Do I really need this? And if not will removing it have any type of negative effect on the site?". Of course don't remove too much or the layout will look empty. It often takes alot of fine tuning to get that perfect balance. I (being a bit of a perfectionist) often go through around 20 ever so slightly different versions of a layout before finally getting what I feel to be just right.

The same goes for colour. It sure helps to liven up a site, but you don't want to go overboard with it. Limit your site to a certain colour palette. There may be some cases where you need a bit more colour than usual to for example suit the theme of a certain page, bt generally it's good to stick to a certain palette of colours that not only look good together, but also in some way relate to the theme of your site.

Those are probably the two things I pay closest attention to when either designing my own layout, or criticizing someone elses :>.

Clare
6th May 2006, 5:00 PM
I tend to favour layouts which complement the site's content and aren't too hard on the eye. I've also got a bit of a "thing" for dark backgrounds and coloured text.

Magma Leader Maxie
6th May 2006, 6:15 PM
Colour:
Light colours. The coulours must be from a similar colour-group (like all shades of green, for example) with maybe 1-2 darker, complementary colours for a contrast and highlighting. I despise dark sites, especially background #000000, text #FFFFFF. This includes varieties like cyan or yellow text and a black background. Goes for forums too, of course.
Light colours give a sense of an expansive, fresh, clean site. It puts the visitor in a better mood too. Be careful with what colours you choose.

Positioning:
3-columned layouts are pretty bad and overused in my opinion. Actually, Serebii.net's one is the only one I've seen and liked so far. This might be because of the site's font, which greatly appeals to me, though.

There are many layout possibilities. A layout I really like is http://www.zymic.com (not the layouts they provide, the actual page layout) probably because the images they used to give table cells a distinct feel. A layout as pleasant as this one is a pretty rare thing to see these days.

My favourite layout-type is several tables, one below the other, with rounded corners. Simple and very attractive if you make it right.

If you ask me, I'd choose standard <table>s over any fancy CSS layout any day. CSS is becoming overused. CSS can be (and probably is) your best friend when planning stuff like how your text will appear, how much of a border your images have, how much padding to put between two blocks of text, etc. But moving a lot of recognising features of a web page (tables, for instance) into their CSS equivalents/near equivalents annoys me. Cascading Style Sheets should serve as an extension of your HTML document to do things which HTML does not allow you to.

Another thing I'll mention (to webmasters-begginers, reading this) that isn't directly what this thread is about: JavaScripts. Use... Them... Sparingly... If you want your page to "seem alive" to your visitors, and you wish to write a script to, say, change and apply options which are members of a <select> tag, fine. But if you have recently been to dynamicdrive.com and want to put snowflakes, bubbles, dancing cursors, embedded music, random earthquakes, alert boxes, etc. on your site... PLEASE DON'T. This goes for disabling right click too. It makes your site messy, to say the least. Unfortunately, JavaScript is quite strongly associated with adverts, spam, confusion, random images, links moving around, anchors not pointing where you as the visitor swear they pointed last time (example of Math.random used where it shouldn't :( ), etc. - this is because JavaScript is (unfortunately) being used for those purposes. With every <script> tag less that you have, your visitors will have one less headache. [/rant]

Navbars
Having a unique navigation bar of a page is important to me. I hate boring navbars, so I endeavour not to make that mistake with my own. Using something like Flash to make a navbar is a good idea (only if you're good). I saw a navbar once that had been made in MSPaint under 1x zoom with a pencil tool. Unique, but horrible.

When it comes to the navbar's position, I prefer to have a navbar vertically along the top of the page (just one that is not just text spearated by bitwise OR operators [I'm referring to "|" signs]).

To sum it all up, I believe colour and images are the most important things on any site (excluding content). Only in a few cases can the content itself justify the non-existance of a proper page design.

Dragonfree
6th May 2006, 9:07 PM
Cascading Style Sheets should serve as an extension of your HTML document to do things which HTML does not allow you to.
Technically, CSS should cover the whole presentational part of your page. Ever heard of separation of presentation and structure?

CSS layouts aren't some fancy trend thing. They load in a quicker and cleaner way (not to mention that you can choose which column loads first), leave your HTML cleaner and easier to edit than when you're drowning in table tags, and you can do a great deal more with them - what's there not to like? Tables weren't made for layouts - of course people who code with CSS use tables where a table is what they want, but there is no reason to use table tags for anything that is simply not a table. You could technically use <p> tags to lay out your page, but why would you? They're paragraph tags and paragraphing is what you're supposed to use them for. Same with tables.

