Which looks better?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

JPS

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,745
0
71
I have a small site that I have converted from html to strict xhtml/css/php. I have worked up two separate designs, one that is 2 columns and one that is 3 columns. Please give 'em a look and let me know what you think works best in terms of usability, design appeal, etc. Other comments, tips, suggestions are gladly welcome.

2 COLUMN DESIGN

3 COLUMN DESIGN

Thanks in advance for your time and opinions! :D
 
O

ojai00

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2001
3,291
1
81
I like the 3 column version. I had to refresh the page a couple of times before I was able to see content. Before I did it, it just showed an olive colored page. If I go to another page and go back home, the same problem occurs. :(
 
C

ClueLis

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2003
2,269
0
0
Hello again, JPS!

First off, I like the new color scheme! It's softer than what you previously had.

I know you like being able to put the offsite links on another side, but I still find it looks a little awkward. I would personally just stick with the 2 columns and have a links section instead.

EDIT: No rendering problems on my Firebird here. :)
 
J

JPS

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,745
0
71
ojai00
What browser are you using - IE?

ClueLis
Thanks for the feedback. I like the new colors as well, though I am working on a blue version and opure greyscale version that visitors can select as desired.

As for the columns, I have had interesting responses - and actually it is prolly a 50/50 split right now based on the fedback I am getting. Biggest push for 3 columns? It looks different and keeps visitors attention forcing them to stay and explore. I have heard almost that exact same comment from 10 different people.

We will see...guess I should get around to converting the rest of the content over, the site is still bare :(
 
H

Haden

Senior member
Nov 21, 2001
578
0
0
I prefer 2 column version, looks somewhat "cleaner" to me, background is too light in 3c version for my taste too.
 
J

JPS

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,745
0
71
Haden
the background of the page or the content column (cntr column)
 
N

notfred

Lifer
Feb 12, 2001
38,241
4
0
The two column version looks better. The three column version looks like a dog with floppy ears.

The look of the site doesn't hold people's interest, the content does. No one's going to see the page and think "Oh, look, it looks like a dog's head! I think I'll stay and explore the site even though the content sucks, because it looks like a dog's head."

On the other hand, people will stay and read interesting content even on an ugly, boring-looking page. I've spent a lot more time reading plain black text on plain white backgrounds than I have staring at nifty CSS designs.
 
B

Barnaby W. Füi

Elite Member
Aug 14, 2001
12,343
0
0
Originally posted by: notfred
On the other hand, people will stay and read interesting content even on an ugly, boring-looking page. I've spent a lot more time reading plain black text on plain white backgrounds than I have staring at nifty CSS designs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in fact, after getting sick of (and disgusted at) web design, I just make plain white pages with black text now. Looks good enough to me, and I never hear "hey that page doesn't work right in my browser!"
 
O

Oogle

Member
Feb 18, 2002
63
0
0
In an ideal CSS situation, you wouldn't have needed to ask this question. You could've just put up a stylesheet switcher that changes between a 2 and 3 column layout. That way, you can let the user choose what kind of layout they want...
 
J

JPS

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,745
0
71
oogle
I realize that. I am not going for that option at the moment.

BingBongWongFooey
I appreciate your sentiments. I had similar problems before I began using xhtml and css. Now, if a user's browser doesn't support css they get served up a plain black and whiet screen with no formatting. If they are using a browser that reads css then they see the page the way I intended it.

Haden
Thanks - that is what I thought.
 
J

JPS

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,745
0
71
ALL
Thanks for the comments all.

This is the design I am going with (for now)- http://copperdog.org

I have chosen it for the following reasons:

1) It is visually appealing w/ minimal eye candy - yes I am a minimalist who hates excessive graphics and eye candy. Though I might work on a side logo for the top bar.
2) It is simple to navigate - the nav column is on the right for a reason (graceful degradation for older browsers that don't handle CSS).
3) It is easy to maintain - everything is modularized.
4) FWIW: Both columns are dynamic - they will expand vertically as more content is added. Making them fixed lengths is difficult as I don't know what will ultimately fill up either.

Now I just need to take the next few days and convert all of the articles and guides from the old site into a format for the new one layout!
 
J

JPS

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,745
0
71
BingBongWongFooey

Thank you, that was a hell of a read! I see the author's point and am now reconsidering my approach. I am pretty new to coding html/xhtml and had never even thought about the points raised in that advocacy piece. Nonetheless, they are valid points. My conversion to xhtml/css from pure html was simply from a "convenience" standpoint. In doing so, was able to modularize my site and make global changes much more efficiently than before. Also, it was a challenge to learn something new - a la the "latest and greatest". A friend of mine needed help trying to do something similar and after helping her, I decided to see if I could do something similar.

Anyway...I need to clear my head now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom