Going to finish the work on updating the page layouts, going to fix some issues with the navigation scheme, and maybe some Facebook integration with the misheard lyrics.

Also going to knock out the backlog of the misheard lyrics.  I'm reviewing 100 a day until they are done.

I've been working on the amazon album links today.  Going to work on maybe spreading those around the site more as well. Replaced some embarrassingly old links on the movies page to VHS copies of the movies mentioned there. Considering DVD replaced VHS about 8 years ago.

Going to finish the work on updating the page layouts, going to fix some issues with the navigation scheme, and maybe some Facebook integration with the misheard lyrics.

Also going to knock out the backlog of the misheard lyrics.  I'm reviewing 100 a day until they are done.


Good job. 8) I was wondering when that would eventually be tended to, since we seem to have gone at least a couple months without any new updates. Also...I did some editing to the existing entries a few hours ago, and I was gonna go back and do some more later (since I spotted a few mishaps on a performer name), but it seems you already ran the merge a little while ago?

Good job. 8) I was wondering when that would eventually be tended to, since we seem to have gone at least a couple months without any new updates. Also...I did some editing to the existing entries a few hours ago, and I was gonna go back and do some more later (since I spotted a few mishaps on a performer name), but it seems you already ran the merge a little while ago?


I did, but you can always do more.  I happened to be in there tonight while I was doing some light housekeeping. I'm still trying to purge out some unused files that are left over from old sections, or stuff that was deleted from a database but the page it generated remained on the site.

I did, but you can always do more.  I happened to be in there tonight while I was doing some light housekeeping. I'm still trying to purge out some unused files that are left over from old sections, or stuff that was deleted from a database but the page it generated remained on the site.

Cool. I just finished going through that particular performer again. And I might do more tomorrow if I'm not too busy with other stuff.

Did you change the font or the css? I left the site briefly, came back, and the fonts are waaay different. Headlines are HUGE.  I don't think it's my puter, because I just fired up a backup machine and got the same effect. If it's a change, I  vote for the old style. If not, maybe the css is not being called correctly?

Page source showing:

<style type="text/css" title="currentStyle">
@import "http://www.amiright.com/amiright.css";
</style>

TIA.

^On that note, I notice that all the text on the webpages now appears in Georgia font, rather than the Arial typeface that has graced the site since early 2001. Now everything looks all crazy.

^On that note, I notice that all the text on the webpages now appears in Georgia font, rather than the Arial typeface that has graced the site since early 2001. Now everything looks all crazy.

Yeah, what's in bold ital is pretty much what I was trying to say. Went to several other sites to double-check -- no change. (i. e., nothing wrong on this end.) Just submitted two parodies for Thursday, and the submission form, preview, etc., are all also weird. Back to the Arial, please!  :)

Yeah, what's in bold ital is pretty much what I was trying to say. Went to several other sites to double-check -- no change. (i. e., nothing wrong on this end.) Just submitted two parodies for Thursday, and the submission form, preview, etc., are all also weird. Back to the Arial, please!  :)


Yes I changed the fonts for the body text (navigation items are still in Arial).  The font size is also bumped way up to try and improve readability. 

I'm not sticking with the old font setup at all, but I will keep experimenting with the fonts this week.  The old fonts are too small and don't provide enough contrast against the background color.

I'm working mostly on the front page of the site now, other sections will follow once I can figure out what I want there.

Going to fix the ragged layouts of the news sections, might combine those anyways and change them up.  Going to add tables back into the layout, I tried too hard to remove tables completely when I redesigned the site a few years ago.  I'm also going to increase the size of the album cover parodies on the front page to match the ad sizes.

OK, I'm done manipulating things for now.

I noticed a few people mentioned the parody author names were hard to read, but not sure if that was before or after I worked on that section of the front page. 

The previous day's lyrics quiz results are not quite right yet, but I can't easily fix that until I do a new lyrics quiz.  So that'll change tomorrow.