Magma Leader Maxie
6th May 2006, 10:29 PM
Technically, CSS should cover the whole presentational part of your page. Ever heard of separation of presentation and structure?
Yes indeed. So is there any need to build navbars using just text in a div class/block? Doesn't a navigation bar fit under "page structure"? I'm talking about:

#navbar {
position:absolute;
left:0;
top:0;
width:10em;
border:1 px black solid;
margin:.5em;
}

or something along the lines of that. HTML and CSS were obviously created to give you freedom while making a webpage. You can choose to place what you want where you want. So I'm deifinitely not implying that CSS is inferior to HTML. I'm saying that a people are using CSS to get monotone layouts you see all the time. What I'm specifically referring to is border-left/right/top/bottom being used to construct a quasi-table. That's exactly what I dislike and that's the reason why I decided to note it in this layout discussion.


Tables weren't made for layouts - of course people who code with CSS use tables where a table is what they want, but there is no reason to use table tags for anything that is simply not a table. You could technically use <p> tags to lay out your page, but why would you? They're paragraph tags and paragraphing is what you're supposed to use them for. Same with tables.
Fair enough. Tables are being used for waht they are not intended, but I have a feeling you get a wider area of choice using tables. Table-related tags just create the table and it's cells. You could use images to convert that table practically into whatever you want. But I still don't understand why someone would make a page that relies almost entirely on CSS. I don't find CSS to be anything that special.

Dragonfree
7th May 2006, 7:48 PM
So is there any need to build navbars using just text in a div class/block? Doesn't a navigation bar fit under "page structure"?
A navigation bar fits under page structure. Its position, size, shape and coloration is presentational.


But I still don't understand why someone would make a page that relies almost entirely on CSS.
For flexibility in positioning, instead of the rigid table model? For the ability to edit a stylesheet and change practically everything on a page? To be able to change this (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/194/194.css&page=0) into this (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/142/142.css&page=6) without editing a single character of HTML?

chaos on the internet
7th May 2006, 8:22 PM
After using CSS extensively, there is no way I could ever go back to using tables. It just takes practice, mostly with trying to figure out how to combat browser bugs.

-:Buro-kun Tsubasa:-
14th May 2006, 1:15 PM
Eh I hate them all... I try to make one, text doesen't center.

Faltzer
17th May 2006, 7:36 PM
Are you getting anywhere with that?

I prefer Java menu layouts much more or layouts that are mainly placed in the header. 3 columns is sometimes usefull but don't recommend it to a few people.

Magma Leader Maxie
19th May 2006, 8:55 AM
Are you getting anywhere with that?

I prefer Java menu layouts much more or layouts that are mainly placed in the header. 3 columns is sometimes usefull but don't recommend it to a few people.

Embedded Java applets? Incredibly, I can name at least 20 people I know that don't have Java Virtual Machine installed. Lord knows hom many more don't. Important stuff like navbars probably should stay just HTML,otherwise you'll have people scratching their heads when they can't see any links. I used Flash for a while, but people don't even bother installing that either...

Faltzer
23rd May 2006, 1:25 AM
Embedded Java applets? Incredibly, I can name at least 20 people I know that don't have Java Virtual Machine installed. Lord knows hom many more don't. Important stuff like navbars probably should stay just HTML,otherwise you'll have people scratching their heads when they can't see any links. I used Flash for a while, but people don't even bother installing that either...


Are you kidding me? Example of my favorite Type of Menus:

www.pokerealm.net (oh gawd!!!!!!!!!)
www.jkaizer.net(didn't make it but it's still cool)
www.damagedgames.com (sexy flash menu)

I feel like trying alot other ways to stylize layouts to make them more unique.

Sol
22nd June 2006, 9:33 AM
Anything that isn't 3 column with links on the left side and affiliates/topsites/other stuff nobody clicks on the right.


Lmfao. I whole-heartedly agree.

AgentChronon
19th July 2006, 1:56 PM
I like to go for a bright green type. Well a green that's light on the eyes. But i can't really to much about this as I am still struggling with HTML.

I agree. I like Serebii.net's layout, the Voice of the Forest layout on Dragon/Butterfree's site, the layout on MY site... and the standard Breloom Woods layout on Jetx's site.

The funny thing is I only like green in site layouts, no where else.

Faltzer
22nd July 2006, 10:45 PM
I like layouts that aren't 3 column. Although the one in my site appears to be the common way people use layouts in a 3 column manner,it's not 3 column exactly.

AgentChronon
22nd July 2006, 11:04 PM
I like 3 column the best.

Faltzer
22nd July 2006, 11:07 PM
3 column suck,and don't prove to be usefull in any way. Affiliates,topsites,saybox & links to other sites in the right menu,and in the left menu containing all the links in your site with all the exact same ideas Serebii has gotten.

AgentChronon
23rd July 2006, 1:15 AM
What the heck? You can use that logic for anything. Like:

Links at the top suck, in the first couple drop down menus containing all the links in your site with all the exact same ideas Serebii has gotten and in the last couple drop down menus affiliates,topsites, & links to other sites in the right menu.

So I like three column.

