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

"Andrea Ryan" wrote:
> 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

My definition of a splash page is a special page that contains no useful
contents. I would call the first page at http://www.scifi-art.com/ for a
splash page, but I wouldn't call the first page at http://www.povray.org for
a splash page.

I don't think that websites need splash pages, and I think it's good that
povray.org doesn't have one (using my own definition of "splash page").

My own website has a splash page, but it's only because it is needed in
order for the structure of my site to work. I would remove it if I could...

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

"Brendan Ryan" wrote:
> 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.

"Serge LAROCQUE" wrote:
> Was it rendered with POV-Ray?

I'm sure it was, but the point is that it doesn't show any *unique* features
of POV-Ray. That is, it doesn't give the visitor a reason to use POV-Ray
instead of any other 3D program. That girl could probably be made with any
3D program, and it doesn't show the real strengths of POV-Ray, I think.

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

"Chris S." wrote:
> More recent examples of POV's remarkable capabilities would
> be a definite improvement.

I agree, but I guess the webmaster has not had the time to make these
updates yet.

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

So you think that an object made of spheres, cylinders and boxes is more
appealing than an organic model?
  So what, if it's made with another program? I think many people using other
3D software uses models made with other software as well.
  The point is to show the rendering quality, not the modelling quality,
since povray is a renderer, not a modeller.

-- 
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