| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/28/2006 01:55:50 PM · #26 |
Breath in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Breath out
Roger!!! Good Copy!!!! Over!!!!
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:03:15 PM · #27 |
People on this site are critical, as we know. Hopefully that's what you wanted.
Anyway, I realize that using templates make the job a little easier and the flash effects are cool ... but I think people mainly want to see your stuff. Make sure you set it up so that you can continually update it without much of a hassle ... I am dealing with that issue right now myself but I don't run a business with my site.
I like the simplicity of the site and you are hopefully going to live a photographer's dream of having your own business. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:05:16 PM · #28 |
"This is true...it just seems that many of the comments have been very trivial and were made because they did a quick run through and really didnt pay very good attention to what was happening on the site or really how it worked... "
Then ask for help on a site/forum dedicated to web design.
Your holier-than-thou immaturity oozes in most of your posts.
If you think you know everything and have designed such an incredible website (laughable IMO) why ask for criticism in the first place?
After all you have been "designing sites for years" so must be an expert.
"If people can't figure out to hit back on their browser to return to the home page then they shouldn't be on the internet anyway."
Nice attitude. You should do everything you can to reduce users from straying from the task's normative path or at the very least provide them avenues to return to the correct path.
As to you not liking the subjective comments, sorry but this really looks like a class project for a introductory web design class and you should take that to heart as the lack of style in your website conveys to potential clients a lack of style in your photography.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:08:48 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
This is saying a lot without really saying anything. This person failed to point out what parts of the site are lacking in design and layout...can they give me a hint? Do they really think a complete overhaul is necessary? Thats a little bit over the top in my opinion...it basically shows a lack of knowledge in website design if you ask me. |
OK, I admit... I took a cursory glance and responded with what I saw as basic flaws in the site. I was rather underwhelmed and did not spend much time viewing the site. I pointed out what I saw at a glance, if you would like a more detailed response, give me a few and I'll take a closer look, jot a few notes and then respond in detail in a little bit...
Be right back ya'll.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:10:27 PM · #30 |
Special,
I know nothing about web sites, so i can't give you any feedback, which is what you are asking for. I did visited your site and I was able to move around it with no problem, and it seemed to give all of the necessary information. I also like some of your pictures.
From reading all of the posts, it seems to me that people were giving you some logical, realistic suggestions to improve your site. If all you are going to do is to respond the way you do, and essentially tell them that they are wrong, or that you don't accept their input, why bother asking the question in the first place?
I'm new to this site, but over the last week i have come across some similar posts all with the same profile. You ask the DPC audience for input or suggestions, they give a thoughtful responce, and you respond in a way that is at times, defensive or critical of their suggestions.
I just don't get it. However, it has kept me entertained. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:18:53 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by brimac:
... I'm new to this site...
... it has kept me entertained. |
Welcome to DPC where you can find numerous avenues of entertainment, smiles, laughs, practical tips, and sometimes a frustration or two!
Don't forget to pick up a camera once in awhile. ;^)
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:24:03 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by brimac:
However, it has kept me entertained. |
me too :) .. and yes, welcome and follow the advice glad2badad gave 'Don't forget to pick up a camera once in awhile.' .. it happened with me once ;)
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:30:24 PM · #33 |
| hey Ithica....... NICE! I'm in Albany! |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:41:15 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by brimac:
hey Ithica....... NICE! I'm in Albany! |
...and I'm in Clifton Park! |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:46:14 PM · #35 |
OK... I'm back
Again, Do not be offended, this is meant as constructive criticism. I do know a thing or two about web design so I do feel like I am at least somewhat qualified to address this issue. I took another look at your site and jotted down a few notes. This is still not as in depth as it could be since I am just trying to point out enough to show why a complete overhaul may be in order. Here is your detailed opinion as per your request.
Home Page
The logo is too large and does not fit on the screen for lower resolution screens. The middle image is not your best work. You have some great photos... showcase your better stuff on your home page. The middle image looks like a snapshot.
Chosen font: Script (in pink)
Portfolio Page
You have bookmarked the page and it immediately takes you to the first displayed image. This is not all bad since it does immediately draw your attention to your work, but it has the by-product of chopping off your header. The portfolio browser is awkward at best (see my earlier comments).
