Need Input! New Skin for [url]www.zionnational-park.com[/url]

[tanya]

Any comments are appreciated. I am making a new skin for the Zion Webiste and want to make sure all the bugs are out and that it is search engine and user friendly before I change my pages. I have added a print button that seems to make some happy. Anything else? The teal font I might make a little more foresty green.



http://www.zion-national-park.org/

[R]

I like the new color scheme very much. I have always liked uncluttered front pages, so if I had any criticisms at all, it might be that it tends to be a little busy, especially for a first-time user.

[Alex]

I like it a lot, easy to read and follow

[stefan]

alright i'll span comments over both groups :)

so another thing i would suggest modifying ...

in the upper right column indicating the different regions, the v-link attribute (color of an already-visited-page) is a nice color (same as your normal links), but the unvisited page is a very subtle dark spring green. perhaps making these more different?

i don't know if it need be consistent, but i think a difference in color to make it clearer which of those links have been visited and which haven't might be helpful, especially in the exploration i was talking about earlier.

[tanya]

alright i'll span comments over both groups :)

so another thing i would suggest modifying ...

in the upper right column indicating the different regions, the v-link attribute (color of an already-visited-page) is a nice color (same as your normal links), but the unvisited page is a very subtle dark spring green. perhaps making these more different?

i don't know if it need be consistent, but i think a difference in color to make it clearer which of those links have been visited and which haven't might be helpful, especially in the exploration i was talking about earlier.

Thanks Stefan! I will look at those today. :2thumbs:

[tanya]

I like the new color scheme very much. I have always liked uncluttered front pages, so if I had any criticisms at all, it might be that it tends to be a little busy, especially for a first-time user.

Hmmm.....

Will ponder on that one. I do have to sneak in the ads for my hotel. :mrgreen:

[tanya]

I like it a lot, easy to read and follow


Thanks, but you see nothing you would change if you were working on it?

[Rev. Coyote]

First off, that's a great looking job. Excellent work.

My suggestions may sound picky, but here they are: I'd darken the body copy a bit and go to a serifed font for the body copy. Any font with a serif reads much easier than sans-serif.

Otherwise, great.

[Alex]

I like it a lot, easy to read and follow


Thanks, but you see nothing you would change if you were working on it?

Fine!

1. On the right side panel, add some td padding, the words are too close to the border.
2. Loading up in IE and FF shows the difference in the border on the right panel, maybe it's no big deal.
3. I never liked the map you use on your site, I would like to see the crops of real maps, like Topo! or something. It reminds me of Kelsey's books which I can't stand. (personal preference)
4. Bottom right has the site index with Next/Previous page. Is it really needed? Seems to me uses up the web site real estate.
5. Not sure about others, but it seems to me too much text on the front page. I would make more visual small icons that show Lodging, Description, etc. Maybe less text, but more to the point on the front page?
6. The site drop down index at the bottom, to be honest, that's the first time I saw it on your site. A useful tool, I'd put it up higher on the page and make it more known.

[tanya]

First off, that's a great looking job. Excellent work.

My suggestions may sound picky, but here they are: I'd darken the body copy a bit and go to a serifed font for the body copy. Any font with a serif reads much easier than sans-serif.

Otherwise, great.

I like picky! Thanks. There is a set of fonts that shows up well on all browsers that I usually use. I will look into is the font you suggested does that. The darker body seems to be something everyone wants... more of a foresty green. I have been playing with it... trying to get it to blend in and not be too bold in a pasty format.

Thanks!

[tanya]

I like it a lot, easy to read and follow


Thanks, but you see nothing you would change if you were working on it?

Fine!

1. On the right side panel, add some td padding, the words are too close to the border.
2. Loading up in IE and FF shows the difference in the border on the right panel, maybe it's no big deal.
3. I never liked the map you use on your site, I would like to see the crops of real maps, like Topo! or something. It reminds me of Kelsey's books which I can't stand. (personal preference)
4. Bottom right has the site index with Next/Previous page. Is it really needed? Seems to me uses up the web site real estate.
5. Not sure about others, but it seems to me too much text on the front page. I would make more visual small icons that show Lodging, Description, etc. Maybe less text, but more to the point on the front page?
6. The site drop down index at the bottom, to be honest, that's the first time I saw it on your site. A useful tool, I'd put it up higher on the page and make it more known.

Awesome!!!!! Thanks Alex!

[Rev. Coyote]

First off, that's a great looking job. Excellent work.

My suggestions may sound picky, but here they are: I'd darken the body copy a bit and go to a serifed font for the body copy. Any font with a serif reads much easier than sans-serif.

Otherwise, great.