Faltzer
23rd July 2006, 1:51 AM
Wrong,links in the top is better then having a shitty layout. Having to scroll down to the bottom and find 50 million links leading to freakin 404's is even more shitty then having a drop down. And when you look in the bright side,at least you don't have to scroll down. And if you're just here to say drop downs suck,then go tell that to every site that has them and not me.

AgentChronon
23rd July 2006, 2:58 PM
I don't think drop downs suck. I like three column more because you can see everything that you can click on and you don't have to hover over stuff. But I see your point. And not every site with a three column layout has broken links...

Faltzer
23rd July 2006, 3:27 PM
Most websites have broken links so they think there website is big or anything related to that.

AgentChronon
23rd July 2006, 4:05 PM
Yeah but you shouldn't associate broken links with three column layouts becuase drop downs can have them too. I have no broken links on my site I think.

Faltzer
23rd July 2006, 6:37 PM
Drop down menus rarely have broken links,drop down menus have an easier system of adding links then 3-column,making 3 column bad because of the <br> tags after every link.

AgentChronon
23rd July 2006, 7:08 PM
Well I mean a drop down layout could just as easily have broken links as a three column layout, it's just that most people that use a drop down have no broken links because they don't like that stuff.

Faltzer
24th July 2006, 12:38 AM
I hate broken links,they annoy me. And this only happens with 3 column layouts from what I see,drop downs rarely have broken links.


So I say broken links are automatic with 3-column. Just my opinion.

AgentChronon
24th July 2006, 3:19 AM
Well that's weird.

Anyway, you can dissagree, but I have three reasons why I like three column better:

1: You can see everything you might want to look at, you don't have to hover over.

2: Having drop down makes your site seem much smaller, like a blog, while having three column makes it seem huge.

3: You can use ctrl+F to find stuff.

So yeah.

Faltzer
24th July 2006, 2:38 PM
If you really think 3-Column makes a website look big,visit Pokerealm and you'll see that the site has a drop down menu and it has more then 300 pages. And just having 3-column doesn't make your site bigger,because it's guaranteed that the site might not have enough content to begin with.

Sandstone-Shadow
24th July 2006, 3:56 PM
Umm, just because a site uses a three-column layout doesn't mean it's going to have loads of broken links. Just take a look at TCoD or Eonlight Valley. Three column layouts, no broken links. I use a three column layout, and I don't have any broken links, either. Drop-down lists are neat too, but I prefer three columns.

AgentChronon
24th July 2006, 8:46 PM
THANK YOU!!!

That's what I was getting at. And note I said it makes your site LOOK bigger, not makes it bigger. Yeah, pokerealm has 300 pages but so does TCoD and TCoD sure LOOKS a whole lot bigger which makes people explore more which makes people fans which gets your site more popular.

Faltzer
25th July 2006, 1:58 AM
Pokerealm recieves 1000 unique hits per day and even with that Java Script menu they know the site is big already. And just because TCoD HAS a 3-column layout it doesn't make there site seem big because just having 50 million links in the site make you scroll down for at least 10 seconds to just reach the footer.

AgentChronon
25th July 2006, 2:05 AM
I tried it just now and it took 1 1/2 seconds XD.

Okay I think we need to stop arguing now. I mean you can like drop down and I can like three column. Well I like both but still. Anyway bye for now.

Faltzer
25th July 2006, 3:24 PM
"Discussion Topic:Layouts"

That's what the topic is for,we're not arguing,even if this is an arguement,this arguement is a non-insultive arguement against the person.

AgentChronon
25th July 2006, 7:36 PM
Well if you want to keep arguing I guess we can.

Goldyoshi
25th July 2006, 7:52 PM
I prefer three column layouts. Personally, I find them much easier to edit that horizontal ones...

What else? Oh yeah, it's easier to do image based layouts with 3 Columns than drop-down horizontal.

And....um....I forgot anything else. xP

AgentChronon
26th July 2006, 4:36 PM
Yay you support me woohoo!

Magma Leader Maxie
26th July 2006, 5:02 PM
I prefer three column layouts. Personally, I find them much easier to edit that horizontal ones...

There are a lot of sites with 3 column layouts though. That's partially why I prefer other layout solutions.

By the way, your site's layout is quasi-original, but the page is too wide, thereby creating the widely-hated x-axis scrollbar.

AgentChronon
26th July 2006, 6:33 PM
Eh I know my site's layout isn't original but I still really like it.

Faltzer
26th July 2006, 9:58 PM
I prefer three column layouts. Personally, I find them much easier to edit that horizontal ones...

What else? Oh yeah, it's easier to do image based layouts with 3 Columns than drop-down horizontal.

