WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Site Critiques



Message

JohnLearner -> WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/13/2005 11:33:37)

Just seeking opinions, and ideas (if you feel that it is too static)...

http://www.wealthcare-uk.com/

Thanks,

John.



jaybee -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 5:05:25)

It is static but then I don't think people expect financial sites to be leaping around with glee.

I'm still not a fan of the toothpaste green but then that's just me.



Donkey -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 5:43:51)

I find the cream background makes the green links unconfortable to read.

Sorry checking again they aren't links presumably the random green words are for emphasis?  Still not a good combination of colours IMHO.



Peppergal -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 9:31:52)

I agree on the green...I dislike that color, and green is a favorite color of mine.

The colored words that aren't links are confusing. I'd just have them be bold, rather than colored.



Tailslide -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 10:06:02)

Hi

I hate to jump on the bandwagon but I agree that the choice of colours may actually detract from the very useful content of the site.

Have a look at this page for some suggestions on colour combos colorcombos.com What about combo number 4 - it's still green/blue/cream but softer versions.

Also you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE a valid Document Type Declaration as the first thing in the HTML which is currently missing. Go here for a list http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

And (personal opinion here so feel free to ignore) do you need the IFA logo twice. Maybe you should look at designing a more stylised Logo for WealthCare-UK and have that in the top left position instead.

Very usefull content though and very clear navigation.



JohnLearner -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 13:50:12)

Hey, jaybee & Donkey, we discussed this before at http://www.frontpagewebmaster.com/m-203875/tm.htm - remember? jaybee said "The colours of the site reminded me of something but I couldn't think what so I ran it past my other half. He said...... toothpaste. That's exactly it. Great for a toothpaste site, wrong for a finance site."

That was the old pastel colours, which I changed following suggestions by Giomanach - I used his blue, but adapted his green.

I learnt through that Topic that it's useless to ask people's opinion's on colours - you'll just get too many to be able to use/work on.

I opened this current Topic because dpf said he "got seasick with all the movement on the page". Now I find it a bit static. But if the colours disturb you all more than the lack of movement (jaybee's right - it shouldn't leap about), then I've got my answer. [;)]

BTW, thanks for the compliment on content & navigation, Tailslide. I've looked into the Document Type Declaration thingy before - 1000s of sites don't have them, and it doesn't seem to make any difference in the slightest. I put them in a site once and it messed up several things I was trying to do. Since then, I don't put them in. The idea of designing a more stylised logo for WealthCare-UK, however, does appeal to me - the  2 IFA logos are just for balance, but I could easily replace one of them & still get balance.

Thanks for the help, folks,

John.



Tailslide -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 16:02:32)

If it messed your site up when you put in a DTD then maybe you put in the wrong one - but you should always put one in - otherwise browsers won't know how to treat your page. It may have worked for you previously in a particular set of browsers but that's not to say it will keep working on newer browsers or older ones.

There are a lot of sites out there without valid DTDs - and they should get a valid one too.

You won't be able to validate your site without one - so you won't be able to be sure you've coded correctly.

Probably not what you wanted to hear - but publishing a page without a DTD is starting down the path to the dark side and you know what they say about that...!



Peppergal -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/14/2005 18:35:59)

Aren't you going to have to comply with accessibility laws? I don't think your site would pass if it's not valid.




jaybee -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/15/2005 6:47:18)

I haven't checked the whole site but the main page validates to WCAG 1 which is all that's required by law over here at the moment.

Where you do have a problem John is with the feedback form which doesn't validate at all. It's also a bravenet freebie which doesn't look terribly professional.



JohnLearner -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/15/2005 8:05:26)

I use half a dozen browsers for testing, and can't see any problems. As for the 'law', I note jaybee's remarks. This is a UK site, therefore I have to comply with UK laws. However, Tailslide & Peppergal, I will look into this again...

jaybee, I know what you're saying about the Bravenet feedback form. I would have used a FP one, but the Extensions are not available for this site. I weighed up the pros & cons and decided on the one I have. It's really only to incite visitors to contact us directly. Let's get real: If they're on this site for financial reasons, and need to contact us, the niceties of the Net and of professional-looking pages really don't concern them.

I have always tried to follow the generally-known rules of Webmastering, but there are times when you just have to place less emphasis on them to fulfill your purpose. Again, I'll look at another way to include a simple feedback form (though I did do that when first building the site).

John.



jaybee -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/15/2005 8:21:23)

http://www.thesitewizard.com/wizards/feedbackform.shtml

You'll still need to customise it to get it to validate but that's fairly straightforward.



