# The votes are in
- the plain design looks cool
- the plain design sucks a bit
- the fancier design looks good too
- the fancier design also sucks a bit
- what's wrong with the way it is?
I was and still am most partial to the plain look. There's a certain retro-ness to the old Times New Roman thing that appeals in a "I used Netscape 1" kind of way. But then again, it was only for about a day before I upgraded to Netscape 2, and shortly after that to Netscape 3, and if I wanted an authentic 1996 experience the background would be grey and I'd need an animated .gif somewhere (and I'd have to find a way to cause everyone's browser to crash every other visit).
On the other hand, a self-rolled blog has to make a design statement in a way, and my worry was that the plain design was saying "I couldn't be arsed to set the font." Or heaven forbid, "I don't know how to set the font." I wanted something setting m'blog apart, a bit more sophisticated, yet minimalist, with a hint of danger, mystique, but stopping tastefully short of "abandon all hope."
Jeez I can talk bull.
Why not keep everyone happy, though? At the price of a cookie, which I don't think too many people mind these days, it's fairly straightforward to have JavaScript/alternate stylesheet magic which allows people to easily switch between different designs. It's also not too much effort to add a third stylesheet making the site look more like it does now, and I think I'll keep that as the default.
Hopefully, the statement I then make is "I care," in a "mysterious, but kind to puppies" kind of way.
Also, that'll make the missus happy. Thanks again for the comments!
File under: thee_blog : {2006.03.14 18:50}