I like picky! Thanks. There is a set of fonts that shows up well on all browsers that I usually use. I will look into is the font you suggested does that. The darker body seems to be something everyone wants... more of a foresty green. I have been playing with it... trying to get it to blend in and not be too bold in a pasty format.

Thanks!


Good serif fonts include things like Times New Roman, etc.

[Cirrus2000]

Well, I don't like to disagree with the Rev, but I (and many others) far prefer a sans-serif font (Arial, Verdana) to a serif. Serifs are too busy, cluttered, and old-fashioned looking.
They look more modern and open. Sans-serif fonts are more readable than serifs on pixel-based displays, because they are simpler, which translates well to low-resolutions

In the opinion of most designers, Verdana is the most effective font for body text.

Serifs are fine for headlines, or for print, but go with Verdana for body text. IMHO.

Hey, let's make it a poll!

[tanya]

Well, I don't like to disagree with the Rev, but I (and many others) far prefer a sans-serif font (Arial, Verdana) to a serif. Serifs are too busy, cluttered, and old-fashioned looking.
They look more modern and open. Sans-serif fonts are more readable than serifs on pixel-based displays, because they are simpler, which translates well to low-resolutions

In the opinion of most designers, Verdana is the most effective font for body text.

Serifs are fine for headlines, or for print, but go with Verdana for body text. IMHO.

Hey, let's make it a poll!

Also to take into account (at least this was true a couple of years ago) that few fonts will crossover on the various browsers. Those that work use to be: ariel, helvetica, sans-serif

Is that still true? There are many new browsers and old ones have been updated.

[Rev. Coyote]

I'd agree that aesthetically, a sans-serif type looks nicer. But when I was in Little Journalist School, one thing we talked about was type, and a serif affords faster reading. Of course, that was 25 years ago....

[Cirrus2000]

Also to take into account (at least this was true a couple of years ago) that few fonts will crossover on the various browsers. Those that work use to be: ariel, helvetica, sans-serif

Is that still true? There are many new browsers and old ones have been updated.

The nice thing with Cascading Style Sheets is that you can use a list of fonts to use for any particular tag. You can list the font faces in the order of preference. If the browser can't use the first, it will try to use the second, and so on. That's why you'll get that list: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif. It means that if neither Arial nor Helvetica are available, the default sans-serif font will be used, whatever it may be. (Sans-serif is a generic term for fonts without the little tab doohickeys on the edges of letters - not a specific font.)

Rev, the serif fonts are still preferred for print, but sans-serif for computer monitors. That's the conventional wisdom, anyway.

[stefan]

i think serif fonts certainly have their place on web.

though it makes sense for tanya's page to be sans-serif.

[accadacca]

Coming along and I like it as well. I also agree that the body text is too light. However, the green bold is easy to read. My only major beef is the right side vertical nav. Right side navigation doesn't work for me. We all know that people read left to right. Thus, navigation works best on the left or the top. It would be like putting the steering wheel on the right side of the car and trying to drive from the left. We all know that us yanks have it on the proper side anyway, LEFT! You will notice that most websites use this location for their main navigation.

[tanya]

Coming along and I like it as well. I also agree that the body text is too light. However, the green bold is easy to read. My only major beef is the right side vertical nav. Right side navigation doesn't work for me. We all know that people read left to right. Thus, navigation works best on the left or the top. It would be like putting the steering wheel on the right side of the car and trying to drive from the left. We all know that us yanks have it on the proper side anyway, LEFT! You will notice that most websites use this location for their main navigation.

I notice in the cooler at our chevron that people even pull all the drinks from the left and leave it empty before they will ....... force themselves to get one from the left. :lol8:

Also opening a 2 way door! I can be cleaning a door and people will actually try and get in that door rather that just open the one on the left! :roll:

I made the body text darker now. :2thumbs:

[hank moon]

I'd agree that aesthetically, a sans-serif type looks nicer. But when I was in Little Journalist School, one thing we talked about was type, and a serif affords faster reading. Of course, that was 25 years ago....

It's still true. If readability is more important than aesthetics, go serif; otherwise, sans is fine. Another true: high contrast improves readability and dark on light is more readable than the reverse.

Nice work on the new skin, Tanya!

hank

[tanya]

Also to take into account (at least this was true a couple of years ago) that few fonts will crossover on the various browsers. Those that work use to be: ariel, helvetica, sans-serif

Is that still true? There are many new browsers and old ones have been updated.

The nice thing with Cascading Style Sheets is that you can use a list of fonts to use for any particular tag. You can list the font faces in the order of preference. If the browser can't use the first, it will try to use the second, and so on. That's why you'll get that list: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif. It means that if neither Arial nor Helvetica are available, the default sans-serif font will be used, whatever it may be. (Sans-serif is a generic term for fonts without the little tab doohickeys on the edges of letters - not a specific font.)

