Light vs Dark

Python

Answer the vote and post your opinions.

martian2k4

I don't really mind that much but i do normally make lighter designs than dark

CannonBallGuy

Light. Prefereably Pure CSS too.
Like my site: www.kaziaz.com. Thats Pure Light CSS.

summoner49

Bleh, images make the site....

Depends on the topic for light/dark. I make mostly dark but thats because of my aim on where I want to go with this.

pfgannon

Images deffinately dont make the site...
There are alot of GREAT and some of the best layouts that have no images

CannonBallGuy

fourtone87 wrote:

Images deffinately dont make the site...
There are alot of GREAT and some of the best layouts that have no images

Awww Man.
I know my site is awesome but you don't have to say that.
Cheers anyways dude.

summoner49

Show me one of your best sites without images.

pfgannon

Google...
need i say more?

pfgannon

i came up with some more:

http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://www.label9.com/zen/masterStyle.css
http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/alldesigns/minimal/ excpet for the header
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://www.elek.dk/csszen/zengarden_sample.css

I could find more but I am lazy

martian2k4

plain sites are good i like them a lot but having an image as the banner is a lot better then having text ( no offence CBG )

CannonBallGuy

To be honest... I was planning on making a banner and just put the text in when i was structuring the site... I completely forgot about it till now. lol
But I agree with forutone... :P

martian2k4

lmao

summoner49

One your second list of links, the second link has images all over it...

And the rest of those CSS only sites suck big. Google has an image in it as well...

But images make the site. Whether it be in a small, stealthy way that the designer implemented it, or in a highly contrasting vibrante sort of way.

The only people who say that images don't make a site are the people who can't make images.

pfgannon

i wouldnt say that the google logo is much of a part of the actualy layout or design.
It would look fine with just a text logo IMO.

and the second link on the second list only has the header image and a small almost unnoticable image on the left part of the horizontal nav

CannonBallGuy

summoner49 wrote:

One your second list of links, the second link has images all over it...

Oh, Hardly!

summoner49 wrote:

And the rest of those CSS only sites suck big. Google has an image in it as well...

Logo's hardly count.

summoner49 wrote:

But images make the site. Whether it be in a small, stealthy way that the designer implemented it, or in a highly contrasting vibrante sort of way.

Yeah. Right.

summoner49 wrote:

The only people who say that images don't make a site are the people who can't make images.

Now that;s offensive. You want to watch what you say.

martian2k4

summoner49 wrote:

The only people who say that images don't make a site are the people who can't make images.

This aint true because i can make images mabey not amazingly but ok and like that site i showed you earlyer summer49 that looks goos with nothing but an image for the banner and a few little ones for the titles. I am not really in favour of either but i like have some images and having a site plain also. i aslo prefer text links to images

jmc

i like dark alot . most my sites are often dark and sigs 2

obenix

I like sites that are light.. neutral colours are the best and soothing to the eyes..