> Hey Joel, the layout totally breaks apart at 800x600. yeah, it's been pointed out :) [quite tactfully, considering what a dopey mistake *that* was] as I mentioned in a less noticeable follow-up to this message, it's not ready. I was hasty in posting this request. fortunately, I've gotten some good feedback I can incorporate into fixing the existing dumbitudes in the site > The images should either be improved, or you could emphasize > the graininess, > sort of like older newspaper photos. exactly; that's really the direction, but I'm going to focus on the look and feel after I get the basic technical dumbness out of the way > Font accessibility purists would probably disagree, but IMHO > Times New Roman > on the screen at default sizes makes the site look amateurish, kinda > 1996ish. Maybe tweak the size a bit, or try another more > common serif font, > e.g. Georgia, as the base. I admit to being font-challenged, as in, I have my favorites, and tend to see every problem as a nail 'cause I own a hammer. much to be considered here in fontland, I agree. > Rather like the varied font sizes in the "true power of > information" block. > Kinda garish, in an attactive, old-style newspaper sort of > way. That's what > made me think that the design images might be *more* grainy. glad that came through. and didn't just look like an accident in a typesetting room. > $0.02. y'know, if that were Euros instead of $ . . . I appreciate the cents. and sense.