And....um....I forgot anything else. xP

Way to TRY and prove a point that didn't actually come to prove the right way. You can't just say it's easier to make a 3-column layout and then easy to edit,because you need CSS alignining and probably some cellpadding and all that crap,Smogons layout is horizontal,and I find it real easy to edit,3-columns make the html document longer,including all the links and directories you have located on your website. It's easier to edit horizontal layouts then editing 3-column by hundreds of times,you can always just an SSI code or PHP include code,cause that's what those server-side scripting languages are there for.

Magma Leader Maxie
26th July 2006, 10:39 PM
Precisely what Faltzer said, all layouts are easy to edit if you divide the page into a header and a footer, and then use a SSS language to dynamically include the code (ASP, PHP, JSP).

For my site I built a blank page to test the layout. Then I split it into a header and a footer, and added two functions to a function-library script, build_magma_header('Title of the page') and build_magma_footer().

All I need to do is include the function library, and those functions (as well as others) are available. This cuts down the ammount of cumbersome HTML coding (which inevitably leads to mistakes). For a multi-page site, some form of SSI must be implemented lest you want to produce "HTML soup" as Dragonfree aptly calls it.

SSI tags like <!--#include --> do pretty much the same, although they look like normal HTML comments and are easy to skip and lead again to mistakes.

AgentChronon
26th July 2006, 11:40 PM
Uh... I use SSI

Magma Leader Maxie
27th July 2006, 12:09 AM
Ok... so why then is it easier to manage 3-columned sites?

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 12:10 AM
SSI just looks like normal HTML comments,which is why now most excellent web hosts support php over SSI,because you can do everything better with PHP,then SSI. Also,you forgot that you can use JS includes to also dynamically include your files. There are other languages to use then just SSI & PHP.

PS:That's a real cool post you made there,Chronon.

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 12:24 AM
Wait were you being sarcastic or something?

*browses over topic list* I see no cool posts.

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 12:25 AM
You're using SSI,so explain,how exactly does it make it easier to edit then other non-3 column layouts?

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 12:28 AM
It doesn't. I guess. I don't see how SSI is harder to use than PHP I always keep it at the very top and very bottom so yeah.

Incidenty, freewebs supports SSI and not PHP. Weird.

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 12:33 AM
I didn't say SSI was harder then PHP. PHP is HARDER then SSI is. Freewebs is a bad host for not supporting the good old programming languages. It's only good for real small or personal websites. Serious website? No.

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 12:35 AM
Wait... but if PHP is harder than SSI why is freewebs bad? I am really confused.

I do not see why freewebs is only good for small sites it is really cool!!!!

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 12:39 AM
50 file limit for free accounts. It's bad,I have more then 50 pages on my site.

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 12:51 AM
Somehow I don't know how but when I got to 50 files I could still make more... don't ask me why. Maybe it's because I was in HTML.

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 1:04 AM
Wether in HTML or Easy Mode they don't allow more then 50 files. Although,I might be wrong in assuming the HTML files count.

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 1:29 AM
Yeah I think you are. I thought I would have to pay ten bucks but no I didn't.

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 1:42 AM
10 bucks for just 200 MB is bad. I can pay less and get a lot more then that.

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 1:44 AM
Hmm I have a fairly large site and I have only used 35 kb I think

Magma Leader Maxie
27th July 2006, 9:20 AM
You can get 250MB of space completely free at byethost.com (www.byethost.com). It would be completely illogical to waste a perfectly good $10 on that stupid hosting plan.


Hmm I have a fairly large site and I have only used 35 kb I think
And on my site, a PHP script takes up 31 kB, meaning that you somehow squeezed a whole site, images and documents, into roughly the same space that my xml-parser class takes up.

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 3:19 PM
Yeah I don't know how.

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 5:16 PM
Magma Leader: I've never seen your site though,can I see it? 41 MB isn't a lot,freewebs deserves a bad reputation for giving such bad hosting plans.

Magma Leader Maxie
27th July 2006, 6:09 PM
41 MB isn't a lot,freewebs deserves a bad reputation for giving such bad hosting plans.
Yet there still are enthusiasts that openly lie into your face and claim that freewebs is t3h ult1mte host. I just don't understand it.

My site isn't finished to the level I would like, so I'm not advertising it in any way. The URI is http://www.magma.byethost.com, view it only with Firefox.

Faltzer
27th July 2006, 6:29 PM
Nice website. I disagree with anybody saying freewebs is a good host. addyour offers way better hosting plans. 500 MB of free disk space,php and mysql. I still cannot see how exactly people can survive with freewebs though. >_>

AgentChronon
27th July 2006, 9:09 PM
I have had no problem with freewebs, I don't see any problem coming up, it's easy to use, etc. So I am not switching anytime soon

Jetx
28th July 2006, 11:06 PM
standard Breloom Woods layout on Jetx's site.
T'ank you. :) One of the only ones I made myself. I've got a layout pretty similar on the new main website I am constructing (the same one I've been doing for months...).

Anyways, I use SSI to support my navbars and footer.

