Looking for feedback (good or bad) on anything really but in particular:

 

Whether the top logo is authoritative enough?

Overall 3 column layout, is this the way to go?

Colour scheme: Appropriate?

Content: Fine line between being true enough to reality versus ludicrous, is the balance right?

 

All feedback welcome!

 

It looks more like an e-mail newsletter I would receive rather than a website.

Im not sure why you have got "pictures of the royals" and then "more pictures of the royals", just have "The Royals" then you can have their articles and pictures all in one place.

Also, if you look at any news websites, they have an article headline with a picture then maybe a small summary. It looks like you have two full stories there. Think about just having small snippets for each story.

Your design overall is also quite boring, I think if I had gone on to your site as it is now, I wouldn't return the next day. It consists of a big block of colour at the top with some pixilated text, then a block of colour at the moment. Take a look at some inspiration online and see how to create a professional minimal design if that is what you are looking for.

Also, if you look at any news websites, they have an article headline with a picture then maybe a small summary. It looks like you have two full stories there. Think about just having small snippets for each story.

 

That's a good call thanks, I'll make it so, just need to write enough content first!

 

Im not sure why you have got "pictures of the royals" and then "more pictures of the royals", just have "The Royals" then you can have their articles and pictures all in one place.

 

I'm thinking that perhaps you aren't my target audience, but yes you're right that under any normal circumstances it would make more sense to have a single link to pictures of the royals.

 

It looks more like an e-mail newsletter I would receive rather than a website.

 

If (purely for the sake of argument) you were to assess this page:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

 

Would you say the same thing? Apart from the quantity of content + animation on my site, is there anything that stands out to you that I'm missing?

 

Your design overall is also quite boring, I think if I had gone on to your site as it is now, I wouldn't return the next day. It consists of a big block of colour at the top with some pixilated text, then a block of colour at the moment. Take a look at some inspiration online and see how to create a professional minimal design if that is what you are looking for.

 

In fairness I've drawn all my inspiration from online thus far! (You'll never guess from where ) I wholly agree with you that the resulting design isn't exciting, but I'm thinking further ahead to the point that it's full of news articles. The pixellation on the images is the result of the compression the forum uses when uploading a .jpg, that should be taken care of for the full whack as I've got all images etc done out in vector format, but well spotted!

 

Cheers,

Eoin

Speaking of that font. I would be careful using it if i were you. It looks exactly like the Daily Mail's font and using it in this context may cause afew problems.

 

Also, i think you need to make it more appealing. At the moment it looks dull and boring. Which i am confident wasn't the look you are going for. Make it brighter. Try white as your background.

Speaking of that font. I would be careful using it if i were you. It looks exactly like the Daily Mail's font and using it in this context may cause afew problems.

 

And we wouldn't want that now would we?

 

Also, i think you need to make it more appealing. At the moment it looks dull and boring. Which i am confident wasn't the look you are going for. Make it brighter. Try white as your background.

 

You're quite right in that I want it to at least superficially appeal to people with sub-average IQ's, with lots of pictures, simple messages and inane content. When you suggest changing the background colour to white do you mean the entire page including menu's et al? (as the content area's are white already?)

 

Cheers buddy,

Eoin

I meant the header area. Where your logo is. When i visit online news sites etc. I prefer the a clean look that doesn't have too much going on and with good layout and nice readable typography.

I meant the header area. Where your logo is. When i visit online news sites etc. I prefer the a clean look that doesn't have too much going on and with good layout and nice readable typography.

I meant the header area. Where your logo is. When i visit online news sites etc. I prefer the a clean look that doesn't have too much going on and with good layout and nice readable typography.

 

Nice thinking! I removed the background colour from the logo/header and it looks 100x better already! (Have a rep!)

 

The new updated version:

 

 

I'm now happy with the page layout, it's not 'exciting' but the look I'm going for isn't intended to be. To open the question up to all again:

 

Is the top logo is authoritative enough? (To incite a lawsuit?)

Colour scheme: Appropriate?

Content: Fine line between being true enough to reality versus ludicrous, is the balance right?

 

Eoin

Nice thinking! I removed the background colour from the logo/header and it looks 100x better already! (Have a rep!)

 

Thanks.

 

If I can give you a couple more tips.

 

1. Make the site at least 900px, anything smaller feels a little cramped on a average monitor size

 

2. Remove news headlines from the navigation bar.

 

3. Shift the nav text so it starts from left to right and is all on one line

 

4. Put the news headlines heading above your articles in with the main content

 

5. Make your two article columns 100px or so wider so your headings and pictures don't look squashed.

 

6. I don't actually mind the colour scheme but make the boxes containing your headings slightly less big

 

These are just my opinions take them with a pinch of salt if you like. But try them first

Edited August 23, 201213 yr by RobbieD90

Thanks.

