 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It looks cool.
It's good that they have finally got rid of the frames.
And the colors are ok to me.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune <run### [at] iname com> wrote:
: I agree. Also, I think the background color should be a lot brighter. In my
: opinion dark text on bright background always look more professional than
: bright text on dark background...
But it hurts your eyes more.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
More recent examples of POV's remarkable capabilities would be a definite
improvement. IMHO I can't understand why almost no new images have been
exhibited since the IRTC's 1998 December round. While "First Strike at
Pearl" and "Arkansas Chickens VS. EBE's" are incredible images what of the
most recent award-winning pieces of the IRTC?
-Chris-
Rune <run### [at] inamecom> wrote in message
news:394bf3a6@news.povray.org...
>I think it would be better with a motive that
> changes from time to time, and that's exactly what we already have! The
> picture in the middle that is. I think it's the best demonstration of the
> features of POV-Ray, especially if they began using some newer and better
> images.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm also at 1024x768 and it looks perfect. Granted the site is under
construction, but I didn't have any scrolling problems and everything seems
well-proportioned on my screen.
-Chris-
Dave Blandston <gra### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:394c195b@news.povray.org...
> > > It's too small on my 1280x1024.
> >
> > And it's too big on my 800x600. That's much worse!
>
> It's even too big for 1024x768!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote in message
news:394c5140@news.povray.org...
> Well, I for one like what I see so far. I can understand the arguments
> against the Poser girl, but, really, just what is the problem with her ?
Well, I suppose from the Artist's perspective the Poser girl, noticeably the
same size as the link bar, balances the page from left to right. However,
from the editor's perspective a Poser girl wouldn't be advertising even one
fifth of POV's capabilities.
-Chris-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris S." <chr### [at] bluelectrodecom> wrote in message
news:394cfe27$1@news.povray.org...
| Scott Hill <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote in message
| news:394c5140@news.povray.org...
| > Well, I for one like what I see so far. I can understand the arguments
| > against the Poser girl, but, really, just what is the problem with her ?
|
| Well, I suppose from the Artist's perspective the Poser girl, noticeably the
| same size as the link bar, balances the page from left to right. However,
| from the editor's perspective a Poser girl wouldn't be advertising even one
| fifth of POV's capabilities.
But she might have blobs under that bikini top, so maybe 2/5...
She makes me think of what a mild-mannered career woman might look like on
that new game show: http://polydb.union.rpi.edu/article/35063/cbs.html so it
seems rather humorous to me.
Bob
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
To big, too small.. I don't know. Maybe the menu text is too small compared to
the heading?
I don't like the colours either. The link collection is rather unappealing and
the link text don't stand out very much.
sig
--
ICQ 74734588
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The girl was made with an external program (Poser) and does not demonstrate
any unique features of POV-Ray as far as I can see.
Brendan Ryan
Warp wrote:
> Andrea Ryan <ary### [at] global2000net> wrote:
> : The girl is not a very good mascot for POV.
>
> Why not?
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's better to have a good design for both since the splash page is the
first one people see unless they get an URL to an specific page.
Brendan Ryan
> OK. I personally would anytime prefer good design on the actual pages
> instead of good design on the splash page...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris S." wrote:
> I'm also at 1024x768 and it looks perfect. Granted the site is
> under construction, but I didn't have any scrolling problems
> and everything seems well-proportioned on my screen.
I have found out why it is too big on my 800x600 resolution.
It is not because the width is fixed. It is because the link pages that has
under sections has the under sections placed in two columns, which means
that the box containing the under sections become too wide. That causes the
rest of the page to be too wide too. The link pages with no under sections
or with one column of under sections only (because there's a few only) looks
just fine.
Placing the under sections in one column only would fix the problem.
Greetings,
Rune
--
Updated June 12: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk
3D images, include files, stereograms, tutorials,
The POV Desktop Theme, The POV-Ray Logo Contest,
music, 350+ raytracing jokes, and much more!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