AgentChronon
29th July 2006, 12:45 AM
Well I only like it because it's green... Actually it's pretty nice looking. It reminds me of one I almost used for my site on the IF skinzone called Green Apple or something.

Faltzer
29th July 2006, 12:54 AM
Just one problem,the layout for the main site of breloom woods is a pre-made layout for freewebs. <<

Jetx
29th July 2006, 11:27 AM
Just one problem,the layout for the main site of breloom woods is a pre-made layout for freewebs. <<
Look at the first sentence in my sig >_> Then you'd realise that that site is no longer important to me and is therefore being scrapped and replaced.

AC was talking about the green layout on my forums anyway.

Faltzer
29th July 2006, 9:20 PM
the layout for the main site of breloom woods is a pre-made layout for freewebs.

Thanks for not reading my posts correctly before jumping on saying I didn't read the first sentence,because I DID read it. And it's no excuse for using a pre-made layout for freewebs. I wasn't talking about your forum,which I'll add,isn't that good at all.

AgentChronon
29th July 2006, 11:01 PM
HIS FORUM IS COOL!!!!!

Really your site isn't any better I found out how to get to his main site and it really really good so far. I think I will ask him to affiliate when it is put up.

Oh and you don't have to yell at him for thinking there was a misunderstanding.

EDIT: His forum has 100 members... yours has 27. His is better...

Faltzer
30th July 2006, 1:38 AM
Mine is only starting out,it's only been started this month and I gained 25 in only one month. Today I got 3 new members,making it 27,so don't count your sheep yet.

AgentChronon
30th July 2006, 5:13 PM
Yeah I know. Eventually I bet your forum will be awesome. But now? Now Jetx's is better.;rukario; < ;286;

Jetx
30th July 2006, 6:10 PM
Faltzer, getting three new members is no big deal. I've still got 112 more than you. XD
Also, I don't care if I have no excuse for using a pre-made freewebs layout; I made it eight damn months ago - you think I haven't learnt any HTML since then? Yes, I admit, I was a bad webmaster when I first built the main breloom woods website. It sucked. So go ahead and criticize me about it - I don't honestly care at all.

And I wouldn't bother saying my forum is bad - because I could find a lot more to say about yours than you could about mine.

So please stfu instead of being a hypocrite.

AgentChronon
30th July 2006, 6:39 PM
I wish more people would join my forum so then it could be as good as Jetx. Jetx is a great webmaster. I really like his main site AND his forums.

Jetx
30th July 2006, 6:51 PM
Thanks for the compliments. :)
But there are much better webmasters than me out there.
I'm pretty surprised you do like the main site, I hate it. =/

Perhaps we should try to get back on topic now.

AgentChronon
30th July 2006, 7:50 PM
Well I meant the new main site... I found out how to get there just type in freewebs.com/breloomwoods

So yeah... I have a bit of advice for the forum if you don't mind. The red breloom sprite for a hot topic is REALLY ugly. I suggest making something else.... Anyway let's get back on topic yeah.

I like green layouts.

Faltzer
31st July 2006, 2:51 AM
Faltzer, getting three new members is no big deal. I've still got 112 more than you. XD
Also, I don't care if I have no excuse for using a pre-made freewebs layout; I made it eight damn months ago - you think I haven't learnt any HTML since then? Yes, I admit, I was a bad webmaster when I first built the main breloom woods website. It sucked. So go ahead and criticize me about it - I don't honestly care at all.

And I wouldn't bother saying my forum is bad - because I could find a lot more to say about yours than you could about mine.

So please stfu instead of being a hypocrite.


I wasn't saying I hated the forum,if not,I said I didn't like the IF theme. Read posts more often ****ing *******.

AgentChronon
31st July 2006, 3:10 AM
I wasn't talking about your forum,which I'll add,isn't that good at all.

You said the forum was bad... remember what you said... hypocrite.

Jetx
31st July 2006, 10:07 AM
Exactly, Jetx wins again. And if you don't like the IF theme.... click here... (http://i7.*******.com/21jx5dw.png)
And no, I can't change the default skin as ruins all the other ones.

AgentChronon
31st July 2006, 2:18 PM
You should post on the Invisionfree support board asking how you can change the default theme to the Breloom Woods one.

The Breloom Woods one is my favorite...

Faltzer
31st July 2006, 2:52 PM
When I said I was talking about the forum I meant the skin,because you posted first saying the BW skin(not default IF) was good,which meant the forum. Then after that,I said it wasn't that good,then,you said that my forum was worse.

I've been into IF skinning for over a year now,and it's quite easy,I've been making a lot of them to tell the truth.

Also,do you want the skin selector to have custom images Jetx? IF Support has a code to have custom images with skin selector,as well as the board wrappers.

AgentChronon
31st July 2006, 6:46 PM
Oh I see what you meant now... but you have to admit it seemed like you were insulting the forum. Sorry.

