Title Now I behold thy lovely body. Version 8. Created in Photoshop CS. Best viewed at any resolution, any browser. In use since March 18, 2010. The brushes are my own. The textures are my own. The stocks are from here, here, and my own collection.
copyright
Everything on this site, except resources listed here, is property of Sabryna at Disjecta-Membra.net. If you use my resources, you must credit Disjecta-Membra. No one likes a thief.
This is my webhost. Surprise!
I like the colors! What can I say? I have a thing for the reds and blues.
But then I see how messed up the sidebar is, and I think to myself this girl doesn't care enough to fix the problem. I'm not
sure what's going on with it, but it looks awful. [Click the image at the top to see what I'm talking about.]
Navigation
The navigation is the third item located in the sidebar. It is divided into "Main," "Domain" [which should be renamed as you're on a Free site and
do not have a domain], "Me," "Compete," "You," and "Others," which I assume would be affiliates, but the link doesn't go anywhere. I'm not sure if this
is more of a personal site or not, but I would move the "You" higher in the tier.
Each page opens into a directory-like page, which is a bit hard to read because the links and the descriptions are the same color.
Header
The header matches the layout, as I assume the colors of the CSS were taken from it. It is blended fairly well and the brushes are used with skill
as they provide a background for the blend. I am only irritated with the site's name on the header. It is underneath the featured person's name, in a tiny pixel font.
Just a personal pet peeve, but I really think next time the site's name should be the larger of the texts.
Coding
Ignoring the sidebar weirdness, the coding is nicely composed. It matches the header, which is always a plus. The fonts used are tahoma and georgia [for italics]. I find the headers boring,
but I like the res of the coding.
The style sheet is embedded, which I've read can cause slow loading [but I've never had the problem.] While looking at your coding, I noticed that there are inconsistencies in
how it is typed out. It's obvious your coding is bits and pieces of codes from different places.
Not to mention the coding is incorrect, as there is no doctype, nor are there head, HTML, or body tags.
Content
Downloads
Brushes "Oops! We can't find that page."
Fonts "Oops! We can't find that page."
... None of the download pages exist.
Graphics
Affiliate Images The images that are just solid colors are boring. The set that is made of actresses and musicians is not too bad.
I think they'd only be useful if they matches someone's layout, though. The likelihood of that is rare.
Backgrounds Page doesn't exist.
Blends
Actors There's one of Orlando bloom. It's belnded well, but it is also boring.
Actresses A lot of theese look the same; there's really no variety in actresses featured or appearance. Most of the aren't edited or cut very well, either.
They're all pretty much Disney actresses. However, they are typically blended well.
Models The page is blank.
Movies and TV Shows The page is blank.
Musicians Most of these are the same blends from the actresses page! Same comments go for these.
Button Bases These certainly aren't bad, but as with affiliate images, would probably only be helpful if they matched someone's layout.
Plus, it's hard to put text over people/objects.
Bullets Does not exist.
Coded Layouts One category, Musicians. There are two layouts available: Zac Effron [are you shitting me? Musician?!] and the Jonas Brothers.
The Zac Effron one does not open in a new window. The image would have been a lot better without the badly chosen brown background. The coding is boring, but
I like the color choices. The Jonas Brothers one also opens within the frame. The image is poor quality, and the coding doesn't match it at all.
Icons
Actors I only like two of these, out of the six. The rest are just cropped images with pixel text stating the name of the featured actor.
Actresses +Unenthusiastic Woo+ More disney actresses. A couple of these are really nice, but most of the 36 suffer the ailments of the previous category.
Models There are five. Hannabeth and Audrey Kitching. +cringe+ Three of these have a notebook border that makes no sense what-so-ever, and looks bad. I can't say I
am impressed with any of these.
Misc. This one icon would have been nice if she hadn't added the unmatching red pixel font.
Movies and Tv Shows Only one of the two shows up. It too has the notebook border! It's not too bad though.
Musicians Well, what do you know, some of these are the same ones as in the actresses section! Honestly, just pick one. And the same Alex Gaskarth icons shows up twice. Once in Males, and then in Bands.
Yet again: pick one. I really like one of the Rihanna icons, but that's about it.
Mini-Blends These are indeed mini-blends! The Alex blend shows up in two sections +twitch+. The images used in these blends don't look to be high quality, but she may have made them
blurry in the editing process.
Pixels Page doesn't exist.
Pixel text Surprise: Page does not exist!
Retouches First off: Retouches aren't made for other people, so these should not be in the "You" section. And secondly, you do not show the before picture! So I really can't gauge whether
or not these are well edited. [Though, judging by how blurry she made everyone, they are poorly retouched.]
HTML Codes
The Colour Charts and Symbols pages don't exist. I'm getting really sick of that. If they don't exist, DON'T LIST THEM! Most of the image effects do not appear to work in your examples.
And for all of your codes [except images effects], you do not give previews, which you should, so someone knows what they're getting.
Photography
Does not exist.
Pngs
Does not exist.
Resources Scans, Scripts, Stocks, Textures are listed but do not exist.
Coded Layouts OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY HAVE YOU LISTED THESE IN TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS?
Colour Palletes What's a "pallete"? I do believe "palette" is correct. There are two. The colors go nice together,
but they aren't extremely eye catching.
Icon textures There are three. They are nice, and I can see them being useful, although they aren't unique. It'd be nice if there were more.
Tutorials
Oh, now she explains that a line through means it's coming soon. Well, Tutorials that are "comming soon" are: CSS, Paint, and Piczo. And when I do click on
a subject, like Animation shop three, there are probably twenty listed that don't exist. Really, do not link them if they don't exist yet! It's just tacky, midleading and unecessary.
The Freewebs tutorials need to go. No one needs to know how to add a folder: You click the "new folder" link and voila! NEW FOLDER. How to save a page? My God. These were
really just a waste of your time and a waste of space on your site.
Others
"Coming Soon."
Summary
This site just made me angry. Honestly, most of the content doesn't exist, and it really shouldn't be listed, even if it is "comming soon." Plus, most
of the content on this site is Disney related, which I personally dislike, and I know many other who do. Basically, if you like being disappointed
by pages that don't exist and you love Disney actresses, this site is for yoU! If not, don't bother visiting.
Sugesstions
Remove the links for pages that do not exist yet.
Do not put the same "work" in multiple places. Pick where you think it is best suited.
Perhaps broaden your selection by using more than just Disney stars.
Make sure your coding works in all browsers, because right now it does not.