There's a lot of adjustments made to the indentations of various sections, so things aren't ragged and line up more.  I might change the layout of the new parodies on the front page to have columns instead of the current ragged layout.  That would improve readability more.

The navigation section needs links to the main section pages (the /misheard/ /parody/ type pages) and I'm thinking of killing the bullets in favor of lines.

I know regular users of a site HATE redesigns, because they've gotten used to using things a certain way.  The site has been without a major redesign for 3 or 4 years now.  This was something I intended to finish doing back in June, but time just hasn't been on my side until now.

Why you don't like changes to your design

Checklist of mistakes to avoid in redesigning web sites.

The entire rest of that site is interesting, too, with examples of the worst sites, and monthly and annual winners of "worst site design" award. Forewarned is forearmed.  :)

GL with it. :smile:

P. S. : The site has been without a major redesign for 3 or 4 years now.
Please be sure to fix only that which is actually broken.  ;D

(Supermarkets and other brick retail stores regularly move things around, deliberately forcing shoppers to hunt for what they came for, in the hopes that they'll pass other stuff and buy it on impulse. Probably not applicable here,  but that's just MHO, and opinions are like anuses -- evertbody has one.) >wink<

Checklist of mistakes to avoid in redesigning web sites.

The entire rest of that site is interesting, too, with examples of the worst sites, and monthly and annual winners of "worst site design" award. Forewarned is forearmed.  :)

GL with it. :smile:


yeah, I remember that site from the turn of the last decade.  can't say I've read it much lately though, and apparently it hasn't improved much with age >grin<


P. S. :  
Please be sure to fix only that which is actually broken.  ;D

(Supermarkets and other brick retail stores regularly move things around, deliberately forcing shoppers to hunt for what they came for, in the hopes that they'll pass other stuff and buy it on impulse. Probably not applicable here,  but that's just MHO, and opinions are like anuses -- evertbody has one.) >wink<


Well, so far a lot of the changes have been things that are broken in my eyes


Font size was too small
two navigation systems that didn't really work well replaced with one
side navigation system no longer requires a second page view to change sections
sections on the front page didn't line up with one another
the three news sections didn't line up within themselves
misheard calendar was too small
latest photoshop image too small
sans serif font on a text heavy website is also a bad idea
Not enough whitespace, things were too cluttered between sections
more leading between sections in last page updates chart
Real lyrics quiz wasn't big enough
Bullets for the new parody listing didn't match rest of site
New parody listing was one giant link, hard to distinguish between author name and parody title
New parody listing had the original song way too small to read
Latest entries section was indented, then each section indented again
removal of top navigation bar means more text on the page without scrolling
top navigation system too rigid to accept new sections


The last time around, the site was designed with smaller ad sizes, and smaller monitors in mind. 

It's still at a rough stage. I'm just trying to get the text laid out in an easier to read fashion.  I'm trying to get away from a lot of hard edges (like this site, where everything is in a box) so the site doesn't look so formal.  Eventually I will add in more graphics relating to music, because with the loss of the CD case surround, you lose that sense it's a music site.  It also doesn't look like a humor site, it kind of looks like a banking site at the moment it's so stark.

it doesn't seem like it, but amIright is a huge site in terms of how much stuff is on it.  It's hard to get as much stuff on the screen without making the fonts too small or the pages too wide. 

Trust me, I'm not redesigning because I'm bored.  I have a huge list of new sections I'd like to start and nowhere to list them in the old navigation scheme. I'd like to put more parody album images throughout the site, maybe integrate some mp3 player stuff, some Facebook stuff (add a misheard lyric to your Facebook profile, link your latest song parody, etc.)  A lot of that stuff depends on the underlying visual design of the site.  If I change the design now it saves me a lot of work later on when I realize I can't go any further with what I've got.

my name is ANN HAMMOND  Maybe if the bold fonts it were the same size it wouldn't seem as annoying, but all caps is yelling. 

my name is ANN HAMMONDs.  Maybe if the bold fonts it were the same size it wouldn't seem as annoying, but all caps is yelling.  


