I liked the previous starry incarnation; but, I like the new one very much, too. I didn't find either "girly," though, FWIW. (I think of Moulin Rouge when I think of girly . . ..)
The new one's quite lovely, actually, very clean look on it, in-viting; and, if the flower is what makes it "girly," I would argue that's not quite fair, given the fact Nigel Beale has had a lifetime love affair with snapping flower pics (he got from his father) and he is not "girly" (nor, for that matter, are his photographs), not by a long thought.
I'd keep it. It's easy on the eyes and that's a real plus at a time when most webpeeps don't understand this medium encompasses both the visual and the textual. Writers who make bland websites without any sense at all they're working in a predominantly visual (eye-catching) medium bore me. Both your 'site looks drew / draw surfers into them, not push them away. Just my deux on this so-tired-of-text-on-screen-looking 'site-fright-flight day :).
(Poets, BTW, are the *worst* offenders; and, you'd think the opposite would be true. Katie's 'site's interesting visually, however, so she's the exception that rules.)
Thank you, Frank! I received a negative comment about it, so may change it again soon. I suppose it is a bit "girly" but never mind!
ReplyDeleteWell, I like it.
ReplyDeleteI liked the previous starry incarnation; but, I like the new one very much, too. I didn't find either "girly," though, FWIW. (I think of Moulin Rouge when I think of girly . . ..)
ReplyDeleteThe new one's quite lovely, actually, very clean look on it, in-viting; and, if the flower is what makes it "girly," I would argue that's not quite fair, given the fact Nigel Beale has had a lifetime love affair with snapping flower pics (he got from his father) and he is not "girly" (nor, for that matter, are his photographs), not by a long thought.
I'd keep it. It's easy on the eyes and that's a real plus at a time when most webpeeps don't understand this medium encompasses both the visual and the textual. Writers who make bland websites without any sense at all they're working in a predominantly visual (eye-catching) medium bore me. Both your 'site looks drew / draw surfers into them, not push them away. Just my deux on this so-tired-of-text-on-screen-looking 'site-fright-flight day :).
(Poets, BTW, are the *worst* offenders; and, you'd think the opposite would be true. Katie's 'site's interesting visually, however, so she's the exception that rules.)