Chosen fonts: Script (in black), Elegant, Block
Services Page
All fonts are too large. You have chosen a pastel color palette that is reminiscent of 1985. Miami Vice would be proud. This is not meant to be harsh, but honestly the gradients and colors not very uhm.... modern(?)
Chosen fonts: Script, Elegant, Block (all caps)
Contact Page
Headers are too large.
Chosen fonts: Script, Elegant, Times New Roman (a very yesterday font I might add)
Sessions Page
I'm starting to lose count of the fonts... I think I saw 5 different ones used on this page. The graphics again are unimpressive. There is no consistency in page layout, font choice, or color choice between any of the pages. The pricing at the top does not match from one page to the next and in my opinion demands too much attention. I would emphasize the services offered and try to draw attention to those rather than the price. The way you have done it is similar to the big gaudy "Hot Deal" stickers you see on the windshields in a used car dealership.
Your general public is not going to care about RAW. They are concerned with the final product, not the method. Why mention it?
Forms
All of your forms are centered which provides a very awkward layout. The form buttons do not match. On your restoration services page, the submit button does not match the reset button. The submit button reads "Submit and Proceed to Download Area".... Wait a minute, I thought we were "uploading" an image... why do I want to go to a "download" area?
I hope this sheds a little more light on my other more "general" statements from above. Overall I was not impressed. You asked for an opinion, and that was mine... free of charge. ;-)
I will add that I did not read a single word on your site. I was preoccupied with the disharmony of conflicting fonts, supersized wording, and pastel colors. I hope the site was proof read. Would anyone else be willing to look at this aspect of the site?
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:50:33 PM · #36 |
Width - set your computers resolution to 800 x 600, you will see why people have mentioned your front page is too wide. This is something i assume an 'experienced' web site designer such as yourself would know to do.
Width, again - The width of the text on your pages (services, contact, ect) should not be wider than the header image on that page.
Menu/Navigation - When browsing to your different pages , your top menu changes. ie. if i am on the contact page, the link to the services page is on the far left. If i am on the portfolio page the link to services is in the center. Just leave all menu items up there always in the same spot, perhaps color the selected entry so indicate where the user is. Generally, the navigation is very confusing as the way a user navigates varies depending where they currently are on your site. ie. If a user hit your front page and already knew they were interested in booking a session(repeat customer), they would need to know that they first need to visit the services page, then pick a specific service, and then hit the Book a Service link on the dynamic menu. As hard as it sounds, there should always be a way to get to everywhere on your site, from everywhere.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 02:53:51 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by cdownie:
Width - set your computers resolution to 800 x 600, you will see why people have mentioned your front page is too wide. This is something i assume an 'experienced' web site designer such as yourself would know to do. ... |
In his defense I'll say that 800 x 600 is a bit archaic. 1024 x 768 would be more mainstream as a baseline minimum to check for.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:02:59 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
Can anyone really point out a specific part of the site that does not work right? Or is confusing? Or is amateur? |
Hi: some specific pointers below.
The central image on your homepage does not "fit" with the other two: it looks like a cropped snapshot, not a portrait.
Your portfolio might better be split up between types of photography: your gig photos do not sit coherently with portraits and animal pics. How about a portfolio under each service heading, dedicated to the service you are offering?
You use a lot of different types of mouseover style - one consistent style might be easier to understand.
The colours used on your "services" page are one of the key things (IMO) that detract from the professionalism of the site. They do not sit comfortably with each other (three shades of green, one orangey red and a purple - not coherent). The colours are all clipped at the bottom. They detract from the "cleanliness" of the site (if a clean site is what you seek). On the same page are also three very different font styles: title bar, navigation bar, and services offered. It is unusual to see more than one or two fonts being used on a single page for a good reason - it looks messy and cluttered.
There is no coherent and consistent navigation bar: this changes across pages, and disappears on the FAQ.
