Please, I ask you if you could review my home-site's design, i.e. the one that I currently use compare to the 3-column fully CSS-based layout (the one with all the "standard boxes", i.e. with Header, Content and Footer), that I was planning to use for a very long time now ... As first, here are the two important my home-site's links: http://users.volja.net/tayiper (opens the "index.html" page), http://users.volja.net/tayiper/intro.html (the "intro" page, opens after 38 seconds); the site is about various computing-related stuff and it's written in XHTML and W3C-valid. But note that only "locally" in the original form (as it is stored on my hard-disk), because the code that some of the free-host add unfortunately screws the otherwise valid syntax ... And as second, here is first a link to a thread that I've opened yesterday on the DP under the "HTML & Website Design" section (and CSS sub-section): Problems with a 3-column CSS-based layout. In it, you can find the links to the second type of design, i.e. as mentioned, a 3-column layout with Header, Content, and Footer boxes. /UPDATE: Well, here I am posting one of the three links from that thread anyway: http://users.volja.net/tayiper/index-example-2.html (style-file: http://users.volja.net/tayiper/layout-example-2.css) So as an addition to any web-coding related feedback (ad-placement, general site-coding etc.), I am asking you: if you compare both designs, do you think it's worth a hassle to "convert" my site into it, or my current site's design is good enough ?? Thanks in advance, tayiper
I also vote for #2. The background in #1 makes me dizzy. Also, you shoud try to improve the image quality for the links you have on top of the page.
#2 is far better, it could be improved some, but if #1 is the alternative it is 100% better! And dont let the background image from #1 make its way into #2 it gives me a headache to try to read text over an image expecially an image the same color as the text.
I forgot to note in my original/opening post that my entire site's design (as it is now) is entirely my idea; though of course, I am not saying that it's something special, not at all ... tayiper