<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Website Designs</title>
	<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/</link>
	<description>Print and web designer extraordinaire</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Dad</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-14</link>
		<author>Dad</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-14</guid>
					<description>John,

I like the second one a little better but I am not excited about the bold block caps for your name. Some thing a little fancier would be better. Also, I think the mirror effect terminates too quickly - the fade should expose more of the mirror image before it ends in blackness. My take.
Opinion not criticism.

Pop</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John,</p>
<p>I like the second one a little better but I am not excited about the bold block caps for your name. Some thing a little fancier would be better. Also, I think the mirror effect terminates too quickly - the fade should expose more of the mirror image before it ends in blackness. My take.<br />
Opinion not criticism.</p>
<p>Pop</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Ziebro</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-15</link>
		<author>John Ziebro</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-15</guid>
					<description>Thanks Pops! I appreciate the opinion, though even criticism is a good thing when it comes to graphic design. A designer who can't take criticism should probably find another field of work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Pops! I appreciate the opinion, though even criticism is a good thing when it comes to graphic design. A designer who can&#8217;t take criticism should probably find another field of work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John R.</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-17</link>
		<author>John R.</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-17</guid>
					<description>I\'ll give v2 extra cool points, but I think v1 has a more professional look. 
Also, for the reflection effect, was that done in photoshop?  I ask because I just came across a javascript reflection package you may like.  It\'s a nifty tool that I look forward to trying out.  http://cow.neondragon.net/stuff/reflection/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I\&#8217;ll give v2 extra cool points, but I think v1 has a more professional look.<br />
Also, for the reflection effect, was that done in photoshop?  I ask because I just came across a javascript reflection package you may like.  It\&#8217;s a nifty tool that I look forward to trying out.  <a href="http://cow.neondragon.net/stuff/reflection/" rel="nofollow">http://cow.neondragon.net/stuff/reflection/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chard Herrington</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-18</link>
		<author>Chard Herrington</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-18</guid>
					<description>Hey John,

I think they both are nice. The first one (gray) looks a little more like you want shoot weddings. The gray is soft and the scripty font is wedding friendly. The second one looks like you want to sell cameras. It sort of has a buy a Nikon feel. Can you say Nikon on a blog without getting sued? 

Nice work on those flowers. That's a nice touch for that market for sure.

It need some hearts somewhere though. And maybe a pink pony!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey John,</p>
<p>I think they both are nice. The first one (gray) looks a little more like you want shoot weddings. The gray is soft and the scripty font is wedding friendly. The second one looks like you want to sell cameras. It sort of has a buy a Nikon feel. Can you say Nikon on a blog without getting sued? </p>
<p>Nice work on those flowers. That&#8217;s a nice touch for that market for sure.</p>
<p>It need some hearts somewhere though. And maybe a pink pony!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jen</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-19</link>
		<author>Jen</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:42:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-19</guid>
					<description>I like #\'s 1 and 3... they sell weddings....  though# 2 and 4 are creative, they\'d be better happy fun photo sites.  how bout them apples? ;)

Jen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like #\&#8217;s 1 and 3&#8230; they sell weddings&#8230;.  though# 2 and 4 are creative, they\&#8217;d be better happy fun photo sites.  how bout them apples? <img src='http://johnziebro.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Jen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah Ziebro</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-20</link>
		<author>Sarah Ziebro</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-20</guid>
					<description>I like the 1st and 3rd options best, I like the darkness of the 3rd ones background but the option of the 1st one to "View your photos" On the 2nd and 4th ones I don't like the font or the way the options bar is set up. I especially don't like the blue with the pink of the flowers. Baby blue is just icky in general, if you ask me... Only good for skys and baby boys... The red one is a little strong. On the 1st and 3rd where there's only a splash on the option bar it's great.... it compliments the flowers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the 1st and 3rd options best, I like the darkness of the 3rd ones background but the option of the 1st one to &#8220;View your photos&#8221; On the 2nd and 4th ones I don&#8217;t like the font or the way the options bar is set up. I especially don&#8217;t like the blue with the pink of the flowers. Baby blue is just icky in general, if you ask me&#8230; Only good for skys and baby boys&#8230; The red one is a little strong. On the 1st and 3rd where there&#8217;s only a splash on the option bar it&#8217;s great&#8230;. it compliments the flowers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rosella</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-21</link>
		<author>Rosella</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-21</guid>
					<description>Hi John,

I like the first one best. It is more professional, especially the logo you developed on that one too. (I really like it as it seems to be the trend now. It also fits with your profession). The only thing I would say to "add" to the page would be to bring the size down on the links, because they probably shouldn't be larger than the type size in your logo as far as hierarchy goes. 

