Speaking for me and not Jess, I'd be fine with left on a separate line, but on the right it looks cluttered/crowded with all the other stuff there.
(Although I'll probably display:none it anyway, so ignore this opinion if you like...)
'Shells'
Do you have problems, concerns, or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Speaking for me and not Jess, I'd be fine with left on a separate line, but on the right it looks cluttered/crowded with all the other stuff there.
(Although I'll probably display:none it anyway, so ignore this opinion if you like...)
looks fine to me, but i'm also using firefox 3 on XP. oh and i agree with Jessica about the box. it looks out of place there.
You are seeing the mirrored breadcrumb at the bottom too, right? I tried it on the left and sometimes it came into the space of the rest of the nav bar and sometimes it didn't, and it looked messy. Which is why I wanted to make the justification in the navbar consistent, and distinguish the breadcrumbs visually somehow. It could be by background colour or something else, though.
I think the breadcrumbs in the top of the right navbar is overkill.
I like top and bottom. Because, of course...
I like where it is located (both times), not crazy about the box aesthetically.
I think the breadcrumbs in the top of the right navbar is overkill.
I would be removing them from the thread header.
I would be removing them from the thread header.
I missed that. That would remove the overkill factor. I like the idea of a light-colored background.
I like top and bottom. Because, of course...
And by "of course," I meant, of course my preference would be different from the just previous person's preference because we're like that. I did not mean anything double entendre-ish. (Because, while we're also sometimes like that, I this was not one of those times).
t /natter
Do you mean left justify it in the same line as Read New? That's very busy. It would have to be a separate line to prevent the possibility of over(lap/flow).
Oh yeah, I can see how that would be an issue. Hmm.