Those aren't ALL CAPS, they are SMALL CAPS which are appropriate for a title heading.  Maybe I can drop 'em a couple points or change x-height for the lowercase letters or turn off the bold.   Fonts are a real PIA in browsers, you don't get much choice, and the control of them is pretty flaky across browsers.

Different x-height SMALL CAPS - SMALL CAPS

The home page also lost 20K in size (not counting graphics).  It should load quicker than it used to as a result.

all small whatever. It is good for a title heading, but I don't feel like a title heading.  Guess I don't like the change either. 

The names of *commenters* are actuallly *harder* to read.

Using blue for headlines: "Song Parodies -> I've Gotten Into Your Shell (Turtle-Love)" is actually confusing, because we all associate blue with hyperlinks. In that or any other title, "Song Parodies" is in fact a hyperlink to the home page, but the parody title is not. The use of blue for links is so well established that IMHO black should be retained for headlines and titles that are *not* links.

Here's another feedback from a reader/writer who I don't believe has an account here at 00s. (first comment)

"I hate the new page format. Let's try to get it changed back. Can't see the parody writer's name."

The names of *commenters* are actuallly *harder* to read.

Using blue for headlines: "Song Parodies -> I've Gotten Into Your Shell (Turtle-Love)" is actually confusing, because we all associate blue with hyperlinks. In that or any other title, "Song Parodies" is in fact a hyperlink to the home page, but the parody title is not. The use of blue for links is so well established that IMHO black should be retained for headlines and titles that are *not* links.

Here's another feedback from a reader/writer who I don't believe has an account here at 00s. (first comment)

"I hate the new page format. Let's try to get it changed back. Can't see the parody writer's name."


Some of the headlines are links, and it would look wrong to vary the color between the ones with links and the ones without.

I saw those comments, and they were early in the day before I had made many of the changes. 

all small whatever. It is good for a title heading, but I don't feel like a title heading.  Guess I don't like the change either. 


Where exactly on the site are you referring to?  I might be missing something here, because I've been focused on the front page of the site, I haven't really worked on the other sections of the site too much. 

all small whatever. It is good for a title heading, but I don't feel like a title heading.  Guess I don't like the change either. 


I'm looking elsewhere in the site, and about the only place your name would be bigger is when it's part of the parody author page title... and um, the headers in the older design were bold & bigger by 2 points than the body text as well... so just not understanding the issue with the headings at all. 

cool we probably talking about different things.  I'm wondering too if I still feel a little upset with something else and might be a little on the grumpy side right now, forget it

I'll start with this http://www.amiright.com/parody/80s/toto22.shtml  Not everything is a link, but everything's blue like one.  I wish everything wasn't blue like that it kind of drives me nuts.  I like type of background you're using, but I guess with all the blue links and font, the green  blue colors of the background kind of make me feel a bit depressed.  Maybe that's just me.  got a pale orangish color for the background?  Just a thought if you want to try it.  I'm just mentioning it because it would go good with blue links and orange gives a new, clean fresh feeling. 

cool we probably talking about different things.  I'm wondering too if I still feel a little upset with something else and might be a little on the grumpy side right now, forget it

I'll start with this http://www.amiright.com/parody/80s/toto22.shtml  Not everything is a link, but everything's blue like one.  I wish everything wasn't blue like that it kind of drives me nuts.  I like type of background you're using, but I guess with all the blue links and font, the green  blue colors of the background kind of make me feel a bit depressed.  Maybe that's just me.  got a pale orangish color for the background?  Just a thought if you want to try it.  I'm just mentioning it because it would go good with blue links and orange gives a new, clean fresh feeling. 


Does it look like the attached image?  because it doesn't sound like what you're describing to me.  I tested in IE 6 and Firefox 3 on Windows.