Rev, the serif fonts are still preferred for print, but sans-serif for computer monitors. That's the conventional wisdom, anyway.

This is what's on the CSS

font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

[tanya]

I'd agree that aesthetically, a sans-serif type looks nicer. But when I was in Little Journalist School, one thing we talked about was type, and a serif affords faster reading. Of course, that was 25 years ago....

It's still true. If readability is more important than aesthetics, go serif; otherwise, sans is fine. Another true: high contrast improves readability and dark on light is more readable than the reverse.

Nice work on the new skin, Tanya!

hank


Thanks Hank! No suggestions to make it better?

[stefan]

This is what's on the CSS

font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

these are all similar, sans-serif fonts, some do better on different browsers on different operating systems (winders, os x, solaris, linux). verdana is thicker on a mac than on a pc. IE does better with verdana than firefox on a PC. i think arial seems to be better for both IE and firefox on a PC. on a mac either font looks good on firefox, safari and camino.

you can swap them around to see which you like better. i know some folks prefer arial over verdana. some mac users like lucida, but i know this family can have some issues on some browsers.

but what you have looks great :2thumbs:

[tanya]

This is what's on the CSS

font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

these are all similar, sans-serif fonts, some do better on different browsers on different operating systems (winders, os x, solaris, linux). verdana is thicker on a mac than on a pc. IE does better with verdana than firefox on a PC. i think arial seems to be better for both IE and firefox on a PC. on a mac either font looks good on firefox, safari and camino.

you can swap them around to see which you like better. i know some folks prefer arial over verdana. some mac users like lucida, but i know this family can have some issues on some browsers.

but what you have looks great :2thumbs:

So is everyone seeing Verdana? I am using Explorer.

[hank moon]

Thanks Hank! No suggestions to make it better?

They're comin' soon!

hank

[accadacca]

This is what's on the CSS

font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
I would yank the "Geneva" and bump the body to 12 or possibly 13px. Then adjust the other fonts accordingly. The default is a little too small for me.

So:

td {
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 11px;
line-height: 14px;
padding: 0;
text-align: left;
}

[Cirrus2000]

I would yank the "Geneva" and bump the body to 12 or possibly 13px. Then adjust the other fonts accordingly. The default is a little too small for me.
12 pixels - totally agree.

[tanya]

font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;[/color]
I would yank the "Geneva" and bump the body to 12 or possibly 13px. Then adjust the other fonts accordingly. The default is a little too small for me.

[/quote]

Thanks!

All these fonts and sizes look the same to me! So I think its done. :mrgreen: I took out Geneva and made the fonts all 12px

http://www.zion-national-park.org/

[tanya]

Thanks Hank! No suggestions to make it better?

They're comin' soon!

hank

I'm scared. :popcorn:

[tanya]

1. On the right side panel, add some td padding, the words are too close to the border.
2. Loading up in IE and FF shows the difference in the border on the right panel, maybe it's no big deal.
5. Not sure about others, but it seems to me too much text on the front page. I would make more visual small icons that show Lodging, Description, etc. Maybe less text, but more to the point on the front page?


I am still working on these! I think I did the others on the list. :2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

Your front page is way to cluttered for my taste. You have some items listed 2 or 3 times. But then again..... I think Google has the finest front page of any website. Outside of that it looks nice.

And FWIW: I think the uUtah's opening slide show blows big chunks. Have you guys ever looked at that opening on say an old 1024 monitor? looks like crap and I think uutah loses folks surfing by because of the extra clicks and scrolling required.

I live by the rule of KISS.

:rockon:

[tanya]

Your front page is way to cluttered for my taste. You have some items listed 2 or 3 times. But then again..... I think Google has the finest front page of any website. Outside of that it looks nice.

And FWIW: I think the uUtah's opening slide show blows big chunks. Have you guys ever looked at that opening on say an old 1024 monitor? looks like crap and I think uutah loses folks surfing by because of the extra clicks and scrolling required.

I live by the rule of KISS.

:rockon:

You have joined the :rockon: youngsters now. :lol8:

I know there is a text link and button menu on the top. Button's for humans and links for google. A few other things are on the bottom menu that are in the body since the bottom menu wiill be on all Zion pages. Lodging I need to stick in where I can. I do put a lot on the main page to please google since if I am not seen the beauty is irrelevant. Did I miss something else? Something in these I should think of changing?

[Iceaxe]

Button's for humans and links for google.