Under your print enhancement option, it is not clear what this option is for "Online Viewing (Free)
Only Choose If you Wish to Buy Prints"
The text could do with another proof reading. Eg, the About section starts off and ends in the third person and switches to the first in the middle - it would read better if consistent. There is an apostrophe in the wrong place under FAQ: what to wear "CoupleĆ¢s outfits should compliment each other" - it should be "Couples' outfits" or "A couple's outfits".
I am not sure why you go into explaining RAW, or when you are going to process images and when you will not (eg for your CD).
Otherwise, some of your portfolio images look good - the basketball player in particular. I hope that this helps. Good luck with your venture!
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 15:03:22.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:03:05 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by cdownie:
Width - set your computers resolution to 800 x 600, you will see why people have mentioned your front page is too wide. This is something i assume an 'experienced' web site designer such as yourself would know to do. ... |
In his defense I'll say that 800 x 600 is a bit archaic. 1024 x 768 would be more mainstream as a baseline minimum to check for. |
This is true for those who are tech savy. However there are lots of folks(~17%) that still use this resolution, either due to old hardware, or old eyes. The front page width will look fine to those who are using 1024 x 768, only assuming they have their browser window opened full screen. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:10:21 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by cdownie:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by cdownie:
Width - set your computers resolution to 800 x 600, you will see why people have mentioned your front page is too wide. This is something i assume an 'experienced' web site designer such as yourself would know to do. ... |
In his defense I'll say that 800 x 600 is a bit archaic. 1024 x 768 would be more mainstream as a baseline minimum to check for. |
This is true for those who are tech savy. However there are lots of folks(~17%) that still use this resolution, either due to old hardware, or old eyes. The front page width will look fine to those who are using 1024 x 768, only assuming they have their browser window opened full screen. |
At some point you have to cut your losses. That same group (17%) of users still at 800x600 will probably have issues with the flash based image viewer as well.
Some conditional programming can help in keeping your site dynamic to fit a wide range of viewers, but that can get a bit tedious - especially if you're not a developer and are using templates. ;^)
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:15:22 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
At some point you have to cut your losses. That same group (17%) of users still at 800x600 will probably have issues with the flash based image viewer as well.
Some conditional programming can help in keeping your site dynamic to fit a wide range of viewers, but that can get a bit tedious - especially if you're not a developer and are using templates. ;^) |
True. The width thing is just nitpicky anyways. The major issue is the tricky navigation. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:46:36 PM · #42 |
Hmmm... looks like me and legalbegal consistently agreed on nearly every single point. Is that enough detail? If you would like help or feedback with a layout, I gladly offer my assistance. Like I said earlier, I admire what you're trying to do and wish you great success... We just gotta get you a sharp website before you can do that.
:-)
|
|
|
|
06/28/2006 03:49:28 PM · #43 |
"At some point you have to cut your losses. That same group (17%) of users still at 800x600 will probably have issues with the flash based image viewer as well. "
I (as well as many people) do not view web sites fullscreen so saying users with browsers opened to 800x600 would have issues with Flash is a bad conclusion to draw.
There is definately a problem with width.
Especially when you consider that this dooode says he has a wide screen and probably designed it to be optimal on a wide screen.
I think he has been pounded enough and will hopefully begin to pull himself out from under his pride colored glasses and realize his site is sorely lacking. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:39:22 PM · #44 |
Ok, let me respond:
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
OK... I'm back
Again, Do not be offended, this is meant as constructive criticism. I do know a thing or two about web design so I do feel like I am at least somewhat qualified to address this issue. I took another look at your site and jotted down a few notes. This is still not as in depth as it could be since I am just trying to point out enough to show why a complete overhaul may be in order. Here is your detailed opinion as per your request. |
Ok...
