Youy think the navbar is too complicated but css and javascript aren't? LOL
CSS by itself is not complicated compared to non-semantic markup like using tables for layout (yes you should use them for tabular data...i.e., data that is naturally represented as a table in other mediums). I only used a bit of Javascript (none for rollovers, CSS for that) and that Javascript is for entirely nonessential functionality.
I do agree that for those who browse default vB layouts in their sleep that it would be more difficult to use. However, those people are a tiny minority of forum users. And yes, I did a survey (no I didn't).
My new layout is just as functional as the old one. It simply presents the options in a clearer manner for more inexperienced users, IMO.
edit: next I'm going to gut headinclude as much as possible. My current design already doesn't use a single line of standard vB CSS, just all my own selectors. I suppose that is a bigger challenge. I haven't looked at the visual style editor yet for this new design and don't really plan to, given I'm doing it all manually. I can't wait to see how much bandwidth I'll save, probably over 50% per page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabret00the
it's sweet in my opinion, of course i have my greivences (sp:?) with your simplcising (word:?) mehtods, as i think some make it harder to nav, especially for vB-experts, but i like the overall idea, and it's not too close to my next overall idea
09-26-2005, 08:56 PM
Threaded Mode