 

If I can give you a couple more tips.

 

1. Make the site at least 900px, anything smaller feels a little cramped on a average monitor size

 

2. Remove news headlines from the navigation bar.

 

3. Shift the nav text so it starts from left to right and is all on one line

 

4. Put the news headlines heading above your articles in with the main content

 

5. Make your two article columns 100px or so wider so your headings and pictures don't look squashed.

 

6. I don't actually mind the colour scheme but make the boxes containing your headings slightly less big

 

These are just my opinions take them with a pinch of salt if you like. But try them first

 

All good again!

 

I did the jpg out in Fireworks with a 960px width, I think the reason it looks a little squashed is something to do with the way the jpg image displays. (Or at least I hope!)

 

I'll begin coding now and incorporate other changes into the code, the navbar definitely needs uncluttered as you say!

 

Cheers again,

Eoin

No problem, post it up here once you have coded it. Wouldn't mind a little look.

Yipee the Daily Hate Mail is taking shape!

 

http://dailyhatemail.webatu.com/

 

Apart from writing content, I know that the typography needs a bit of working on. (It's not awful but definitely needs improvement)

 

I'm currently pre-occupied with trying to work out what to do about the sides either side of the content because they look a bit empty compared to the header area. I've tried extending down the revolting red velvet effect on either side, but that only makes things look a bit linear and confined. Anyone got any suggestions? (On this or anything else that springs to mind?)

Edited August 27, 201213 yr by Eoin

I urge you to use a different font for your header logo. If your site does take off which I hope it does. Then if the Daily Mail see that header area you will be forced to take it down anyway. It is a complete rip off of theres.

I urge you to use a different font for your header logo. If your site does take off which I hope it does. Then if the Daily Mail see that header area you will be forced to take it down anyway. It is a complete rip off of theres.

 

It's actually slightly more than a rip off of theirs! There's no 'Daily Mail' font, so for the word "Hate" in the middle I had to painstakingly imagine what the letters H, t and e would look like in Illustrator. (The "a" I was able to copy) I'm quite proud of the end result! Took me a couple of hours to get it looking right.

 

You're quite right that if I was plagiarising somebody elses work to pass of as my own and profit from, then legally I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, because my site is clearly intended to be a parody of the real Daily Mail, I'll be quite happy if the Daily Mail want to take me to court. The UK doesn't have an official exception to copyright law for parody (unlike most industrialised countries), however even still such parodies can be defended in the UK in terms of 'public interest' or 'fair comment'.

 

In my case, the points I'm endeavouring to make about the Daily Mail are that:

 

1. Their news articles are clearly vindictive, and they rarely look at the stories they report from any perspective other than a highly skewed right-wing reactionary viewpoint.

 

e.g. http://www.dailymail...y-goes-GYM.html

 

In this typical example, the Daily Mail don't ask the judge why he made the decision that he did. They don't ask the gentleman claiming asylum for his version of events. They merely pander over and over again to their right-wing narrative of Britain being 'lax' on Asylum Seekers and ruled over by incompetent judges.

 

2. Speaking of narratives, Daily Mail stories seem to fall into about 11 categories which I've listed below:

 

a: Asylum seekers

b: Extremist Muslims

c: Political correctness 'gone mad'

d: Perceived 'softness' on crime

e: Laws they dislike stemming from the European Union

f: Perceived 'Nanny-State'

g: Anything whatsoever to do with paedophiles

h: Absurd human interest stories (skateboarding dog?)

i: Anything whatsoever to do with the Royal Family

j: Casting moral judgements on individuals behaviour

k: Supposed 'wasting' of public money

 

All the content I'm writing for the Daily Hate Mail is a mixture of the above factors, reformulated into new and absurd stories - the likes of which you wouldn't be surprised to read in the Daily Mail. What I'm doing is so clearly and identifiably a parody of the real newspaper, that if the Daily Mail did take it to court I'm confident that:

A - They'd generate a lot of free publicity for the Daily Hate Mail

B - They'd be paying my legal fee's

C - They'll come out of it looking very silly

 

3. The Daily Mail rarely if ever deals with matters of any great significance. Tens of millions of people could die in a catastrophe of epic proportions, and their 'news' headlines would still be centred on some paedophile in the midlands who avoided having his balls cut off. While I can't prescribe what a newspaper 'should' report, it's clearly the case that the Daily Mail focus on asinine gibberish rather than issues of global significance. This again is reflected in my parody of them.

 

Under any other circumstances you'd be quite right to recommend changing the logo, but in this case the logo stays!

 

Eoin