Faltzer
31st July 2006, 6:59 PM
I can't explain concepts without it sounding the right way. I've been skinning IF already for over a year and I'm damn good at it. I'll show a few sample skins I've made relating to Pokemon.

AgentChronon
31st July 2006, 7:08 PM
I can't skin, I just go to IF Skinzone.

Jetx
31st July 2006, 9:42 PM
Sorry for the misunderstanding then, Faltzer.

If you don't like the breloom woods skin, I'm afraid it's going to stay there, because I know quite alot of the members like it anyway.

Faltzer
31st July 2006, 9:44 PM
That's ok,I'll see how I can do again at IF skinning. I haven't skinned in a while ever since I left IF.

AgentChronon
31st July 2006, 11:53 PM
What forum do you use now?

Jetx
1st August 2006, 6:11 PM
We're swerving away from the topic of colours and skins (which are related to layouts), so, as I said earlier, can we start talking about layouts again now?</rhetorical question> But, seriously.

AgentChronon
1st August 2006, 6:33 PM
Okay sure. Do any of you know how to make one of those boxes with a scrollbar like at PokeChow (http://www.freewebs.com/pokechow)?

Jetx
1st August 2006, 6:48 PM
Look at the HTML. That's what I do when I want to find out how to do something with my layouts. :p

AgentChronon
1st August 2006, 7:04 PM
I tried that...

BlueEew
9th August 2006, 11:30 PM
I am like simple layouts that load easy too, I used the layout from The cave of dragonflies, and now I have been learning HTML ETC and actually enjoy making differn't layouts.

I cannot yet make complicated layouts but I will proberly never want one anyway.

AgentChronon
10th August 2006, 12:26 AM
Well thanks ^__^ (my layout is simple)

BlueEew
10th August 2006, 2:45 AM
((Just visited your site)) I have seen this before, and I like it.

Anyway, I used Dragonfree's free layouts for my site and they worked great.

AgentChronon
10th August 2006, 3:30 AM
I love those too. The first one has an issue that it has no footer, but otherwise they're 100% awesome.

All hail Dragon/Butterfree!!!

Faltzer
10th August 2006, 7:44 PM
Source code thieves don't deserve the right click access. He used an iframe,and if you don't know enough html,then why are you running a site AC?

AgentChronon
10th August 2006, 8:45 PM
Source code thieves don't deserve the right click access.
A: I'm not a source code theif... click here (http://dragonflycave.com/freelayout.asp)


He used an iframe,
B: What's an iframe? Because I don't think I used it.


and if you don't know enough html,then
C: It would be incredibly hard for me to make my own skeleton layout, and Dragon/Butterfree intended those layouts to be used. And I know enough HTML for me. I know enough HTML to do everything I can do in Microsoft Word and more. So that's enough for now.


why are you running a site AC?
D: Because I enjoy doing it.

Trainer Rachel
10th August 2006, 10:35 PM
I used to use iframes for some of my sites, and if you know how to integrate it seamlessly, like borderless and la la, it works very well.

Except for browsers that dont support iframes...

And faltzer, just wondering if you knew that the pic in your sig has been broken for the past several days. And also I was browsing thru your site and happened to click on the Gold/Silver section and saw that you said G/S was the 3rd generation of games... might wanna fix that.

XD375
10th August 2006, 10:44 PM
I'm using Dragonfree's first layout on my new website.

But my problem is the background. I have this:

background:#FFFFFF;

and changed it to this:

background:#http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp;

but it won't work.

PS: Always been a fan of The Cave of Dragonflies! Keep it up!

BlueEew
11th August 2006, 12:20 AM
Its not working because you are doing it wrong, # should always be followed by a number which is the hex code for a colour.

If you want a image background you need to add differnt HTML, to get the code for your background add <img src="http://urltoimgar.com">.

AgentChronon
11th August 2006, 1:01 AM
Just so you know the link doesn't work. What eewness said seems right...

I love TCoD too. ^__^

Virtual Headache
11th August 2006, 1:39 AM
I'm using Dragonfree's first layout on my new website.

But my problem is the background. I have this:

background:#FFFFFF;

and changed it to this:

background:#http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp;

but it won't work.

PS: Always been a fan of The Cave of Dragonflies! Keep it up!
You need to use this:

body {
background-image: url(http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp);
}
Also, you'd better use another format for your pics than bmp.

I think the most important thing about layouts is, that the colors aren't hurting your eyes.

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 4:06 AM
Yeah, if you're using paint then save the files in PNG format. You wont lose quality, and they load faster.
And the link isnt working because of that ; being included in the hyperlink

XD375
11th August 2006, 5:32 PM
body {
color:#000000;
font-family:verdana, sans-serif;
font-size:10pt;
background:#FFFFFF;
margin:0;
padding:0;
}

^That's what I have.^
I try putting <I>
body {
background-image: url(http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp);
} in and
<img src="http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp"> but none work. And Paint in Windows 98 can't save anything other than BMP and my parents won't let me install PaintShop Pro or Corel Draw or any of that stuff that just sits there but hardly ever gets used.

