| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Refrigerated User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Central US
Posts: 161
|
So what are we calling these new "footers" on newer sites that are unusually tall and content heavy? Good example. Scroll down. I think they're effective. The good ones I've seen are designed like the rest of site yet starkly contrast of some way. In the linked example, it almost inverts. Notice that it's just continuing the header, though. So it ties in well. Then also, along with the general feeling/design being almost opposite, my linked example has very different content in it from the site's main content are. It more tabular, just data, statistics, etc. This makes it logical to separate it from the rest of the site. The distinction is obvious of users, they can get what they want fast and with little confusion. What are your observations? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Irn Bru Connoisseur
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Inverness, Scotland
Posts: 27
|
The way Logopond is broken up really confuses me, its like they had one design for the site, then someone said WAAAAAAIT! i like this one so Mr.Frog let the tadpole slap the two together by stacking the designs. The main emphasis though, is on the content, the footer isn't screaming up onto the screen like "oh wait did I miss something down there" instead it sits idley by waiting for someone to actually look for it. It's a sound enough idea and if executed well, very helpful |
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 11,869
|
Megafooters? Huh? Logopond has a fairly standard one-line footer. Find good advice in the beginners web design thread.
patrick o'neill web developer | blog | spam humor |
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) | |
|
Irn Bru Connoisseur
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Inverness, Scotland
Posts: 27
|
Quote:
Thats what I though with the copyright and mini-links, but then as I mentioned already the site doesnt mesh well, it is 2 sites squished together, making the lower half seem like an over-populated whitespace |
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Refrigerated User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Central US
Posts: 161
|
Megafooter is just what I came up with to describe it. But you're right, it's not really a footer, yet it comes off as one to me, a supplementary chunk of content that's just kinda attached to the bottom should you want to reference it. Definitely not appropriate all the time. But I think it works for Logopond. @ MadHat: It doesn't appear as two designs to me. Like I pointed out, the littly pad texture (which I hate) is used for the header and mega-bottom part-footer-thing tieing them together well enough, plus it continues the row/columns of boxes pattern. @ xENo: Are you saying there's an increase in one-pagers currently, and they are what you don't like, or this footer gimic? |
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Refrigerated User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Central US
Posts: 161
|
Also, as mentioned before, the bottom black part of the site contains different content, I guess it's like a directory/navigation. I like the distinction between the two halves, like day and night. What I mean by that is, the white portion seems to be lit and prestened as the meat of the site, while the darker area is very subordinate and lesser in importance, almost passive; good hierarchy. But is it just too much crap on the page at once? |
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 16
|
I think it all started with an article on AListApart. It actually made alot of sense. Traditionally all the navigation is at the top of the page. So users who read alot of the content, end up at the bottom of the page with nowhere to go, and have to scroll all the way back up to the top. With the larger footers, you reward the readers of the page with easy accessible links for further information. I persoanlly like them. |
|
![]() |