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Home Page
The logo is too large and does not fit on the screen for lower resolution screens. |
I have checked on lower resolution screens...the current standard is 1024x768...it fits on that resolution. If it doesn't fit on 800x600 then the people will have to scroll over...that isn't my fault, and it won't stop them from browsing.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
The middle image is not your best work. You have some great photos... showcase your better stuff on your home page. The middle image looks like a snapshot. |
Really...you've seen snapshots that look like that before? Ok...is it worth changing it? Maybe in the future. Is this another "search and destroy" comment - yes.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Chosen font: Script (in pink)
Portfolio Page
You have bookmarked the page and it immediately takes you to the first displayed image. This is not all bad since it does immediately draw your attention to your work, but it has the by-product of chopping off your header. The portfolio browser is awkward at best (see my earlier comments). |
This is currently all I am able to use. It is the quickest way for me to make flash galleries for all my clients because CS2 codes it for me. In the future I will be changing it...unfortunately I like it and for the meantime it will stay. I don't find it hard to navigate (how hard is clicking the next arrow?) I will think about putting in into galleries in the future. As you probably thought, this is only a temporary portfolio, there are only like 10 images in there right now.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Chosen fonts: Script (in black), Elegant, Block
Services Page
All fonts are too large. You have chosen a pastel color palette that is reminiscent of 1985. Miami Vice would be proud. This is not meant to be harsh, but honestly the gradients and colors not very uhm.... modern(?) |
I have thought about changing them. They should catch the eye and immeidately draw people to the different services. Perhaps I will look into redesigning this page.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Chosen fonts: Script, Elegant, Block (all caps)
Contact Page
Headers are too large.
Chosen fonts: Script, Elegant, Times New Roman (a very yesterday font I might add)
Sessions Page
I'm starting to lose count of the fonts... I think I saw 5 different ones used on this page. The graphics again are unimpressive. |
You don't like the header? Hmm...custom made graphic - I don't see anything wrong with it.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
There is no consistency in page layout, font choice, or color choice between any of the pages. |
So that portrait sessions table layout isn't present on the baby, band, or event pages? Hmm...I specifically remember using that same layout for every services page...drats.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
The pricing at the top does not match from one page to the next and in my opinion demands too much attention. I would emphasize the services offered and try to draw attention to those rather than the price. The way you have done it is similar to the big gaudy "Hot Deal" stickers you see on the windshields in a used car dealership. |
I think you need to refresh your page. Most pages have a $60/hr price image above the tables...if you are even seeing the tables??? Maybe you haven't refreshed the page and you are viewing a cached page? Because so far you have been incorrect on the services layouts and the "gaudy price stickers".
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Your general public is not going to care about RAW. They are concerned with the final product, not the method. Why mention it? |
Because it is important for them to understand why the proofs look like crap...isn't it? I don't process every photo for every client before they see them as I am not God and don't have 36 hours of every 24 hour day to process photos. Have you seen a RAW image before? Wouldn't you want to know what the hell you were looking at and why?
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Forms
All of your forms are centered which provides a very awkward layout. The form buttons do not match. On your restoration services page, the submit button does not match the reset button. The submit button reads "Submit and Proceed to Download Area".... Wait a minute, I thought we were "uploading" an image... why do I want to go to a "download" area? |
Ok...I'll change the word to "upload" - but if you couldn't grasp the fact that that is a PHP TEMPLATE for uploading rather than a page I made, I don't think you should be doing an in depth review of the site.
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
I hope this sheds a little more light on my other more "general" statements from above. Overall I was not impressed. You asked for an opinion, and that was mine... free of charge. ;-)
I will add that I did not read a single word on your site. I was preoccupied with the disharmony of conflicting fonts, supersized wording, and pastel colors. I hope the site was proof read. Would anyone else be willing to look at this aspect of the site? |
I still don't think you completely understand what you are saying with fonts. You failed to notice that the layouts on services pages matched so much so that you even claimed they didn't match...you are confusing and overzealous in your comments...how many different fonts do you see on this site? Damnit... DOWN WITH DPC AND THEIR 4 DIFFERENT FONTS!!!! HOW DARE THEY! |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:42:14 PM · #45 |
And how on earth...Palmetto....could you claim that my site is gaudy??? Have you visited yours lately? Knight Rider would be proud. And I tried to visit the baby gallery...it never came up.
WOW...after seeing your site I know that I no longer have to take you seriously.
Message edited by author 2006-06-28 16:44:56. |
|
|
|
06/28/2006 04:46:52 PM · #46 |
Done here too. This thread is a complete shame. I apologise to all who took time to respond to it, there was nothing awaiting you but argument and attack. Your opinions are valueless to this poster.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/04/2025 04:38:57 AM EDT.
