[CIMC-working] Re: [IMC-Tech] Question of local color

[Elizabeth Fraser]

Madrid sure didn't look so pink last time I looked...
but drop the pink, the script and the lipstick and the
rest of the page is easier for me to read in a foreign
language than the light on dark in English...

I can read German.  Note on their language//search bar 
they have choices norm/mini/chic/mono -- which allows for  
different looks, but sends a cookie to record your choice.  
Don't like the pink for the mouse-overs on links, but both
of these sites are very readable.  (Although as I mentioned
before, I have got complaints on my own site about my
penchant for blue typeface.) Baltimore sends a cookie 
too--don't like some of the colors, but very readable.

I like Santa Cruz although it is "so" plain.  But when I checked
it out--what did I notice? I noticed the content and that's
what I think is the problem with the current "look"--It would be
nice just to have a bolder front or header look--but then
a more readable, viewable article area.

Has any kind of viewer survey been done by any of the 
IMCs that anyone knows of???

--eliz

-----Original Message-----
From: imc-chicago-working-admin@lists.indymedia.org
[mailto:imc-chicago-working-admin@lists.indymedia.org]On Behalf Of Ian
Bicking
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:16 PM
To: Don.Goldhamer@pobox.com
Cc: IMC-Chicago-Working@lists.indymedia.org
Subject: Re: [CIMC-working] Re: [IMC-Tech] Question


On Wed, 1969-12-31 at 16:59, donald goldhamer wrote:
> Is it perhaps time we re-reconsidered this white-on-black issue?

Yes, there's really not many people who like the white-on-black.  Some
people don't like black-on-white (not much of a fan myself), but there's
lots of other options.  I actually like a light gray, just in terms of
eye strain (e.g., http://germany.indymedia.org/), if you still like
white text, I like this site, even if I can't read it
http://thessaloniki.indymedia.org/ :) This also has a white-on-gray, but
I don't like it as much: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/ (not sure why).

This gives a blue background, though I find the green way to bright:
http://victoria.indymedia.org/

This has a white background, but is still colorful:
http://baltimore.indymedia.org/ , ditto here:
http://twincities.indymedia.org/

I like the style of the event box here: http://seattle.indymedia.org/ ,
but otherwise the color doesn't appeal a great deal.

I don't like SF, and most of the SF-active sites -- white with light
gray borders is very boring, IMHO.

This is too colorful: http://www.ucimc.org/

http://nologo.org/ is too weird for me... reminds me of childhood and
bubblegum.  I don't know why it strikes me as so odd...
http://openflows.org/ seems a bit boring.

This is really green: http://maine.indymedia.org/ -- Chicago isn't that
green, but it provides a community tie-in.

Even San Diego looks a lot nicer just because they have a different
sidebar color: http://sdimc.org/webcast/index.php3

This is so feminine, it amuses me: http://madrid.indymedia.org/

This looks nice (Finland): http://www.vaikuttava.net/ -- it strikes me,
though, that all the other sites have a similar layout that pulls them
together, even though the color schemes differ.

This is both bizarre, and has a different layout:
http://chiapas.indymedia.org/

I really like their icons on the left: http://brasil.indymedia.org/
(video, print, radio)

Very calm (too calm?): http://indymedia.org.nz/ , also calm:
http://stlouis.indymedia.org/


Anyway, there's a lot of variety among IMCs.  I think we can take some
of these colors and make something nice, and a bit more friendly
feeling.  Also, some work with the CSS (for instance, I like the font
size in the center column of St. Louis, but not in the sidebar, where
it's too big).  Maybe a background change on mouseover for links, for
instance.

  Ian


_______________________________________________
Imc-chicago-working mailing list
Imc-chicago-working@lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working