I know orange is complimentary with blue, but it might be a bit too bright.  When I go pale orange it tends to end up looking like peach.  I did used to have the site with a peach color when it first launched, maybe that's why I ended up with the colors I have now.

Some of the headlines are links, and it would look wrong to vary the color between the ones with links and the ones without. <snip>

I could be mistaken, and I probably am, so please forgive me, but I believe that color-coding is *exactly* how the entire Web distinguishes links from non-links. Blue is a link (not *always* underlined). Anything else is not, except at forums like this where there is no automatic color change (because no HTML markup), and only the underlining indicates a link. But at HTML web pages, -- go anywhere. Aw, heck, go to Wikipedia. All kinds of blue interspersed throughout the home page, every one a clickable link. And *everything else* is *black*.  (No objection to the AIR logo being a link. Logos are waay different from text; often are links; and the pointer changing to a hand on mouseover is a clear tip-off.)

I agree with "Wildcard" "Not everything is a link, but everything's blue like one.  I wish everything wasn't blue like that it kind of drives me nuts."
IIRC, the former format at the *top of any single parody* (the headline above the box) had "Song Parodies->" in blue, because it was a link, and then the parody title in black, because it was *not* a link, and also to set it off from the generic header, "Song Parodies". Now it's all blue, so the title isn't distinctive.

FWIW, I've received some private e-mail complaints about the new format. I've encouraged those persons to register here and post at this thread. If for any reason they're unwilling, I'll ask their permission to quote their emails by name.

The too-much blue and use of blue for non-links is also bad for those of us who are easily distracted. I *think* my doctor once told me I had Attention Deficit Disorder, but I wasn't really listening when he said it....  ;)

SERIOUSLY: I'd bet you'd find a higher percentage of ADD among regular parody contributors than among the general population. ADD is more common among those with above-average intelligence, which is what's required to produce puns, connect distant or apparently-unrelated dots, make parallels to OSs, etc. Solving puzzles, like filling in new, but funny, and preferably matching, words to an existing tune, provides the mental stimulation needed to satisfy those with a low boredom tolerance and a high threshold of mental stimulation. Consistent color-coding of links and non-links helps everyone, but especially said ADD population. Not asking anyone to self-identify, but I bet it's true.

No, I'm not a doctor, just someone who sounds off on everything, welcome or otherwise.  ;D  (probably why they e-mail moi, lol.) *Love* the site; appreciate all you do; and support anything that genuinely makes it better. Tons of blue text doesn't. >wink<

I could be mistaken, and I probably am, so please forgive me, but I believe that color-coding is *exactly* how the entire Web distinguishes links from non-links. Blue is a link (not *always* underlined). Anything else is not, except at forums like this where there is no automatic color change (because no HTML markup), and only the underlining indicates a link. But at HTML web pages, -- go anywhere. Aw, heck, go to Wikipedia. All kinds of blue interspersed throughout the home page, every one a clickable link. And *everything else* is *black*.  (No objection to the AIR logo being a link. Logos are waay different from text; often are links; and the pointer changing to a hand on mouseover is a clear tip-off.)

I agree with "Wildcard" IIRC, the former format at the *top of any single parody* (the headline above the box) had "Song Parodies->" in blue, because it was a link, and then the parody title in black, because it was *not* a link, and also to set it off from the generic header, "Song Parodies". Now it's all blue, so the title isn't distinctive.

FWIW, I've received some private e-mail complaints about the new format. I've encouraged those persons to register here and post at this thread. If for any reason they're unwilling, I'll ask their permission to quote their emails by name.

The too-much blue and use of blue for non-links is also bad for those of us who are easily distracted. I *think* my doctor once told me I had Attention Deficit Disorder, but I wasn't really listening when he said it....  ;)

SERIOUSLY: I'd bet you'd find a higher percentage of ADD among regular parody contributors than among the general population. ADD is more common among those with above-average intelligence, which is what's required to produce puns, connect distant or apparently-unrelated dots, make parallels to OSs, etc. Solving puzzles, like filling in new, but funny, and preferably matching, words to an existing tune, provides the mental stimulation needed to satisfy those with a low boredom tolerance and a high threshold of mental stimulation. Consistent color-coding of links and non-links helps everyone, but especially said ADD population. Not asking anyone to self-identify, but I bet it's true.

