As nice as a flashy website looks, does it really matter? Take massassi for instance, it isn't "flash enhanced", with various wooshing sidebars and the like. Hell, for those of you who know Maddox, his site is bland as can be. But there are many other sites just as popular that have other bells and various whistles. In short, does it really matter how a website looks (ease of navigation the same)? Are there any websites you just remember for the incredibly cool design?

Well, apart from that, I have two sets of icons/banners for my site. Just want to know which is better:

http://www.geocities.com/jiffy_biff/index2.htm

or the newer ones:

http://members.cox.net/kuat_images/index2.htm

Thanks for the time.

Links to some examples of sites that look awsome would be good too. Eyecandy never hurts, in any case.

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

[This message has been edited by Lord Kuat (edited May 03, 2004).]

I like the second one.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

What he said

------------------
janitor bobs idea of rogers video: He's actually the overweight guy next door who has a HUGE selection of videos, including the entire Lethal Weapon, Halloween, and 'Ernest' series.
The advantage is is that you can 'borrow' movies for long amounts of time without him remembering that you borrowed them.

The disadvantage is the pizza cheese grime on the DVDs

KISS

------------------
"I was driving along listening to the radio, when Judas Priest comes on. It was 'You've got another thing coming.' All of a sudden, I enter 'VICE CITY RAMAGE MODE' and nearly ran some guy over"
- ]-[ellequin

Flash is fine for movies and games, but for site navigation, it should be text with maybe a few pictures.

Anyways, I like the second one.

------------------
Our very existence is at stake

#2 wins in spades everywhere it seems, so newer is better I take it.

Kirby, you mean KISS's website I guess?

1st - 0
2nd - 3
Captain Bucky O'Hair - Infinite

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*

I like the first one... although in general I like things that are more simple.

KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Regarding flash: I don't even have it. I hate it. I hate sites that require it, so I don't visit them. Flash is fine for online games and movies, yes, but not for navigation.

Regarding simplicity: simple is better, but keep in mind ease of use and how search engines are able to index your site. Massassi is simple but I made a mistake using frames so we don't get indexed very well

------------------
EvilMagic.net: Brian's Web Log

I think both are excellent, but I'm leaning towards the first one. It just needs to be touched up a litte, IE the icons don't look good on the black background, too much of the background is black. It would probably looks better with a simple navbar design, the only example of such that I can think of offhand is roempire.com

I like the first design quite a bit... but, as a few others have said, I like sites that are more simple. Text Navigation, with only a few images here and there. I don't like sites that are all flash, and usually prefer the HTML version, if they give you the option.

So, in short, I recommend you use the second design. Overall, it just looks better.

------------------
AIM ID: BlueViper192

RiP -MaDaVentor-
The Limelite

Heh, KISS, learn something new every day.

In any case, thanks all for the input. Maybe I'll try adding a sidebar in another version to see how that works, just text on a design like the afore mentioned ROempire site, see how people like that. In some ways that is even simpler, yet still elegant. Kinda.

In any case, I guess both the interations of the site design doesn't have any glaring problems that anyone has put up, so I guess as far as this portion of the site is AOK. Anyway, additional comments are always welcome.

------------------
http://www.4guys-1dragoon.cjb.net -No porn. We promise*