New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I liked the #4 one the most. The current one looks alright tho, I believe it's appealing to most people.
Me too, the current one is not really the ugliest, it just has too many different colors.
#3 is pretty nice too but #4 wins it for me.
I like number 4 too. sorry to hear that your colour blind mate that must be horrible
and here is the owner facebook url https://www.facebook.com/sz1hostingwebhostingfreehostingcheapvps
He sounds like a kid, you seen: https://billing.hostingandvps.com/index.php/privacy-policy
the sz1 websites are ugly, but the VPS one is ok other than the logo
TBH, I find it better than your website.
Fair enough, I try to keep it simple, not all over the place. Horrible dropdown menus but everyone's taste is different I suppose, I've worked with Bootstrap since 2.x (Which is what my current website is using) they are using 3.0.x which is old now but newer than mine. My Beta website still in development is 3.1.x.
I like the simplicity, it is fast to navigate through. I'm not a huge fan of bloated sites either.
Your site looks good, but I agree with the previous comment; I'd try using webfonts, like Lato or Open Sans, aligning the header row with the content/footer rows, using a navigation bar, and adding white space below the navigation bar to separate it from content.
I don't mind Bootstrap, especially since it allows non-experienced web developers to create responsive sites. I usually use only the grid portion of it.
Thank you guys i'll use them on the beta before its fully live.
by far!
Horrible for a website that advertises their reseller packages every day on WHT!
lol, serving customers since 2001... and I guess that is when this website was designed.
I hate companies who leave the Copyright XXXX - XXXX (last year) in the footer too. It's June 2014 ffs, why does it still say 2013. Makes it seem like the company isn't running any more.
Edit: just noticed LET has the same thing lol, but it's not a business so it's fine
If you don't update your website in 2014 then you don't need to update the copyright. The copyright date is protecting the content when it was created so having a copyright date of 1990 will still give you ownership of any website content that was added in or before 1990.
http://upgrade-bootstrap.bootply.com/
http://www.google.com/fonts
You're welcome
That's a clever tool