Peppergal -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/15/2005 14:29:04)

quote:

This is a UK site, therefore I have to comply with UK laws


I know...that's why I raised the question about validity. I didn't realize that you didn't have to follow W3C standards is all.

I do not think that there are any "laws" concerning accessibility here in the USA - if there are, I'm unaware of them.



jaybee -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/15/2005 16:28:55)

quote:

I didn't realize that you didn't have to follow W3C standards is all.


He does, as a commercial site he has to validate at WCAG1 it's part of the Disability Discrimination Act.

You have Section 508 in the US



LoriL1212 -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 2:36:15)

I personally don't feel that you can define a site as too "static"... but that is just my opinion.

John, I think you have good, strong content, and very user friendly navigation... the lack is not in the dynamics of the design, but moreso the WOW factor...

Granted, your message does not have to say WOW - but it sure never hurts.

I will not harp on the green, as I tried previously to offer you a design with more harmonized colors, but the combo just does not fare well on my eyes :)

Nice to see you again though :)



kevin3442 -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 3:39:33)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnLearner

...I learnt through that Topic that it's useless to ask people's opinion's on colours - you'll just get too many to be able to use/work on....


It seems like the opinions about the green are pretty consistent in this case.  And not to pile on, but I'm going to throw in a "me too."  I like green.  But I don't like that green with that blue.  Maybe a different shade of green?

As to "static"...  nothing wrong with that in my book.  Static = Non-distracting.  Easy to read, easy to use, easy to navigate.  Nicely done.

Cheers,

Kevin



JohnLearner -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 6:43:52)

Wow! Lots of helpful stuff - thanks, everybody.

On the colours, this is cool: http://www.visibone.com/colorlab/ - I see that visibone is mentioned elsewhere in these Forums, but I guess it does no harm to bring it out again.

Hey, LoriL1212, I remember - you did a demo test page for me, didn't you? Hope you're well. Nice to see you again too!

Anyway, seems like I've got the basics right: "Easy to read, easy to use, easy to navigate" - thanks, Kev.

Here's something that struck me as a result of the above posts: Who's 'laws' do you have to follow if a site is aimed at the UK, but hosted in Canada, as WealthCare-UK.com is?



dpf -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 8:21:50)

quote:

Who's 'laws' do you have to follow if a site is aimed at the UK, but hosted in Canada, as WealthCare-UK.com is?
If I can make a comparison with US Interstate Commerce law, you make a good point and generally, you are accountable to the laws:
a] where your physical place of business is...
b]any jurisdiction where you have a "physical presence".
In all likelihood, hosting would qualify under b]



jaybee -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 8:30:37)

Don't think hosting has anything to do with it. It's the business owner and where they operate that business. I have many UK business sites hosted in Canada but the UK laws apply to my clients as they are UK businesses, operating in the UK.

I have one site that operates worldwide and that has been validated  to WCAG3 which should cover any laws out there.



dpf -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 8:46:30)

quote:

Don't think hosting has anything to do with it
perhaps not, but....  a web site is physical file on a physical computer - the argument could be made; whether it is the winning argument or not remains to be seen.  However, you are correct, where the company does business is pivotal.  Also, if a company had a "statutory agent" (one who acts on company's behalf) in another country, even if that agent had no role in the web site, that legal entity would subject all of the companies operations, including thier web site, to those regulations.
In a prior thread on this topic, someone raised an interesting point - if the designer dint foloow statutes and the client/owner of the site gets in trouble, could the company come after the web designer?  The argument could be made that the designer was hired as an expert and was therefore responsible for applying the statutes in his/her profession.  I know htat if I take a home remodeling job, I am liable that the work meets the code.  I dont know the answers - just a thought.  hey, I'm thoughtless  <hehe>



jaybee -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 10:30:43)

quote:

could the company come after the web designer?


Yes, unless the web designer has something in writing from the client to say that they chose not to have the site meet regs despite having been advised to the contrary.



kevin3442 -> RE: WealthCare-UK.com - is it too static? (5/18/2005 12:17:08)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee

Don't think hosting has anything to do with it.


I believe it does in the U.S.  Seems to me I hear now and then of a host company being held responsible for the content of the site(s) it hosts.    The laws may vary from state to state.  And our Interstate Commerce laws certainly apply.  That's why you often see notices like, "residents of ____ (fill in the state) must add __% sales tax" on commercial sites; beacuse the site is physically operated out of that particular state, so interstate tax exemption does not apply.

Of course, if in doubt, you could err on the side of caution.

Kevin



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.714844E-02