talkmagic.co.uk

time to invest in a nice new site mr. bell...

hmmm I wonder...

It looks OK in Opera.

Although white text on black is not a wonderful design option (see Web Pages That Suck), it is readable.

looks fine on this side

I'm on splash top browser, and it looks fine for me.

Robbie wrote:Although white text on black is not a wonderful design option (see Web Pages That Suck), it is readable.

Technically the black makes for a better negative space as it draws the eye to the text more than vice versa. Personally, I prefer reading white off black pages as it hurts less when you've been stuck in front of a screen for hours.

It shines less light into your eyes, but it's a bigger strain on the eyes to read it. The recommended combination is always white or a pale off-white for background and black for text; this gives the best contrast.

Paul's site at least has a reasonable type size and a clear font, so it can be read when it's white on black.

DaveM wrote:

Robbie wrote:Although white text on black is not a wonderful design option (see Web Pages That Suck), it is readable.

Technically the black makes for a better negative space as it draws the eye to the text more than vice versa. Personally, I prefer reading white off black pages as it hurts less when you've been stuck in front of a screen for hours.

Robbie is correct. A black background strains the eyes more, and black and white is never a good combination. That's why sites such as BBC's website use a dark grey on white (but black on off-white is just as good, I use both combinations)

But it's not the end of the world to have a black background, there's bigger mistakes you can make. And for sites such as themagicwand's you would probably want a black background anyway


Anyway, back to the problem in hand. I've had a quick check of it in Adobe Browserlab and it all looks fine to me. But looking at the source of the site, the code is shocking and stinks of a hosting company trying to make some money by using a nasty site builder that was probably built in the 1990s

It seems Streamline are owned by Fasthost, who are notoriously bad especially for customer support, and it looks like this site builder is far from perfect. I suggest you go elsewhere, Google Sites is really good if you don't want to pay. Or PM and I can make some suggestions if you do want to pay

I just checked again and it all seems fine now.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to check this out for me - much appreciated. Streamline have fixed the problem for me, which (as several people kindly pointed out) was a problem with the HTML. Probably something daft that I did.

Anyway, all fixed now. One day I'll invest in a proper site, but for now as long as this one keeps chugging along it does the business. And I kind of like the home made look of it. I think it'd lose its charm if it was all swish and flicky clicky!!

Thanks again guys.