No, I'm not a doctor, just someone who sounds off on everything, welcome or otherwise.  ;D  (probably why they e-mail moi, lol.) *Love* the site; appreciate all you do; and support anything that genuinely makes it better. Tons of blue text doesn't. >wink<



Blue is typically used for links, but UNDERLINES are what distinguish links from non-links.  The big complaint against websites years ago was changing both color and removing underlines.  Wikipedia is not what I would call a paragon of design excellence.

I'm not going back to black and blue for the titles... but maybe I'll change the non-link part of the headers to a different shade of blue or dark purple. The point of the headers is to call attention to them and break up the sections.

Also, people can comment on amIiright on the news item for the redesign without making an account here.

I went back to the black for the non-link portion of the section headers.  Reworded the titles on the main index pages so that I can link to the sections as well.  Adjusted more font sizes and weights and line spacing, etc.

Going to take a break for awhile now and see if people can get used to it the way it is.

Back in black  and so muck easier to and read. 

Back in black  and so muck easier to and read. 

Ditto, except I think he meant "much".

Actually, on the home page song listings, I didn't have a problem with the author's name being part of the link to the song. But seeing the author name in black really does make the title stand out more, and it's easy to distinguish authors at a glance.

Only other item remaining for this writer is that it still seems that the names of commenters at each parody are in a smaller font (or one that looks smaller) than they used to be. It actually looks like the commenter's name is smaller than the comment font itself.
I'm a 60s giuy; you're an 80s guy; so I'd guess I have a couple of decades on you.  8) Used to be able to read commenter's names at a glance with no effort; not so easy now. If that could be changed, great.

AFAIC, everything else is cool, and the parodies themselves, including intro/outro, *are* easier to read. Thanks for being responsive to participants' input. Karma.

Ditto, except I think he meant "much".

Actually, on the home page song listings, I didn't have a problem with the author's name being part of the link to the song. But seeing the author name in black really does make the title stand out more, and it's easy to distinguish authors at a glance.

Only other item remaining for this writer is that it still seems that the names of commenters at each parody are in a smaller font (or one that looks smaller) than they used to be. It actually looks like the commenter's name is smaller than the comment font itself.
I'm a 60s giuy; you're an 80s guy; so I'd guess I have a couple of decades on you.  8) Used to be able to read commenter's names at a glance with no effort; not so easy now. If that could be changed, great.

AFAIC, everything else is cool, and the parodies themselves, including intro/outro, *are* easier to read. Thanks for being responsive to participants' input. Karma.


I didn't notice the commenter author's names being smaller... but I'm sure it can be easily remedied. 

I tried rolling the design out piece by piece so it wasn't just "here's the new design live with it"... easier to fix the problems as I create them.

I'm still not convinced the the headline should be pure black when it's not a link, but blue is probably too close since it should stand out from the rest of the header. I might mess with it some more.

I'm going to split the names section into Band Name and Song Names... kind of like it is already, but with individual main navigation items.  I should have done it years ago, but I was trying to stick with that drop down system and another main button just wouldn't fit.

I've also got an mp3 preview widget I want to stick on the various pages (don't worry, it won't auto-play).  I spent a ton of time working on it last spring and never got around to incorporating it into the site.  Christmas is coming, so trying to roll out some new ad stuff on all the sites, amIright is the first to get the treatment.

I'm going to split the names section into Band Name and Song Names... kind of like it is already, but with individual main navigation items.  I should have done it years ago, but I was trying to stick with that drop down system and another main button just wouldn't fit.


Good idea; I think it was like that before with the drop-down menus; inside the "Names" tab were two submenus (one for Bands and one for Songs). Giving them their own general sections is a good plan.