Check us out!

[Vairkjosa]

:dunno: If it's good or not.
I sure am having fun learning though.
http://www.graphicsplayground.us/ I'm still in the building stage but your comments are welcome.

[Wassercrats]

That banner sized thing shouldn't be sized like a standard banner ad since it's not one, especially if it's not on the very top of the page. Otherwise it looks ok.

[Vairkjosa]

:yeah: Thanks! I made that banner sized thing. It's a standard banner sized thing, an animated gif. Like I said I'm still building but, I'm not sure I get it. I am very new at this.

What's a standard sized banner? 468x60.. is what I used. Then I just created a animated gif.

What "could" have been done better?

[Wassercrats]

468x60 is standard. Better would be anything other than standard for an ad, unless you're using it as an ad on another website. See http://www.simplygraphix.com/banners_sizes.html for other standard banner sizes.

[Vairkjosa]

Thank You! now thats a bit of info I can follow. It's not an ad, I just didn't know that was a standard ad size. Thanks for the tip!
<< V >>

[Snarpy]

So what are you saying, Wasser? That because it looks like an ad, people will ignore it so it shouldn't look like an ad?

Snarpy

[Wassercrats]

So what are you saying, Wasser? That because it looks like an ad, people will ignore it so it shouldn't look like an ad?

SnarpyNo, but that too. Ads should be ad sizes and other stuff should be other sizes otherwise it looks off. Also, nobody puts buttons on top of banners. Maybe with plain text instead of a banner or with a different design it would look better. The buttons on the left side look too low, but if Vairkjosa changes that banner thing, maybe that will correct itself.

[Randall]

Also, nobody puts buttons on top of banners. This is Wasser's rather indelicate way of saying that a site's logo -- which is what we're really talking about here -- is almost always at the top of the page. :wink:

With the navigation buttons above it, the logo is even more likely to be mistaken for an ad.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

With the navigation buttons above it, the logo is even more likely to be mistaken for an ad.If it's banner shaped, I think it looks more like an ad when it's on top, but it still looks too much like an ad under the buttons, and it looks like it needs to be on top. If it were a background watermark type thing, it could be just about anywhere and wouldn't look like an ad.

[sheila]

I've read in some of the web-usability books I have, that studies have shown that people have learned to automatically ignore anything that appears to be a banner ad. Graphics that are the same size and have the same placement as typical banner ads will be ignored by a large majority of the site's visitors for that reason.

[Vairkjosa]

:hrmm: Ok! Placement and size are the keys here then. I've just been kind of trying to stay away from the usual look. I suppose it may be better to find a fair medium. The banner size was what I started with, so thats the only real reason it is there. The actual LOGO isn't done yet. I always thought those pesky ads came out all over the place so I must have missed that. Thanks for your comments folks. As I've heard it said :safegrin: It's a work in progress.
<< V >>

[Wassercrats]

This (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3518920) webpage has buttons above a banner, but it looks better because the buttons are part of a full-length top border, and borders don't count, sort of. Anyway, you have TWO things above the banner. But none of this matters, because you need to unbannerize it anyway by changing the size.

[Randall]

Giant squid may be cannibals Um, should we be worried about your choice of reading material? This (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3518920) webpage has buttons above a banner, but it looks better because the buttons are part of a full-length top border, and borders don't count, sort of. Buttons above the logo tend to relate to "partner" sites, or other properties owned by a parent company. In other words, stuff that ain't part of the site you're looking at.

Why do I find myself translating for you twice in the same thread...? But none of this matters, because you need to unbannerize it anyway by changing the size. It's not changing the size so much as integrating it into the page design. A banner-sized logo could still work as long as it feels like part of the site -- ads look like ads because they don't relate to anything else on the page.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Squids are good fishes.

I don't need a translator. No matter where the links lead, buttons above a banner look better if they're part of a top border.

[Wassercrats]

Here's (http://www.virtourist.com/newspapers/) a page with links above the banner leading to the same domain.

[Vairkjosa]

It's not changing the size so much as integrating it into the page design. A banner-sized logo could still work as long as it feels like part of the site -- ads look like ads because they don't relate to anything else on the page.
I think since I'm not a business persay I'm tending to agree towards Randalls statement here. Two of us like the original but three of us want to just wait for the Logo and leave things alone for now.
I tried the larger size for awhile on our news page and it does make perfectly good sense to be bigger.
That last one you put there Wassercrats "IS" a nice business looking page. We have plans to use a prog called Mapthis to do something very similar.

I do appreciate the "lessons" folks.

<< V >>

[Randall]

Here's (http://www.virtourist.com/newspapers/) a page with links above the banner leading to the same domain. The logo ain't in the banner -- it's right next to the links. Doesn't count.

Randall :ras1:

[Wassercrats]

So you ADMIT that Squids are good fishes!

[Randall]

So you ADMIT that Squids are good fishes! Squids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid) aren't fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish) at all -- good or otherwise. They're mollusks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollusk). :teach:

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Cephalopods, to be more exact.

[Randall]

Cephalopods, to be more exact. Or go in the other direction and call 'em Lophotrochozoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lophotrochozoa) if you want. Either way, they ain't fish.

If Vairkjosa's site ends up with a squid as its logo, it's your fault.

Randall

[Wassercrats]

Either way, they ain't fishThen what are they doing swimming around in the water, Heh?

[Randall]

Then what are they doing swimming around in the water, Heh? Good question. Let's toss you in so you can ask them. :EG:

:ytshark:

Randall

[Wassercrats]

I bet squid could do sign language really fast.

[Vairkjosa]

:dunno: What do fishey squid have to do with it? :confuz:

Seriously, what about 740x240, I'll have it up on a back page tomorrow. Getting pretty busy with other stuff.

<< V >>

[Wassercrats]

At 1024 x 768 resolution, that's about 9 x 2.875 inches. Another rule of web design, besides the one about not listening to futzy loin puppets, is don't require too much scrolling--even vertical scrolling, and try to keep content above the fold, meaning visible as soon as the page loads. 740 x 240 is huge. Unless it's a background image, I'd use something smaller.

[Randall]

besides the one about not listening to futzy loin puppets There's a colossal squid (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0423_030423_seamonsters.html) with your name on it, Wasser. Just come a liiitle closer to the water... Seriously, what about 740x240, I'll have it up on a back page tomorrow. Remember that you're not building an ad banner -- the size can be anything you want. Just make sure it won't be too big to fit on an 800x600 screen. 740 should fit OK.

Or if you want to be really kind to the people with tiny monitors -- I have no idea how many of those still exist -- make it small enough to fit on a 640x480 screen. What do fishey squid have to do with it? Squid have everything to do with it.:ytold:

Randall

[TVB]

Squid have everything to do with it.:ytold:


But what do loins and loin puppets have to do with it? I suppose it might make a difference if it's a tenderloin puppet, but even so...

Another rule of web design, besides the one about not listening to futzy loin puppets

[Randall]

I suppose it might make a difference if it's a tenderloin puppet Try not to use "tenderloin" and "puppet" in the same sentence -- I'm getting hungry, and I don't want fuzz stuck between my teeth. :blah:

Randall

[Vairkjosa]

:bow: I think I'm getting parts of this! The dimmer switch is slowly moving up!
Thanks Folks!
<< V >>