New Website Stuff

[Bestatte]

I like the new font for the front page. I also like the color for it, it's brighter and really stands out nicely. Same for the Arm scrab/sun/icon thingie, though something seems not quite right about it to me. Maybe it looks like it was copy/pasted on, instead of inserted?

Also, in the General Information/OOC menu, the mechanics page is missing (though it appears just fine in the text below the menu and the link is working fine as well).

[Northlander]

While I don't like how it looks now, I like that there were changes made. It's good to know temporary changearounds are in fact considered; that we're not waiting for this professional and all-engrossing remake.

Now, the website doesn't look as if untouched since the nineties. It does, though, look as if touched by proud, photoshopping novices.

The biggest improvement that could be made is to use a logo which doesn't have that bottom-left 'shadow' on it. I understand what it's trying to achieve, but by not being properly gradual it looks very, very unnatural. Simply not having it there will look much better, and in fact be an improvement over the logo we started out with.

Mainly for the photoshopally inclined, there's another problem. The text is clearly a font, as the two 'd's are precisely identical. The bevel-like highlighting, the drop shadow, and the blubbery graininess have then been added through activation of a couple of layer styles.
It's just the kind of thing for people in the know to up their noses at. A plain Arial black text, which doesn't claim we can do something we can't, is preferable.

The thing is, though, that we can do better. Just ask for the community to send in such-and-so-size fanciful text saying "Armageddon MUD", and you immortals could have yourselves a vote at what's submitted. It's not difficult.

The text and logo, coupled with the sadly too obviously repeating background sand (which works much better here as the forum's border), are the first things you see. We've had a pro redo the logo, let's use what that person made and let's ask the community for submissions of Arm Mud text and background.

[Sakra]

I'm with them. The logo at the corner of the GDB looks better than what's currently on the main page. Text from before did look better. Northlander's idea is a good one, ask for submissions.

[path]

Something about the new logo font reminds me pleasantly of The Crystal Shard.

I agree that, oddly enough, the new one already looks somehow dated. Hwoever, I feel such vast appreciation for the one or many who spent the time, indeed, to make something that looked so striking.

[Savak]

I think that one's just some experimentation.  Bottom line is, many of us old people are probably not gonna like any change at all.  Nevertheless, we do at least need a restructuring and either a gentle or vigorous facelift.  Personally, I think restructuring/re-organizing (and possibly consolidating or dumping material where appropriate) is the more important of the two.  But I'm willing to accept that's at least partly because I feel all cozy with the look that's been there since pretty much the dawn of Arm-on-the-web.  Hopefully there'll be enough familiarity there that oldies returning won't get too terribly confused, and might even spare a nod of approval.

Anyone else remember the OTHER Arm webpages that were up for..I dunno..a day..back when we first created a page?  I know there have been a couple of others from staff (Nessalin & Dyrinis I think), and I only vaguely remember a black background on one.  (Exactly how serious either of them were is entirely uncertain.)

At any rate -- for the new version, be patient.  I wouldn't expect a full implementation until well into next year, at the earliest.

-Savak

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I do hope that the website stays simple. Although it does not just spring out at you, the format and simplicity of the website says "business" and such a thing is absolutely critical to the aire of the game. With updated and simple command menues, and strategically placed graphical content, this site will be absolutely pristine.

The one thing that I would brutally recommend[/i] is having an Immortal strictly[/i] for website purposes.

[Angela Christine]

I like the new font, but don't like the new logo.  I've seen a few attempts at "updating" the logo, but the grey part never looks right, it never looks real.  On the classic logo the hoop looks like it really could be bone or stone, most computer graphic attempts at it look too slick, too shiny.  The ball part on the new attempt is too . . . sharp?  I kinda like the ambiguity of the old ball, it could be a lot of things.  Not to be a heretic, but if you really want to re-do the logo, you might get a better result doing it by hand on real paper to get the gritty look -- computer graphics always look a little plastic to me.


Angela Christine

[Krath]

IMHO, I like the Original, but if I recommend -anything- please go back to the old Logo.

[A shy Kank]

Header at the index page of Arm looks strange. It is like a work of a new web designer kid. Ok, I don't have better design, but I did not like it. It is something like...Hey this font is so cool, let's use it for header.

But, if some new suitable design is added to rest of the page, it can look cool. It need support of the page theme.

[Vanth]

Psst.  If you haven't yet, you might want to scroll down to the bottom of the index page.

[A Shy Kank]

You can make menu links font suitable to the header. It will be really cool. And, for that font texture and color, different style for background could be good also.

Google was a need, and thanks all, guys.

[moab]

I love the whole google addition!
Awesome.

[Tamarin]

Why not explore the idea of pulldown menus?