my second church site

[stm999999999]

Hello again!

after some years I make the second website for the second church in my parish!

it uses the same structure, the same techniques and the same heavy use of static pages and related categories at the last (http://board.s9y.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7699), BUT a very different layout and style!

http://test.maria-regina-martyrum.de/
http://test.maria-regina-martyrum.de/start2.html (change of the logo-color - I am still undecided)

Attention: this site is still "test" and not published yet. So:

access is restricted: (user/pass) mrm/mrm

You would give me much pleasure, if you give a comment to my work, to the layout, the structure, or (if you understand german) even to the content. And if you have a idea to improve something, tell it!

and btw another, very little s9y-site: http://pfarrei.sankt-joseph-siemensstadt.de/

[yellowled]

And if you have a idea to improve something, tell it!

I would strongly advise to reconsider the colors.

You're using #fff for links and #00f1f4 for headings -- usually, it should be vice versa. Users usually consider colored text on websites to be used for links.

In addition, the color used for hovered links is in my humble opinion pointless since it's almost the same as the non-hovered link color. Also, some hovered links seem have a background color, but other's don't -- using a bg color for :hover is fine, but you should not use the same bg color as in the container element.

(Sorry if all this is from the original template you used )

YL

[stm999999999]

I would strongly advise to reconsider the colors.

You're using #fff for links and #00f1f4 for headings -- usually, it should be vice versa. Users usually consider colored text on websites to be used for links.

in the original design (http://www.openwebdesign.org/design/208 ... /aqua.html) the whole main text is white and links and headings are colored.

But in my humble opinion white on grey for the main-text / body text is stressful for the eyes, or? So I turned the text to black, made the background a little bit more light-coloured - I hope it is readable for longer textes? (e.g. http://test.maria-regina-martyrum.de/geschichte.html)

at least I had do decide: white links or white headings (and colored the other one). But the menu on the left full of color? argh. eyestrain!

In addition, the color used for hovered links is in my humble opinion pointless since it's almost the same as the non-hovered link color. Also, some hovered links seem have a background color, but other's don't -- using a bg color for :hover is fine, but you should not use the same bg color as in the container element.

it is about my color change of the background. The hover-bg-color is the color I used now for the background of the main-part. try it out now.

[Don Chambers]

I think regular visitors to the site will get used to the links... not too thrilled with the blue for headings though... #00f1f4. Perhaps a shade of blue from the banner.

I also do not like how the name "Maria Regina Martyrum" in the banner jumps around when the links in the navbar are hovered.

These are just my personal opinions - but that is what you asked for.

[stm999999999]

I think regular visitors to the site will get used to the links... not too thrilled with the blue for headings though... #00f1f4. Perhaps a shade of blue from the banner.

yes, the turquoise / cyan is little bit ...

perhaps the blue from the logo on http://test.maria-regina-martyrum.de/start2.html

and blue would be a good symbol color, too. Blue and Holy Mary and so on.

But what is about the "Maria Regina Martyrum" in the banner? blue on blue is a little bit tricky white? black?

I also do not like how the name "Maria Regina Martyrum" in the banner jumps around when the links in the navbar are hovered.

i do not like it, too. Any idea?

These are just my personal opinions - but that is what you asked for.

of course, it is what I asked for!

[stm999999999]

ok, do it all blue!

Now the alternative startpage would be better, or? http://test.maria-regina-martyrum.de/start2.html


And beyond these color things, what do you all think about the layout?

[yellowled]

in the original design (http://www.openwebdesign.org/design/208 ... /aqua.html) the whole main text is white and links and headings are colored.

Doesn't really make a difference, it's still an uncommon use of colors in webdesign

But in my humble opinion white on grey for the main-text / body text is stressful for the eyes, or? So I turned the text to black, made the background a little bit more light-coloured - I hope it is readable for longer textes? (e.g. http://test.maria-regina-martyrum.de/geschichte.html)

Much better, although the contrast "background color (normal)" vs. "background color (:hover)" is still pretty much unreadable. You might want to try black or light blue as a bg color for :hover. Or drop bg color for :hover altogether and use something else to outline :hover links.

YL

[yellowled]

And beyond these color things, what do you all think about the layout?

Personally, I'm not a fan of fluid layouts without max-widths. This will almost certainly result in incredibly long lines in higher screen resolutions, which is really hard to read. It might also be(come) a problem that .plugin_frontpage_top_right does not have a fluid width. (BTW: 35ex? Who the hell uses ex?!? And for width even.)

YL

[stm999999999]

Personally, I'm not a fan of fluid layouts without max-widths. This will almost certainly result in incredibly long lines in higher screen resolutions, which is really hard to read.

hm, I have to have a look a max-widths.

But, is it realy a problem? Who one with a widescreen tft uses fullscreen browsers? OK, I do it. But just because a) either someone has such a fluid layout with unreadable lines or b) he has it not and I have a huge empty space right/left, I placed many of the toolbars, menu things and so on on the right of my browser-window to well use the wide of a widescreen. (and getting more space in the vertical)

It might also be(come) a problem that .plugin_frontpage_top_right does not have a fluid width. (BTW: 35ex? Who the hell uses ex?!? And for width even.)

I use it? What is wrong about this? I am not firm enough in this part of css.

[stm999999999]

another thing:

I made every blue (headline) text to black for testing purpose. What do you think about this?

(BTW, in english there is no difference between you and you ) I mean every time the plural you

[yellowled]

hm, I have to have a look a max-widths.

But, is it realy a problem?

Well, it might be. This looks rather well-formed in 1024x768, probably even in 1280x1024, but imagine those crazy Mac users with their 1600x1200 screen ... the longer a line of text, the harder for the human eye to read it.

max-width isn't perfect, either, since it isn't supported by IE6 (but there are fixes for that).

(BTW: 35ex? Who the hell uses ex?!? And for width even.)

I use it? What is wrong about this? I am not firm enough in this part of css.

Well, it's very uncommon, especially for width. ex related to the height(!) of the letter x. Kind of an odd choice as a measure for width, right?

You should use em instead. Or a fluid width for this particular container, if you want to go with a completely fluid layout.

YL