please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

[colombianpimp28]

please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com

[dorayme]

In article
<11************ *********@s48g2 000cws.googlegr oups.com>,
"co************ *@hotmail.com" <co************ *@hotmail.com>
wrote:

please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com

Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read. You don't want that,
do you? Second, the text is too small exacerbating the problem.
Use font-size:100% at the body level and be careful from there
on. Third, why fix this particular page's width so? When I
enlarge the font to read, no more of the considerable spare width
space available in the browser is used. This makes for
unnecessary scrolling. Finally, I notice use of a slacker
doctype... best to use html 4.01 Strict. But otherwise, it looks
nice...

--
dorayme

[=?utf-8?b?SsOzbiBGYWlyYmFpcm4=?=]

dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrites:

In article
<11************ *********@s48g2 000cws.googlegr oups.com>,
"co************ *@hotmail.com" <co************ *@hotmail.com>
wrote:

please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions

http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com

Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.

Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@c l.cam.ac.uk

[dorayme]

In article <wf************ @calligramme.ch armers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@ cl.cam.ac.ukwro te:

dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrites:

In article
<11************ *********@s48g2 000cws.googlegr oups.com>,
"co************ *@hotmail.com" <co************ *@hotmail.com>
wrote:

please tell me what you think of my website any suggestions
>
http://masterjuan0101.googlepages.com

Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.

Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.

There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority. Let me just say that
this is my experience and I have been programmed to be your
average earthling by my martian minders. <g>

Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly. If the bet was big, you would
hold out longer, but only because of the bet!

Perhaps look at:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm

But better, hang around the website making forums and see the
general feeling about this matter. I think you will find for body
text, however attractive otherwise, dark on light is the way to
go. This does not apply so much to navigation and other stuff
that one does not actually sit there reading away at.

I have many times been tempted but have reversed course and am
glad of it.

Perhaps it is time for me to wheel out my lost cause. I have made
a version just for you Jon, with white text on black. I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

--
dorayme

[K A Nuttall]

dorayme wrote:

I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

Maybe this imprint then interferes with reading? I dunno. Just a random
thought, without much consideration.

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

[dorayme]

In article <Xn************ *************@2 12.23.3.119>,
K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.c oedotyoukay.inv alidwrote:

dorayme wrote:

I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

Maybe this imprint then interferes with reading? I dunno. Just a random
thought, without much consideration.

That's it! Thank you KA! That is how I should be printing and
showing my article then! I want to imprint some sense onto the
eyeballs of politicians and priests and popes...

--
dorayme

[Ben C]

On 2007-02-03, K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.c oedotyoukay.inv alidwrote:

dorayme wrote:

>I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

I get that too. It is not a pleasant sensation and if repeated too often
leads to a schizoid embolism.

It's not so bad if the foreground text is grey rather than white. I
actually sometimes use that in my text editor.

[dorayme]

In article <sl************ *********@bowse r.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam. eggswrote:

On 2007-02-03, K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.c oedotyoukay.inv alidwrote:

dorayme wrote:

I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

I get that too. It is not a pleasant sensation and if repeated too often
leads to a schizoid embolism.

Look, if it is gong to cause any medical problems, I will take
the white on black version off... mmm... schizoid embolism eh?

--
dorayme

[=?utf-8?b?SsOzbiBGYWlyYmFpcm4=?=]

dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrites:

In article <wf************ @calligramme.ch armers>,
Jón Fairbairn <jo***********@ cl.cam.ac.ukwro te:

dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrites:

Just some quick comments after 5 secs of viewing. First, such a
lot of white text on black is hard to read.

Can you give a citation for that? I have a dim recollection
of research that suggested that white on black was easier
for the partially sighted, but bad if the reader is having
to switch back and forth between reading white on black
(such as a paper document). This was back when everybody was
using VDUs and copy typing was common, so I imagine more
research has been done since then.

There is just so much on this subject that I am not inclined to
get into too many arguments by authority.

I wasn't asking for an argument from authority, I was asking
for a citation of some scientific research.

Make all your email and word processing white on black and I
would bet real money that you would scream to be changing it back
to black on white fairly shortly.

That would still be anecdotal

Perhaps look at:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm

Quoting this bit would be sufficient:

For example, Bauer and Cavonius (1980) found that
participants were 26% more accurate in reading text when
they read it with dark characters on a light background.

But better, hang around the website making forums and see the
general feeling about this matter.

Not better; it's far to likely to be influenced by fashion.

Perhaps it is time for me to wheel out my lost cause. I have made
a version just for you Jon, with white text on black.

No need to be condescending; I was asking for support for
your claim and you provided it. You might note that in the
page you listed, just before the bit I quote above, they
say:

most studies have shown that dark characters on a light
background are superior to light characters on a dark
background (when the refresh rate is fairly high).

and that last caveat probably explains the dimly recollected
research report: refresh rates were not particularly high
back when people were using VDUs.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@c l.cam.ac.uk

[=?utf-8?b?SsOzbiBGYWlyYmFpcm4=?=]

K A Nuttall <ke***@yammer.c oedotyoukay.inv alidwrites:

dorayme wrote:

I would bet
quids that people generally would find:

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws.html>

easier to read than

<http://members.optusho me.com.au/droovies/opinion/drugLaws2.html>

I've always noticed that, whenever I read light text on a dark
background, the text is imprinted on my retinas for a short while, when
I blink.

On its own, that might just mean that the light text is too
bright. You can get a similar effect whichever way round it
is, if the brightness is high enough.

Maybe this imprint then interferes with reading?

That sounds likely, but speculations like this are no
substitute for properly controlled experiments.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@c l.cam.ac.uk