Google can read buttons.... so dump all the text links. Google reads your source, it could care less if its buttons or links.

And stop trying to write your web page's for Google.... bad idea... A well written website will automatically be Google friendly.

I would also like to see your text a little darker for these old tired eyes.

:popcorn:

[tanya]

Button's for humans and links for google.

Google can read buttons.... so dump all the text links. Google reads your source, it could care less if its buttons or links.

And stop trying to write your web page's for Google.... bad idea... A well written website will automatically be Google friendly.

I would also like to see your text a little darker for these old tired eyes.

:popcorn:

Getting old and tired? I doubt that. :lol8:

[stefan]

it's interesting when folks post screen grabs of websites. i realize your links are more pronounced with underlining turned on. i have underlining turned off, so it's based on color (and any hover property if one applies it).

as far as the larger font, i dunno. the smaller font looks less cramped to me. but then again, i can read small font. perhaps the larger font is better for other folks (which is important!). of course the less that one has on the page, the less cramped anything will look.

this is a great thread, btw i hope it serves you well in the end tanya

[accadacca]

And FWIW: I think the uUtah's opening slide show blows big chunks. Have you guys ever looked at that opening on say an old 1024 monitor? looks like crap and I think uutah loses folks surfing by because of the extra clicks and scrolling required.

I live by the rule of KISS.

:rockon:
First off, what do you mean by scrolling? Second, its true that some of the images that beech has recently added are too big and don't work well with 1024 (sorry beech). I told him about this a couple weeks ago and he is working to correct this problem. When I put the first 50 in they all worked well at 1024. BTW. . .I ripped off the homepage slide show idea from this site: www.advrider.com

Check out their stats:

Current: Online: 2047 (673 adventurers and 1374 lurkers)
View Who's Online

Threads: 195,978, Posts: 4,348,625, Inmates: 39,554

Their homepage slide show doesn't seem to be deterring members. :popcorn: :bootyshake:

[tanya]

it's interesting when folks post screen grabs of websites. i realize your links are more pronounced with underlining turned on. i have underlining turned off, so it's based on color (and any hover property if one applies it).

as far as the larger font, i dunno. the smaller font looks less cramped to me. but then again, i can read small font. perhaps the larger font is better for other folks (which is important!). of course the less that one has on the page, the less cramped anything will look.

this is a great thread, btw i hope it serves you well in the end tanya

I was trying to change those colors and realized the links were underlined too. :five:

The fonts all look the same to me when it comes to type and size. :mrgreen:

Yes, the input helps me see what it is that others see!

[tanya]

And FWIW: I think the uUtah's opening slide show blows big chunks. Have you guys ever looked at that opening on say an old 1024 monitor? looks like crap and I think uutah loses folks surfing by because of the extra clicks and scrolling required.

I live by the rule of KISS.

:rockon:
First off, what do you mean by scrolling? Second, its true that some of the images that beech has recently added are too big and don't work well with 1024 (sorry beech). I told him about this a couple weeks ago and he is working to correct this problem. When I put the first 50 in they all worked well at 1024. BTW. . .I ripped off the homepage slide show idea from this site: www.advrider.com

Check out their stats:

Current: Online: 2047 (673 adventurers and 1374 lurkers)
View Who's Online

Threads: 195,978, Posts: 4,348,625, Inmates: 39,554

Their homepage slide show doesn't seem to be deterring members. :popcorn: :bootyshake:

I never trust visable stats! I assume they can be rigged?

[Sombeech]

And FWIW: I think the uUtah's opening slide show blows big chunks. Have you guys ever looked at that opening on say an old 1024 monitor? looks like crap and I think uutah loses folks surfing by because of the extra clicks and scrolling required.

I've heard a lot of positive feedback regarding the slideshow. I'm actually working with a 1024 monitor, and I think it's OK. I do need to resize some of the vertical pics though.

I don't think sites with an intro page have any problems with traffic. It shows that our members are huge into photography, and encourages others to share more.

[Iceaxe]

Might have just been a freak that I pulled up a big picture. I was working from an old 1024 monitor the other day and checked out uutah. when I did I got some big ass picture that I had to scroll down to the bottom of to try and find a link.... I found the experience annoying.....

Say whatever you like.... I still hate that opening slide show.... as I said. I'm not into whistles and bells or dog and pony shows.

:popcorn:

[Iceaxe]

BTW. . .I ripped off the homepage slide show idea from this site: www.advrider.com

Check out their stats:

Just imagine how great there stats would be if they didn't have that dumbass slideshow. :haha:

And as for the stats....

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Variously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, Alfred Marshall, Mark Twain and a bunch of other dead people.

