I just noticed the other day that all the cool kids have been changing their site designs. And since mine’s been the same, you know, forever, I decided I’d jump on the bandwagon. Here’s what I came up with. Whaddaya think?

  • Yeah, those are all me up at the top. It’s a bit big, but it’s also just about the only graphic on the page (other than the little post icons), so I figured I’d go for it. I like it, anyway.
  • I got rid of the serif text, but I still couldn’t resist going for the retro “default link colors” look. How 1994 of me.
  • Just as Bill did, I considered doing a fancy-schmancy CSS layout and then scrapped it. TABLES RULE! You technophiliacs can bite me.
  • As per our discussion way back in August, I moved the sidebar to the right. Thoughts?
  • Since the “changing-fruit-flavors” concept isn’t here anymore, I got rid of the old preferences page. Of course, that also kills the “set how many days you want to see” functionality. Was anyone using that? If enough of you bitch, I’ll bring it back.

All the pages should be done, so flip through and tell me if you find any glaring mistakes. I’ve only got a Mac here at home, so let me know if it looks honky-tonk (as my sis would say) on a PC. Thanks!


Add yours →

  1. WOW! i initially thought i’d taken a wrong turn somewhere and gotten lost. love the new look, kris! and a happy belated blog anniversary/birthday to you and w-g. 🙂

  2. Nice, clean, simple, just slightly retro – I like it.

    What have you got against CSS? I’m in the middle of coding the CSS/HTML templates for my weblog’s redesign/move to a new domain, and I’m really pleased with the ease with which CSS lets me tinker with the site’s look. (The downside is that I have to accept that Netscape 4.* users will have to live with a less pretty layout, but there’s not much I can do about that.)

  3. Well, the problem I have with CSS is less with the standard itself and more with the uses people put it to. I get so steamed about those jerks at the Browser Upgrade Initiative (hence the Zeldman slam) who REFUSE TO LET YOU VIEW THEIR PAGE unless you have the latest greatest browser. I find that completely contrary to the spirit of the Internet. I protest by using nothing but old school HTML out of spite. This way means more work to change design (though I can template a lot of it with PHP), but at least I know that the most possible people can view my pages. I’ve even checked ’em out on WebTV and they look okay.

    Anyway, rant over. Thanks for the compliments, you guys! I’m glad you like it. Get used to it; it’ll probably take me another year to get up the energy to change it again. 🙂

  4. While I’m not averse to the notion of advising users that they’d see my site better if they were using a more up to date browser, I agree that refusing to let them see it (probably on the basis of a bit of horribly inaccurate browser-sniffing Javascript) is a stupid idea. Non-CSS browsers will see the content on a sensibly designed CSS-based site just fine, and a lot of people browsing at work or college, or even via wireless devices, can’t just change web browsers, so why punish them for it?

    (I have a great deal of sympathy for the “design to the W3C standard, let the browser make of it what it will” school of thought, but using CSS positioning is very hit-and-miss in Navigator 4.* so I’m glad that the @import directive workaround lets me stop Navigator from screwing up my new design too badly.)

    In the end, if your page passes the Lynx test (which your redesign does) then it’s been properly designed. Keep up the good work.

  5. Totally agree with you there. So wait, you’re working on a redesign too? Where/when’s your site going?

  6. Blah, blah, keep talking nerdos. Geez! No, hey- I am with Brigita – I thought I too took a wrong turn, but I love your little pics up there! Super cute Howies everywhere. I do miss the fruit flavor choice (mine was default purps), but otherwise, good stuff.

  7. Hahaha… We are nerdos.

  8. Hey, thanks for the kind words, Kris. I actually had an all-CSS layout before, but it was way too much of a pain to overhaul. Plus, I didn’t like the way it looked on my friend’s Mac.

  9. Yes, having kept things pretty much the same since adding the weblog (which has been going for not far short of two years now) I’ve decided it’s time to ring the changes. The weblog will move to soreeyes.org, with the rest of my site staying at http://www.thebeard.org, which will be used for any stuff (film reviews, a booklog, the stuff about the uk-po5 mailing list) that won’t fit into a weblog format.

    All that’s at the new site now is a holding page pointing people back to my current weblog. I’ve just installed Movable Type to manage the new site, and so far I’m quite impressed with its capabilities. At last I’ll have permalinks and comments, just like a grown-up weblog.

    Now what I have to do is a) finish off the CSS for my new weblog (which I’m just going to be boring and call Sore Eyes v2.0) and b) sort out customising the templates for Movable Type to use the new design.

    The problem with a) is that at the moment my monitor is acting up, and every few minutes it throws a wobbly and displays everything with a strong yellow tint. It’s difficult to tweak my tasteful new colour scheme when I can’t see it because my monitor’s got jaundice!

  10. i have a photo of yourself (as a young lady with – *ahem* – a charming smile) that you’ve mysteriously left out of that group at the top… !

  11. I included one! Check out that 3-year-old one of me in the Wonder Woman underoos. I’m clearly doing the smile.* In fact, I look like I’m about to pee my pants I’m so happy.

    * I used to think that the most beautiful kind of smile, the one that models and actresses did, was one where you curled your upper lip up so your teeth showed. I’m doing it in every picture til grade school. Why no one ever told me I looked like an idiot is beyond me. I guess the fam thought it was funny. Jerks.

Comments are closed.