> > Is it just me or does the site look a little different?
> >
> Oh, it changed all right. Yuk. Another attempt to design a page around
> graphics (does anybody remember that the first t in http and html stands for
> text?), with the usual result that it's a page that looks cool (in at least
> the designer's opinion) on the system on which it was designed, and just
> doesn't fit at all on systems that are different. Things like text that
> doesn't fit the space allocated and the like. As I said, yuk.

My screen is set at 1024 by 768 and everything seems to fit fine. What is your screen set at?

HTML stands for text? Have you tried that line on usenet?

> Holy hell! It looks sweet! Is this what Paul Buck was working on all this
> time? Kudos to him then!

nope, sorry ... Janus is the person that did this ... though I did propose something along these lines back in the beta ... oh well ...

---

> If you have set "colour on link" in your browser preferences to "blue", that's
> what you get.
>

I believe that's the default.

Anyway, I played around with preferences (using FireFox on a linux system) and selected "Always use my colors" and tried that. Then I went back and unselected that so it was back the way it was and now I see orange characters on a black background. Much better.

Charlie

---

> > Is it just me or does the site look a little different?
> >
>
> Site looks A LOT different. Janus is busy giving SETI BOINC a new look and
> some new features..
>
>
>

I just wanted to be off-topic for a moment and THANK you for typing "a lot". I get so sick and tired of seeing "alot" which isnt a word! THANK YOU!

Greg.

Nice main page. I have no problem with FireFox 1.0 and Opera 8.
dejv

---

Janus, nice job on the new look of Seti. I really like what you have done.

---

Not to steal any of Janus' deserved thunder (he's done A LOT for Boinc, most recently the moderation code)... but it wasn't Janus who redesigned the site.

If you look at the bottom of the front page, you'll see it was designed by Effect-web-media.com... apparently they donated the site design. :-)

---

Rob

Is that like already = all ready?

Well spotted AR.

I like what I see... very impressive. Hats off the the designers at Effect Web Media... especially since they have appratenly donated their time and effort (I am sure we will find out when the news is published).

*applause*

---
Zain Upton - Seti Synergy

---

Teamless? Drop by BOINC Synergy
Also checkout our famous BOINC World Stats

> Not to steal any of Janus' deserved thunder (he's done A LOT for Boinc, most
> recently the moderation code)... but it wasn't Janus who redesigned the site.
>
> If you look at the bottom of the front page, you'll see it was designed by <a> href="http://effect-web-media.com/">Effect-web-media.com[/url]... apparently
> they donated the site design. :-)
>


Just hope the main sponsors aren't "peeved" that their logo's are not on the front page anymore and instead have a seperate link page called "sponsors".

Timbo

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

WOW, i am blown away!! I love this new-look seti... its very different from the Classic site and our previous BOINC site.

Well done to the team and Effect Web Media!!

BTW, No problems here viewing website. Everything is crystal!

As an old fart, I hate change. One NO vote on the changes.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/teambanner.php?teamname=GasBuddy"> <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=84c0cf7846cbf28338406e54b3eb8a83">

> Not to steal any of Janus' deserved thunder (he's done A LOT for Boinc, most
> recently the moderation code)... but it wasn't Janus who redesigned the site.
>
> If you look at the bottom of the front page, you'll see it was designed by Effect-web-media.com... apparently
> they donated the site design. :-)
==========
Well whom ever did the design deserves credit Rob, it's a lot easier to navigate around the site now & it looks better too ... :)

---

Looks great!!!!

Thanks for this upgrade - very slick, modern and professional!

---

Thanks!! It looks real good!! cool

---

WARR - Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Raketentechnik und Raumfahrt
(WARR - scientific working group for rocket technology and space travel)

Not a bad looking upgrade!.... Good job.

---

<img src=\"http://seti2.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=198&trans=off\">

To a certain degree, I concur. But the HTML still doesn't square...

[b]<font size=-2>[/b]<i>ID: 00000 / Rating: 0</i> - rate:
<a href=&quot;forum_rate.php?post=00000&amp;choice=p&quot;>+</a> /
<a href=&quot;forum_rate.php?post=00000&amp;choice=n&quot;>-</a>
[b]</font>[/b]

...some of the CSS should be changed...

body , table , input , select {background-color: #ffffff;
[i]font-family: "Verdana", "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt;[/i]}

... and that white strip containing the timestamp and the ID/Rating shouldn't be so obvious.

It's been my experience that programmers who code make for lousy markup. The opposite is true too. Code warriors want it to work, so they don't care about appearance. Designers want it to look good, so the instructions are never on their mind. But for what it's worth - It's fine for functionality, OK for form, but a big fat 0 for markup.

As for style? De gustibus non disputandi.

---

> > > Is it just me or does the site look a little different?
> > >
> > Oh, it changed all right. Yuk. Another attempt to design a page around
> > graphics (does anybody remember that the first t in http and html stands
> for
> > text?), with the usual result that it's a page that looks cool (in at
> least
> > the designer's opinion) on the system on which it was designed, and just
> > doesn't fit at all on systems that are different. Things like text that
> > doesn't fit the space allocated and the like. As I said, yuk.
>
> My screen is set at 1024 by 768 and everything seems to fit fine. What is
> your screen set at?
>
> HTML stands for text? Have you tried that line on usenet?
>
>
My screen is set to 1280x1024. But there's a lot more to screen layout than just the bare resolution (something that many people, and, AFAICT, most web designers, haven't noticed yet). Since I like to run high resolution on small screens, I use the large fonts option in the screen settings. That changes the relationship between point sizes and pixels, and causes problems for designs that, incorrectly, make assumptions about that relationship. Further, I disable the ability of web pages to specify font sizes. I do so because too many web designers apparently work with low resolution on large monitors, and so specify font sizes with relatively few pixels. I like to run high resolution on small monitors, and so need font sizes that provide a lot of pixels, which both makes the fonts a usable physical size and also allows them to be rendered with quality.

So that blue section with the second level menus is broken up with different menus being different sizes. And similarly the horizontal lines are at different heights at different menus. And some of the menu text overlaps the liness. And in the lower section the large headings (news, etc.) are too big for the area allocated and have the bottoms cut off (not a lot, I can still read them, but it looks ugly).

---

------- Tom Gutman

Out of curiosity (since you've brought it up), am I the only markup-er that uses pt for font sizes? Every other site uses px or (For those page-layout designers) in...

---

> But for what it's worth - It's fine for functionality, OK for
> form, but a big fat 0 for markup.

Yeah, I wasn't too pleased looking at the code.

For one thing, they're using tables everywhere. That's *so* 1990's. div's are the way of the future.

For another thing, the code isn't going to come anywhere NEAR passing a validation test. You're supposed to quote things for one thing...

But it does look nice, mostly. :-)

---

Rob