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 6:26 PM
<body background="http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp">

Put that in the "body" section.

XD375
11th August 2006, 6:41 PM
It is still not working.


body {
color:#000000;
font-family:verdana, sans-serif;
font-size:10pt;
background:#FFFFFF;
<body background="http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp">
margin:0;
padding:0;
}

^That's what I have now.^

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 6:46 PM
No, after </head> and <body> then put it there.

XD375
11th August 2006, 6:53 PM
This is what I have for the beginning:


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>The Pokémon Forest! Created By XD375!</title>

<style type="text/css">

body {
color:#000000;
font-family:verdana, sans-serif;
font-size:10pt;
background:#FFFFFF;
margin:0;
padding:0;
}

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 7:08 PM
Okay, but see where you have </head> in your page? And then <body>? Put the background code right after <body>

XD375
11th August 2006, 7:24 PM
No. Their is no <body>.
Look at my last post, you'll see what I mean.

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 7:29 PM
But I viewed your page source file... as in, on your webpage HTML, you do have a body. Edit that page and you'll see.

XD375
11th August 2006, 7:33 PM
I have body, not <body>.

Where do I place it?

body {
color:#000000;
font-family:verdana, sans-serif;
font-size:10pt;
background:#FFFFFF;
margin:0;
padding:0;
}

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 7:37 PM
No... here, go to your page, and right click and choose "view page source" you should then see your HTML, and go down after the part you posted, and you should see <body>

XD375
11th August 2006, 7:47 PM
</head>
<body><body background="http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp">

^That's what I have.^ It doesn't work.

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 7:49 PM
It still isnt workin? Man, that's weird... Try getting rid of the first <body> so it just says <body background=blah>

XD375
11th August 2006, 7:51 PM
No, that's not working either.

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 7:53 PM
The only other thing I can suggest at the moment is getting rid of the CSS stuff. That might be the problem...

XD375
11th August 2006, 7:55 PM
I'll try rewriting the whole HTML script.

Virtual Headache
11th August 2006, 9:01 PM
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>The Pokémon Forest! Created By XD375!</title>
<style type="text/css">
body {
color:#000000;
font-family:verdana, sans-serif;
font-size:10pt;
background:#FFFFFF;
margin:0;
padding:0;
background-image: url(http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp);
}
That's just the beginning, not a complete page.

Trainer Rachel
11th August 2006, 9:02 PM
^Yeah, he had the whole HTML script on the page (I checked the HTML source) but he just didn't post it all.

AgentChronon
15th August 2006, 1:07 AM
It occurs to me that maybe we should go back to discussing layouts.

Faltzer's is awesome. ^__^

Jetx
15th August 2006, 10:59 AM
XD375, try it with just the background.bmp rather than the whole URL.

Magma Leader Maxie
15th August 2006, 1:00 PM
And XD375, don't use bitmap images on your site. They are massive files and take an awfully long time to load on pages that are received over a dial-up connection.

Use PNG or GIF instead for web graphics.

AgentChronon
15th August 2006, 2:59 PM
Gif messes up in Paint, so use PNG. PNGs rule!

*Ra*
18th September 2006, 9:34 PM
Yo XD375 u said that u wrote
<body><body background="http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp"> right, well im not sure but i dont think there should be a body tag then rite after that a body background tag. I believe it should just be <Body Background="http://www.freewebs.com/xd375/background.bmp"> and if that doesnt work, i have a feeling there is a problem with how u are getting the image onto the website. Maybe a small mistake like u forgot to add Url or something small and u didn't notice it, but i can't thhink of any mistakes.

wally4eva
15th October 2006, 1:53 PM
are we allowed yo reuest a layout here? because if we are i request a diamond and pearl or a latios themed layout, just need the outline i want:
left nav right nav quick links (like serebii) just leave the links blank as link and i will add them in.
Thanks.
My sites layout is rubbish

Squall
5th March 2007, 6:59 PM
I don't think anyone is patient enough to make you a layout. Just google for a free one/tutorial.

kevind23
13th August 2007, 8:49 AM
Well since this conversation dropped off the face of the earth I might as well attempt to revive it...

I prefer Web 2.0 layouts. While dark is nice and easy on the eyes, it gets old after a while and extremely annoying. Personally, I can't stand Serebii's layout...Oh how I would love to give this site a makeover ;)

Anyway, that's just me. Any other opinions out there, or is this forum just dead?

hybridgoomba
26th September 2007, 12:01 AM
No frames, good graphics(not drawn crappily in paint), neat, and not eye hurting.

blueparukia
26th September 2007, 12:50 PM
I do simple, to the point layouts with simple Ajax effects for my sites.Things that are easy to find your way around, and that nice PHP include() function for DHTML menus. I do quite a bit of complex coding in the Ajax/DHTML areas, but make the layout as simple as possible. I am not a big fan of Web 2.0 layouts, but am starting to get used to them.