:rockon:

[Iceaxe]

I was hoping that slideshow would die a slow miserable death..... but if you intend to keep it make the "Enter Link" bigger and bolder.

Also.... today I'm looking at it on a 1680 monitor and about 1/3 of your pictures are still f**cked and require scrolling to find the Enter Link.

:nod:

[Sombeech]

I was hoping that slideshow would die a slow miserable death..... but if you intend to keep it make the "Enter Link" bigger and bolder.

Also.... today I'm looking at it on a 1680 monitor and about 1/3 of your pictures are still f**cked and require scrolling to find the Enter Link.

:nod:

You don't have to use that link. You can click right on the picture, or click on the logo up top.

[Iceaxe]

You don't have to use that link. You can click right on the picture, or click on the logo up top.

That's the problem... the page is set up for someone who is computor literate.

When doing websites I use my old man as a tester.... and there is no way in hell he is going to click a picture without a big sign telling him to.

You two clowns are around computers all day every day.... sometimes I think you forget that not everyone knows as much as you guys do. And I'd say 50% of computer users I know will assume nothing.

Sorry for Hijacking your thread Tanya.

:five:

[tanya]

You don't have to use that link. You can click right on the picture, or click on the logo up top.

That's the problem... the page is set up for someone who is computor literate.

When doing websites I use my old man as a tester.... and there is no way in hell he is going to click a picture without a big sign telling him to.

You two clowns are around computers all day every day.... sometimes I think you forget that not everyone knows as much as you guys do. And I'd say 50% of computer users I know will assume nothing.

Sorry for Hijacking your thread Tanya.

:five:

I never mind hijacking at all. It give me more clicks on "my thread" :roflol:

Did you see that rude post on canyons? grrrrrr!

[Iceaxe]

Did you see that rude post on canyons? grrrrrr!

I answered your question in this thread so I would not Hi-jack you any longer.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6953

:popcorn:

[tanya]

Did you see that rude post on canyons? grrrrrr!

I answered your question in this thread so I would not Hi-jack you any longer.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6953

:popcorn:

But I went from 333 to 444 today! :lol8:

[stefan]

Say whatever you like.... I still hate that opening slide show.... as I said. I'm not into whistles and bells or dog and pony shows

soo, i am curious. if you dislike it so much, why don't you have a bookmark directly to the forum page, bypassing the intro page?

and if you're momentarily at a different computer, what's the big deal? :haha:

the other thing (!!) is that no scrolling is necessary, since you can click the image to go the the forum. while some might not realize this, i suppose instead the enter button can be placed to the side of the image? or would that just look funny?

[tanya]

Say whatever you like.... I still hate that opening slide show.... as I said. I'm not into whistles and bells or dog and pony shows

soo, i am curious. if you dislike it so much, why don't you have a bookmark directly to the forum page, bypassing the intro page?

and if you're momentarily at a different computer, what's the big deal? :haha:

the other thing (!!) is that no scrolling is necessary, since you can click the image to go the the forum. while some might not realize this, i suppose instead the enter button can be placed to the side of the image? or would that just look funny?

It it's not your site you don't care sort of thing or even think about it ... but if you feel the owner cares what you think and you feel part of the place.... then you think....

...and speak your mind. (sometimes)

At least that's how I think :haha:

But then Shane never thinks how I think so who knows what he thinks? :popcorn:

[stefan]

It it's not your site you don't care sort of thing or even think about it ... but if you feel the owner cares what you think and you feel part of the place.... then you think....

...and speak your mind. (sometimes)


oh sure ... no biggie. speaking your mind is fine.

i just figure if you're a regular, then you're bookmarking uutah.com ... unless you just happen to be crazy and like typing it in every single time :crazy:

so if you are a regular it's simple enough to bookmark straight to the forum page. if you're not a regular, or you are and you like the intro image page, then a little dose of utah puts you in the right mind. plus i think seeing that photo first thing gives you an idea of what this site is about ... enjoying and sharing the utah outdoors with others ... it's a sort of first dose before you come to the predominantly text page of forum sections.

but i agree with shane that *some* images are too large (especially for laptops), and it's hard to see the enter link. not everyone thinks to click on the image, so that's why i suggested putting it to the side in the gray space. also, not everyone has their browser window open to the fullscreen so again, the bottom of the photo is likely to be cut off. if it's placed on the side of the photo then it's in plain sight.

[tanya]

It it's not your site you don't care sort of thing or even think about it ... but if you feel the owner cares what you think and you feel part of the place.... then you think....

...and speak your mind. (sometimes)


oh sure ... no biggie. speaking your mind is fine.



I'm in one of those --speak your mind kind of moods--- :haha: