Staff
Past Staff
Archive
Meta
Review for Fallen Rose
Oh, dear. Goth-girl on a drab background, almost-spooky text that comes off as comical, and monotone red all over. Your link hovers don’t work in Firefox. Despite the table-like appearance, your background doesn’t seem to stop (that is, there is no footer to the layout). And, it repeats horizontally too! I don’t mean to be overly critical, or racist against vampires (or goths…or…whatever she is), or colorist against red—but, seriously, I look at your site and I think, “Oh my, another three-column graphics site.” (And I’m not trying to be columnist against three columns in layout. Okay, I am.)
Information
Site: Fallen Rose
Type: Resource
Owner: Kayla
Reviewed By: Megumi
Date Received: 1/28/06
Date Completed: 2/12/06
Preview
Presentation
Note: You changed your layout midway through your review, so I’m reviewing using your old layout.
Layout
What’s black and white and red all over? Your layout! Har, har.
Here’s something to try: take a few steps back from your monitor. Squint at your layout. What do you see? I’m thinking a large, black blob on the top right-hand corner (goth-girl’s hair), a tint of white below that, and…red for everything else. Imbalanced much? Incorporating black (or dark grey, even) and the pinky-white of the lady’s dress into the rest of your layout—for example, coloring your content or navigation columns grey—would offset the oppressive red-ness sufficiently, and add interest.
Also, I noticed the hidden in your abstract background, you have these interesting shapes like spiders and addition signs (correct me if that’s not what they are). And then you look at the rest of the layout and, golly, they don’t appear anywhere else: not the headers, which would have been ideal, or as symbols for the navigation links (thus replacing the random sporks you currently have), or as part of your nonexistant footer. This concept—adding things here, but not there—is, I think, the main problem with the layout. (This can expand to include adding colors here but not there, as well.)
So: a blow-by-blow analysis of your header. The goth-girl is wearing lace, which immediately projects a rather antique, delicate feel. (Never mind the copious amounts of eyeshadow she’s wearing.) But I don’t think that that big, chunky font really belongs in Jane Austen’s era, you know? And the outer glow/dropshadow combination you have going isn’t going to do it justice, either. The background is really dull; the shapes I mentioned are so hard to see that they look like they belong in some optical-illusion test. The lacey feel needs to be transferred to the gaping, red space that is the right side of your header. Last, but not least, the chick’s hair really doesn’t blend in well with the red. It’s really dark on the left side, and on the right side it gets mysteriously gray. Darken the shade of that clump of hair, and fade it out somehow, presumably with an airbrush. Right now, there are two very distinct sections of the header: goth-girl and post-goth-girl. Black and red. The colors should flow smoothly.
Another anomaly is the fact that your layout’s border is flat and boring. Any attempts at a more intricate feel (initiated, unwittingly I think, by the lace), have been soundly squashed right here. Having that diagonally repeating background was a nice start, and I’d like to see more here. I’d like to see something that shows comprehension of the theme here, and isn’t some random mix of ideas, unified only by the color red. (It’s like the card game Crazy Eights: you have to match cards that have the same color or number. However, in webdesign, it’s best to match both.)
Your content and navigation areas are in boxes, which are place inside a bigger box defined by the main image’s width. Structure, in other words, which is good—but neither the dark red boxes, or the light red ones that pad them, seem to end anywhere. I’d like to see them end in the same order: the dark red content and navigation ones, then the light red ones, and maybe a small footer image to tie everything up. My suspicion is that you wanted to get away with a quick divvie layout, and your scope of CSS’s possibilites does not cover anything beyond the old absolute positioning, link-hovering and other such webdesign-ey staples…which do not cover including a footer in an layout positioned like yours.
You can either use tables, or you can continue using CSS to make a layout that satisfied the organization of this layout. To do the latter, check out Tutorialtastic to learn how to make a tableless layout using a concept known as floating.
That would have been a nice segue into coding, thus nullifying any further taunts about your layout, but I’m afraid I must torture you with a few more complaints before I move on. For one, your main image and your content and navigation areas are like two different worlds. Or, following the Crazy Eights idea, like a queen of hearts and an eight of hearts. The color, not the number. Figuratively, I think that layouts in general should be like circles: there are no sharp angles anywhere. Your layout, I think, is a line segment: two points.
The headers for the navigation area, besides needing some of the other colors in the layout, should have the text centered. With such a small width, it just looks odd having the text aligned to the left like that. As for the content areas, even though I cannot fathom why you chose goth-girl’s mouth to adorn them, at least demonstrate a use of color. However, both could use a definite bottom border—light red or pinky-white—to maintain that structure.
Your links are white—which, while a welcome break from the red, are not completely justified. Goth-girl’s dress and skin (for the most part) seem to have a pinkish tinge. On the topic of the navigation, things were dandy when you aligned things to the left with those sporks, but the left-aligned-ness went AWOL in your massive Links section. The different widths of the links make it look untidy: aligning the links to the left at least gives a definable border on one side of the navigation. And it’s all very well to have your affiliates on every page, but having hostees and your network is going a bit too far. Shouldn’t they go on a seperate page?
In your updates, you include the date and the comments link at the top right, leaving a gaping space at the left. Putting an update header there would not only fill the space, but help to sort your updates.
Finally, your content and navigation areas need some padding…which, finally, brings me to the coding section. (A section in which I won’t rag on goth-girl anymore, thankfully.)
Coding
Note: Wordpress warps coding, and so many of the examples I listed will have attributes such as “mce_href=” and “xhref=”. You can ignore those (though xhref should be just href).
Before I address anything else, the correct way to add padding to your content and navigation areas would be to find their CSS selector and add the following values:
padding: 0 10px 10px 10px;
This adds no padding to the top, but 10 pixels to the right, left and bottom. (The values are in clockwise order, starting at the top.) I didn’t add any to the top since you had the headers there, but this will give everything else some breathing room.The first eight lines of your coding are beautiful: doctype, proper heading tags, meta tags…and then I hit the dreaded Internal Stylesheet, Destroyer of Worlds. The way I see it, coding should be easy to handle, and everything should be in its proper place, so you know where to find things. A stylesheet’s place is in a *.css file, which can be linked in the head tag like so:
link xhref="sheet.css" mce_href="sheet.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"
Egad! (No, really. EGAD.) Your supposedly vertically-repeating background is 1024 pixels wide. Which kind of sucks, because only those select few with 1024×768 resolutions and below can fully enjoy your layout. I, for example, have an 1152×864, and so the background repeats itself horizontally near the right side of the page. The solution? Cut back the background to that which includes the content and navigation blocks, save it as a *.gif instead of a *.png to save loading time, and put this in your coding:
body {
background: URL('diagonallystripedbackground.gif'); }
#layout {
background: URL('mylayoutbg.gif') repeat-y; width: 750px;}
In order to include both the diagonally striped background and the layout and content background in the foreground (oxymoronic, I know), the first one is encased in the selector of your stylesheet and the content and navigation one is within a layer called #layout, which starts right after the body tag in your page and can be referenced with div id=”layout”.
div style="position: absolute; top: 295px; left: 31px; width: 114px; z-index: 2" class="side"
Hm. I don’t see the point in inline styling when you have a perfectly servicable, albeit internal, stylesheet at your service (unless your website is only one page). Furthermore, in a flat layout like this, the z-index property is not needed (here or anywhere else). And referencing class="side" is driving you to a dead end, because that class doesn’t exist in your stylesheet. This goes for the other instances of inline styling in your coding.I thought it was just the background, but you're saving everything as a *.png! The *.png was primarily created to preserve color (ha) and quality, but the optimized *.jpg really won’t cut down either of these aspects and, as an added bonus, decreases file size, and thus loading time.Inside .contenthead, I came upon many errors, which are as follows:
height: 22;
font-size:11pt;
padding-top:4;
padding-left:10;
font-size:12;
You do not define the unit for every property except the font size. I think you meant pixels (px), but it is a good habit to note the value you’re using. Also, pt was not created with webpages in mind; it was made for word-processing programs. Pixels are a safe alternative.
border:black solid 1;
border-top: #000000 0 solid;
border-left: #000000 0 solid;
border-right:#000000 0 solid;
border-bottom:#000000 0 solid;
The first border property is redundant, since you already defined the color black in your equally redundant border- left, right, top, & bottom properties. And, you defined the width as 1 something at first, but then went on to describe how its width width was 0. Make up your mind border: 1px solid #000; This is the summary property for borders, combing all of your five lines into one. I decided that you must have meant to have a 1 pixel border, or else this would have been completely pointless, right?
<P><p class="header">Fallen Rose</p><b>Ψ</b> <a xhref=http://www.fallen-rose.com/about.php >FR</a><br>
Egad…squared. Firstly, the opening paragraph tag doesn’t belong; secondly, instead of having a .header class in your stylesheet, you can so easily shorten it to h1 and reference it in your stylesheet with h1 { }; thirdly, instead of using bold tags, archaic symbols, and line breaks to position your navigation, a list would simplify the whole process.
<h1>Fallen Rose</h1><ul><li><a xhref="" mce_href="" title="Link">Link Here</a></li> <li><a xhref="" mce_href="" title="Link">Link Here</a></li><li><a xhref="" mce_href="" title="Link">Link Here</a></li></ul>Save the spork as an image, and we've got this:ul {
list-style-image: URL('bullet.gif');
}
I noticed that you have the javascript for your affiliate link-hovers in the middle of the page. It belongs in your headtag, or in a seperate *.js file, and linked in the head tag like this:
<script xsrc="affiliate.js" mce_src="affiliate.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Content
Fallen Rose
About FR: “About Fallen Rose” really doesn’t explain Fallen Rose. Does Fallen Rose have some special meaning, or was it chosen extemporaneously for it’s “maturity”? (Personally, I don’t think that a site’s name has anything to do with its maturity, but that’s just me.) I find the presentation of this page a little choppy—you’ve got an informative paragraph, some “stats” and “memorable changes” (which are also stats, actually). Listing all the dates that you receieved so-and-so hits makes you seem a little conceited, like hits are all you care about…especially since the timeline is the longest segment on this page. I’d like to hear about what Kittie Graphics was like, how you’ve improved, what program you use, why you care about your hits so much, etc.
Credits: The “Layout Content Credits” seem like they would belong in “Past Layouts.” If a person was looking at, say, Version 15, and they wanted to know where you got that *.psd from (”I got the PSD from a website”), they would be disappointed that there were only credits for select versions. Whereas if you had the credits on with each past layout, the person could tell from the lack of credits that you were a thief right away. Also, your “Brushes”, “Gradients”, “Screencaps”, “Stock Images”, and “PSDs” lists are soo hard to read, with nothing seperating each site. Try either using a list, or putting a bullet, or some spork or cross or whatever between them. Also, I’d like to see them in alphabetical order.
Link FR: It…puzzles me that you let people direct link some of your buttons, but not all. Providing a code to copy and paste for every direct-linkable button is a waste of space. If you have to show us how to make a link, you could put the appropriate code at the top of the page…once. Also, as far as I’m concerned 100×35 isn’t a “regulation” button size.
Past Layouts: I wasn’t going to mention it before, but you really need some sub-headers—something less intimidating than the goth-girl’s mouth one, and smaller. Looking at it ten times on each of your past layouts pages was…was, odd. I’m envisioning having one of those puppies at the top, saying “Previous Layouts, 1-10,” or whatever it is, and having smaller headers for each version. It would be less of an eyesore. And, I would like a small thumbnail of each layout to the left of the information, so I can see if I want a closer look. By the way, there are broken images in versions Two, Seven, Eight, Eleven, Fourteen, and Sixteen.
Received: A list of links in no particular order leaves me wondering where to click first. Should I click on FlammePersona’s link first, to check if they really meant to spell it that way? Or should I click on Love’s First Kiss and find out exactly how love can posses something tangibly? Anyway, what I’m proposing is having a small thumbnail of either the site, your award, or the graphic you entered beside each name, along with what type of contest it was, the owner of the site, the date receieved, etc. For the “Livejournal Graphic Awards,” you could also provide a link to the community you got the award from…but actually, kaycar11_icons is a deleted community, so your links go to error pages. And knowing that you’ve won first place eight times is all well and good, but what did you do to earn that blue ribbon, specifically?
Reviews: You have buttons only for the pending reviews (well, not Zombie Reviews. Although that site does not have a link-in section, you seem able to make one yourself), and for only half of those you have “Submitted” text (unless you submitted to four WPRss on January 28). I suggest having a universal format for every link, in both the “Pending” (which does not have a header telling me so, by the way…I had to guess) and “Completed” sections: a button or thumbnail, aligned to the left of the text, and beside that the date submitted, the date you recieved the review (if applicable), it’s stats (pending, completed), and a link to the review (again, if applicable.)
Tagboard: There’s no friendly goth-girl-mouth header here, which troubles me, because aside from the URL, a main header is the most important signpost in the highway of a site. Also, having a small input field for the visitor’s name and email is fine, but the “Message” field demands at a textarea with several columns, so that it is easier to type your message. Speaking of input fields, they are the same color as the background, and to make them stand out I suggest making the background the same light-red in your tagboard’s iframe (the backgrounds repeat, and I’m talking about the lighter color), or a pinkish-white.
Links & Advertising
So, you’re only linking on every page the affiliates who link you on every page? This reminds me of the book Call of the Wild, where to show mercy was a sign of weakness. Is it really that horrible for you to put that one extra link on the sidebar? I’m sorry, but I find that really petty.
You’re bribing people to vote for you in the Cute Top 25 Topsites? I thought that the point of a topsite listing was to determine the best site based on how good the site is, not what the site owner is offering in exchange for your vote! Aside from your twisted logic, the form you supply is rather…clumsy. The input fields should be extended to the end of the content area so that visitors can type their messages more easily, and the font used is ridiculously small and hard to read. Finally, instead of marking every field with an asterisk, you could just say, “All fields are required.”
For You
Ahh, the meat of your site. At last. Before I begin though, can I point out that virtually everything in the right-side navigation bar is “For You”, “For Your Site,” and a “Resource”, thus making those three headers redundant? I can sorta-kinda see the difference between “Your Site” and “For You” (although I think that “Layouts” really belongs under “For You”, and “Plugboard” belongs under “Advertising”), but “Resources” and “For You” are really no different, although “Resources” sports many lists of helpful links, which seem like they deserve a seperate category (”Reads”, maybe).
Banners: I don’t really like your navigation through this section. Some of them are “Friends Only” banners (although, you typed “Friend’s Only” on most of them and there should be no apostrophe there), and some are blank banners that I can’t find a use for. (They can’t be used for layouts, because they’re too small, and they’re too big to use as headers.) I would group them into “Friends Only” and “Blank Banners” (if you intend to keep that section), and use subheaders to seperate the series. Also, your thumbnails are not really serving their purpose of giving the viewer a preview of the sign, so they can decide whether to view the full-sized version or not. A proportional thumbnail would more adequately give the visitor an idea of what the signs look like.
The quality of your banners varies. I like the colors and execution of this Final Fantasy one, but this Pikachu sign is monotone and dull. I have no idea what I would use this one for, though, besides as a layout banner; and, if I were good enough to create a matching background and setup of a layout, I could certainly manipulate my own image. Many of your banners are harsh abstract backgrounds with celebrities, animals or animé characters on top, which quickly becomes monotonous. I don’t like how you have a thin white stripe across most of them, though, because that really limits the creativity of any text the visitor might want to add. Go through each of your banners and ask yourself, “Would I use this? If so, what could I use it for?”
Icons: Most of your avatars are actually very nice. The use of seperate pages to categorize each series, though, is a gift to those looking for someone in particular and a nuisance for someone just looking for a nice avatar, regardless of series. I suggest putting all your avatars on the same page, and having a “sort by series” function, somewhat like the one used at http://www.aethereality.net/” title=”Aethereality”>Aethereality.
Speaking of Aethereality, don’t these avatars seem a bit similar to you?
Also, for your avatars, the “Terms of Use” at the top apply to the banners. This reeks of copy-and-paste.
Icon Bases: I really like the idea here; what I don’t like is that you need to download a zip file with 40-odd images, even if you only want one of the bases. This is a page where the series categorization would come in handy—you could then display all of the bases on their respective pages.
LJ Layouts: The formatting for the three layouts displayed is really inconsistent; the second one doesn’t even have a thumbnail! I know that some of the layouts are for paid accounts, and some are for free accounts, so there are bound to be differences because of that; but you could seperate the page depending on the account type, and create a universal format for each type. Also, I don’t like how in the Amy Lee layout, the usage notes are in the pitifully small textarea. The formatting for the three layouts displayed is really inconsistent; the second one doesn’t even have a thumbnail! I know that some of the layouts are for paid accounts, and some are for free accounts, so there are bound to be differences because of that; but you could seperate the page depending on the account type, and create a universal format for each type. Also, I don’t like how in the Amy Lee layout, the usage notes are in the pitifully textarea. Personally, I wouldn’t use any of your layouts. The base images you use are pretty, but the way you manipulate them is not. The Amy Lee one, for example, is nothing more than an appealing background and some white textboxes. It’s very boring, and it looks to be too big for an 800×600 screen resolution, anyway.
The formatting for the three layouts displayed is really inconsistent; the second one doesn’t even have a thumbnail! I know that some of the layouts are for paid accounts, and some are for free accounts, so there are bound to be differences because of that; but you could seperate the page depending on the account type, and create a universal format for each type. Also, I don’t like how in the Amy Lee layout, the usage notes are in the pitifully textarea.
Personalized: This page—it’s weird. It seems like these belong amongst the their non-personalized brethen, under a seperate subheader. But, since many of your graphics leave a blank space for text, why add a name for them? And, finally, adding a description for these personalized avatars (such as “Misery is Me” for Cheryl’s 100×100 avatar) destroys the “personality” of each one. What if poor Cheryl isn’t completely emo? She couldn’t very well use your avatar.
Plugboard: Like I said, this could be under the “Advertising” heading on your left navigation. (With less buttons, maybe about four or five?) I don’t see the logic in your text plugger, either. I judge a site immediately by its 88×31-pixel button, and if I don’t like that button, I don’t visit that site. I can’t do that with text. I think, “You talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk.” It just isn’t working for me; and if you already have a button one, why have another text one?
Reads: Er, I don’t see how this fits into a graphics site. I’m pretty sure you didn’t make them yourself, either: it seems unlikely that you would know “Why Guys Like Girls” and “Why Girls Like Guys” unless you have the ability to be both a male and a female, which I doubt. It’s silly to use a PHP randomizer on your “Quotes” page, because I sometimes get the same quote twice. And if I find a quote that I really like, and want to come back to it, I’ll have to refresh enough times to see it again. Chicken Soup anthology, as you noted, but do you have the author’s permission to display it? It’s their story, and they might not like you putting it up without their consent.
Templates: “Rule #2: Have fun with ‘em!!” This is a set of rules. The abbreviation of “them” and the double exclamation mark are not in professionalism’s clique. Enjoying them is not mandatory. And this is the only page so far this rule has been on, so am I free to hate your other graphics?
You have a category called “Icon Bases” but you have more here—why? If I were looking for a base, I would first check out “Icon Bases”, and it might not occur to me to check here. Your templates themselves are pretty ordinary, nothing one couldn’t make on their own. I refuse to believe that “http://www.fallen-rose.com/images/50×50/Base.gif” title=”Template” even qualifies as a template.
Textures: These seem like Icon Bases to me. And, like the Icon Bases, I don’t like the *.zip downloading system. The later ones are pretty nice though, I have to admit.
“1. A link back to the website is appreciated.” Vague, vague. Either a link is required or it’s not; and your words can be easily twisted to a visitor’s liking. “Oh, I’m just enjoying ‘em, so I decided that I don’t appreciate giving you credit.”
Tutorials
Tables: I am not in my happy place right now. If this is about Livejournal tables, why wasn’t that in the link? The actual coding just… just, sucks. Your first example has an opening table row and table data tag, but no closing ones, and none of the attributes are in quotations. You don’t explain why things work, and a table that simplistic can be more easily achieved using CSS.
Making Lists: This is a rather nice tutorial; but, the textareas are too small, like the table tutorial’s. Also, in your explanations you don’t seem to know how to display code outside a textarea. You use < to display <, > to display >, and <code> and </code> around them.
Insert HTML in Your Pages: Okay, my bad, you do know. You just weren’t showing it. Sorry. The title, though, is misleading; “Showing HTML Code” would be more specific.
The rest of your tutorials are fairly useful. The image-editing tutorials aren’t trite (excepting the “Using a Template” one), and promote interesting effects. Good job.
and tag, but no closing ones, and none of the attributes are in quotations. You don’t explain why things work, and a table that simplistic can be more easily achieved using . This is a rather nice tutorial; but, the textareas are too small, like the table tutorial’s. Also, in your explanations you don’t seem to know how to display code outside a textarea. You use < to display <, > to display >, and <code> and </code> around them. Okay, my bad, you do know. You just weren’t showing it. Sorry. The title, though, is misleading; “Showing Code” would be more specific.The rest of your tutorials are fairly useful. The image-editing tutorials aren’t trite (excepting the “Using a Template” one), and promote interesting effects. Good job.
For You (cont.)
Wallpapers: Your “Games” wallpapers have such a lovely description: “Games.” That’s very generous, as is your expert filling-out of the “Featuring” field: “I honestly have no idea.” The image is from Xiah, but if you don’t know what the wallpaper features, there is no way to give credit to the poor, abused artists of the game. The wallpaper, itself, is just a semi-nude warrior with a partially translucent stomach badly centered on a busy background. I wouldn’t use it. Plus, it only comes in one size, 1024×864, which mocks 800×600, 1152×864 (Me!), 1280×960, and other users.
Your celebrity layouts suffer from similarly busy backgrounds. Your text art, spanning more than half of the wallpaper, is impractical: I’m going to have program icons covering most of it, and I don’t want to constantly adjust them to read your song lyrics.
Stats: Er, how does this benefit the visitor? It won’t help me find my dream layout or icon. If you really want to know how many graphics you have, that’s fine, but don’t waste a page on it. If you must advertise your rabid skillz at graphic making to the world, a simple sentence on each page would be fine: “There are 223 icons in this section.”
Your Site
Awards: That’s very tolerant of you and all, but giving every site an award detracts from the special-ity of the process. Some of your selections seem forced. “Great Blogspot”? “Great System for Links”? Man, I would be so proud to get an award for my link display, wouldn’t you?
Layouts: So, Livejournal Layouts go under “For You” but “Layouts” go under “Your Site”? Well, fine, but I’d like a bigger preview for each layout. The first one is pretty dark, and I want a closer look. As they are, I can’t judge them very well and I don’t want to have to download them to find out.
Review: This comes close to not belonging on a graphics site, but as it is a resource I’ll let it slide. As a front page, “You can be reviewed by me!” isn’t telling much. The rules, at the least, can go on the portal page, so you’re not wasting space and clicking.
Site of the Month: The heading reads “Disclaimer,” instead of “Site of the Month.” This seems self-explanatory, but a short expostionary paragraph might help clarify for the reader: “Every month, I select one site from those submitted to be displayed on this page, based on content, layout, and originality.” Also, the “Past Winners” section contains an 88×31 and 88×15 button: two different sizes, butting up against each other. Add some padding, and stick with one size.
Resources
If I didn’t know that this was a section of links, I might wonder why “Awards” was in this section, also. Once again, your title is misleading; maybe “Link Directory” or “Links Out”.
Your links look a litte messy, seperated by only line breaks and not in any particular order. I suggest using a list*, and ordering them alphabetically. Many sites are directly linked to their “Win Awards” page, which I think is a little disrespectful, like the visitor is simply using the site for the award. (Actually, most sites do this, but it’s simply etiquette to at least make an effort to browse around the site, maybe comment on something before applying.)
Annacircles is now called Acapriccio. Pure Star is on a long hiatus, and does not offer a Site of the Month contest. Tres Chic is a broken link. Jewels doesn’t have a Site of the Month contest. Eclectic Blends is no long “be right back”. Endless Rain Blends really is “be right back”.
Your links are very useful; you’ve got a great database here. Although instead of putting “RECOMMENDED!!” to indicate a very good site, you can just put an asterisk and tell visitors that the asterisk means a recommended site.
*If you don’t like the list’s margins, you can put this code in your stylesheet: ul { margin: 0; }
The Sims 2
These are very nice, and something I would use. My only complaint is that for the “Objects”, you have “Xenosaga Bedding” on the image (in addition to a header saying (”Xenosaga Bedding”), and with the “Clothes” you only have the heading.
Final Statement
After going through all your pages, I think that your strengths are avatars and textures and tutorials. Small graphics. These are the things I could see myself using; your layouts, templates, and wallpapers just didn’t appeal to me. I think that you should focus more on these strengths, and prune away the rest. Just because Fallen Rose is a graphics site doesn’t mean you have to provide every kind of graphic known to webdesigner; you can specialize, become an expert in only a few fields, because right now you’re trying to do too much.
Good luck with Fallen Rose!
One Comment to “Fallen Rose”
Kayla Says:
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:32 amThank you VERYmuch for the review! I just recently took quite a few of your suggestions, messing around with things, and fixing the stuff that you mentioned. IT’s quite a thorough review, and I really appreciate it.
As for Aethereality’s icon and mine matching, it’s a text brush from Livejournal, so I’m guessing with both downloaded and used it. Heh. I never noticed that icon before. Very odd.
Thank you again, so very much! IT’s nice to get someone else’s opinion!