BP

Charizard_Millky
4th October 2007, 12:52 PM
I have a question:

When you make a layout take up the whole screen, what happens to the background colour/image?

blueparukia
4th October 2007, 1:10 PM
Well, generally the background image will continually repeat itself.

Though you can set background-repeat to repeat-x, repeat-y or none

BP

Charizard_Millky
4th October 2007, 1:11 PM
I know it will repeat but I'm wondering, would I be able to see it or not when the layout takes up the whole screen.

blueparukia
4th October 2007, 1:30 PM
You mean when you but stuff on top of it? Well, solid objects will cover the background.

Divs are transparent by default, and any other elements (including divs) can be made transparent by using the filter markup in CSS.

I am not sure what you mean,

BP

Charizard_Millky
5th October 2007, 6:39 AM
I'm asking this:

If I make the layout cover the whole screen (like Serebii's) would I be able to see the background images (say a blue and red check pattern) or would I only be able to see the background colour of the left and right nav bars and the content?

blueparukia
6th October 2007, 3:58 AM
I answered your question...

You will only be able to see background if the object on top of it is transparent.

Like Serebii, for example, the background is a shade of black, but the nav bars cover it up, though as the div containing the main content is transparent, you can see the black behind it.

BP

Charizard_Millky
13th October 2007, 3:44 AM
OK. Thanks. I think I got a little confused with what you said. Thanks!

Renneh
24th May 2008, 4:08 PM
mehness, well I did give a more lengthy relpy but as I submitted, the forum decided to log me out.

Anyway, I love simplicity, the use of css with navigation, I don't like dark backgrounds as they hurt my eyes... therefore they must hurt everyone elses eyes. Simplicity is important because if you want to make something more bold then its easily done where as if everything is bold, nothing will stand out.

Use of CSS is a big thing for me actually.

Oh and neatness and cleanesss.. colours that work together.

And I like the layout to actually suit the purpose of the website and connect with the likely audience.

I'm a bit miserable as I haven't done any layouts in ages because of my exams XPP

regigigas5000
4th October 2008, 10:57 AM
i like layouts similar to the serebii layout and any colours(just as long as they dont make my eyes see double!) and well anything thats easy to navigate basically

Shana_miku
2nd November 2008, 5:33 AM
I choose a template first (cause I use Freewebs). Then I just put a custom background image and the logo banner. I only use simple layouts. But sometimes, I also use DIV Layouts.

stillDoLLxx
6th July 2009, 11:56 PM
i like DIV layouts the best. Any colors (but neon and suuper bright colors) work for me.

Mumei
25th July 2009, 4:08 AM
Personally I like graphical layouts, though I'm very picky as far as those go. Basically I don't like sharp corners or different colors on a picture's background and the page's background except for in cases such as drop shadows or if there's a border between them and they're different colors for good reason. They also have to be at least relatively consistent in color where any sort of content is. And if the header is graphical, the rest should be graphical to an extent. The graphicalness shouldn't just stop after the header.

As far as non-graphical layouts go, I like a good amount of separation between different colors (with borders and such), and generally sticking to a certain theme or hue with the colors. And I do like at least a few minor graphics even with a non-graphical layout.

I'm also a fan of centering (not the text itself, but the content area should be centered in the browser window. Or slightly off-center for artistic effect, but not just smushed against the left of the browser window like you put no thought into it.

And I don't like underlined links. At least in the menu area, anyways. If you have links smack dab in the middle of your content, underlining is good. But not in menus. Also, they should change color if you hover over them. Personally I kinda like it if when you hover over them they change to the same color as the background (so it's like they disappeared), but that doesn't always work.

pokeplatinum62
30th January 2010, 10:59 PM
does anyone know how to use the same menu on every page using html

An00bis
31st January 2010, 1:55 AM
An easy way would be to use SHTML (http://www.buildguide.net/start/shtml_tutorial.php). Essentially you create a layout and break it up into several pieces so be assembled by the SHTML file. This allows you to make changes to say your menu or logo easily without having to edit every single page. Just make sure your server supports Server Side Includes.

Disgruntled Goat
15th February 2010, 12:00 AM
The two most common ways are SHTML as An00bis said and using PHP includes. In PHP you just do:


<?php include 'menu.html'; ?>

And put your menu in the menu.html file.

If you don't have PHP or SHTML another solution is to use iframes. Have a menu.html like before with just the links, then on each page. Make sure the links use the attribute target="_parent" so they open in the main page, not the iframe.

Gamer617
18th February 2012, 6:38 PM
I like serebii layouts