Also, have you tried a black background instead of dark gray? Pictures always look great on black because it really makes them pop. A black and white photo on a gray background looks almost too gray. Other than that, I like the centered image and the location of the links and logo. The subtle color is nice too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi John,</p>
<p>I like the first one best. It is more professional, especially the logo you developed on that one too. (I really like it as it seems to be the trend now. It also fits with your profession). The only thing I would say to &#8220;add&#8221; to the page would be to bring the size down on the links, because they probably shouldn&#8217;t be larger than the type size in your logo as far as hierarchy goes. </p>
<p>Also, have you tried a black background instead of dark gray? Pictures always look great on black because it really makes them pop. A black and white photo on a gray background looks almost too gray. Other than that, I like the centered image and the location of the links and logo. The subtle color is nice too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve nuzzo</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-22</link>
		<author>steve nuzzo</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-22</guid>
					<description>I like the first one... it looks very professional and artistic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the first one&#8230; it looks very professional and artistic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Smith</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-23</link>
		<author>Ben Smith</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:37:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-23</guid>
					<description>I am going to have to follow suit on this.  The first one looks a bit understated and much more elegant.  The second one is a nice design, but looks more "online magazine" in nature with the bolder colors and blocky typeface.  

Nice work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am going to have to follow suit on this.  The first one looks a bit understated and much more elegant.  The second one is a nice design, but looks more &#8220;online magazine&#8221; in nature with the bolder colors and blocky typeface.  </p>
<p>Nice work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Penn</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-24</link>
		<author>Jonathan Penn</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-24</guid>
					<description>1 &#38; 3 seem to be a best fit for the wedding clientele. I love 2 &#38; 4 but it seems too "artsy" for most people. The average wedding is usually pretty traditional.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1 &amp; 3 seem to be a best fit for the wedding clientele. I love 2 &amp; 4 but it seems too &#8220;artsy&#8221; for most people. The average wedding is usually pretty traditional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Morgan DeSalvo</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-25</link>
		<author>Morgan DeSalvo</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-25</guid>
					<description>Hey there!  I really like the third one the best.  I like the horizontal logo, and I think the color choices really bring focus to the bride and groom.  Thanks for asking my opinion!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey there!  I really like the third one the best.  I like the horizontal logo, and I think the color choices really bring focus to the bride and groom.  Thanks for asking my opinion!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Ziebro</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-26</link>
		<author>John Ziebro</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-26</guid>
					<description>Thanks everyone for your input, I appreciate you taking the time to look at this and comment on it! It looks like my first design is the unanimous choice. Lets see how quick I can slap this thing together. Im going to use &lt;a href="http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Lightbox V2&lt;/a&gt; for a neat gallery/slideshow effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks everyone for your input, I appreciate you taking the time to look at this and comment on it! It looks like my first design is the unanimous choice. Lets see how quick I can slap this thing together. Im going to use <a href="http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/" rel="nofollow">Lightbox V2</a> for a neat gallery/slideshow effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: d</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-29</link>
		<author>d</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-29</guid>
					<description>I agree... pink ponies!

oh crap, is voting over? :(
well, maybe the ponies can make it into V2.0</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree&#8230; pink ponies!</p>
<p>oh crap, is voting over? <img src='http://johnziebro.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
well, maybe the ponies can make it into V2.0</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam Gsellman</title>
		<link>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-30</link>
		<author>Adam Gsellman</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://johnziebro.com/2006/11/12/new-website-designs/#comment-30</guid>
					<description>Like your designs, as always.  Have you considered using a duotone on the b/w image, perhaps?  In general it seems that one can get more mileage from subtle color schemes when advertising for women.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like your designs, as always.  Have you considered using a duotone on the b/w image, perhaps?  In general it seems that one can get more mileage from subtle color schemes when advertising for women.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
