Some crits would really be appreciated

[not just souLLy now]

http://www.deviantart.com/view/23697086/

On DeviantArt usually the best you get is "cool" or "crap" so if anyone could give a proper crit of this, what's bad, what's good, what you would change etc. I'd really appreciate it (posting here or on deviantart is fine). I'm striving to improve (for CV) but without any objective outside opinions it's difficult.

[LyingWake]

That looks pretty sick, I guess the only thing I'd say is I hate when site have a fixed width and I have to resize my browser. I can't really tell how it is just by looking at the picture, but other than that, it's awesome.

[not just souLLy now]

That looks pretty sick, I guess the only thing I'd say is I hate when site have a fixed width and I have to resize my browser. I can't really tell how it is just by looking at the picture, but other than that, it's awesome.

Thanks a lot!
I have miced feelings about fixed width myself actualy, I guess the way I looked at this one is that 95% of machines are running upwards of 1024x768 these days, and designing for 640x480 seems like a waste of screen really. Percentage based widths are incredibly difficult to do in CSS as far as I can make out, and tables based layouts are probably best avoided really... I'll keep that in mind though.

[greay]

That looks pretty sick, I guess the only thing I'd say is I hate when site have a fixed width and I have to resize my browser. I can't really tell how it is just by looking at the picture, but other than that, it's awesome.

Thanks a lot!
I have miced feelings about fixed width myself actualy, I guess the way I looked at this one is that 95% of machines are running upwards of 1024x768 these days, and designing for 640x480 seems like a waste of screen really. Percentage based widths are incredibly difficult to do in CSS as far as I can make out, and tables based layouts are probably best avoided really... I'll keep that in mind though.

Not everyone has their browser taking up 100% of their screen real estate, though. I hate fixed-width because I like to keep my browser windows small. I have apps in the background that I like to keep visible. Sometimes I like to have two browser windows visible at once.

CSS layouts are only difficult if you're expecting to just be able to replicate your tables-based layout in CSS. You have to take into account the differences in the two approaches, and design accordingly. The fluidity of CSS should be viewed as its strength, not as a stumbling-block.

Look at some good sites designed that use CSS for layout, and then look at sites that are designed with tables for layout. You'll notice that they each have a different... character. You'll probably also notice that it's far less common for sites that make heavy use of CSS to have fixed-widths. They may have fixed-width elements, but the rest will be fluid.

[BlackAura]

Percentage based widths are incredibly difficult to do in CSS as far as I can make out

Not really. It is difficult to get Internet Explorer to render them correctly though.

[not just souLLy now]

I think the problem with CSS based layouts is that 90% of proper CSS layouts are simple little blog sites and aren't particularly content heavy. In many ways in terms of getting the initial template made, tables are way way quicker in my experience for sites that have a lot of info on them. I'm still picking up CSS anyway, I know the bulk of it but the div layout theory is still something i need to get my head around.

From a designers point of view fixed width sites are a lot more intuitive to build. As what you mock up, is what will be seen. I can see the pitfalls of using them though.

[melancholy]

I wish the games in the US were guatanteed.

[Skynet]

I wish the games in the US were guatanteed.

Other than that spelling mistake I like it

[not just souLLy now]

thats how we spell it in the uk
in some regions anyway, kinda.... shut up.

[|darc|]

Cicero is pissed at your raping of his work.