I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it.

I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (Full Version)

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

Message

MrHodgepodge -> I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 4:23:31)
I would like your reviews and comments to be as unforgiving as possible; I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. Please, you are invited to review / criticise my site HERE Hopefully I have achieved all the points and recommendations since my last submission on 15/Nov/06 Your reviews can be light-hearted, humorous, full of attitude, and maybe even nonsensical but please provide positive feedback for future development. This is my personal site that was initially intended to share with friends & family. I thought I would take it just a little bit further… I was delighted with the response from my first post so I thought I would have another go. Kind Regards Mr H

anderskorte -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 5:38:31)
It's nice and clean, but could be a lot more professional. The logo deserves more than Verdana with drop-shadow. The navigation could be a little more interesting than just a few underlined links lined up next to each others. Make them look worth the clicks. It's only missing some style. And I think a video company is a lot about style.

jaybee -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 7:01:56)
Well I rather like the main site. It's clean and uncluttered. The photography page could do with being tied into the main site better. At the moment it looks like a separate site. The rest of the site uses black red and white. Change the Photography bit to use the same colours.

womble -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 9:42:35)
Looks good. The only thing I could find wrong with it really was the iframes - I don't think there's an need for them.

d a v e -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 12:21:41)
no doctype either

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 15:26:43)
quote: It's nice and clean, but could be a lot more professional. The logo deserves more than Verdana with drop-shadow. The navigation could be a little more interesting than just a few underlined links lined up next to each others. Make them look worth the clicks. It's only missing some style. And I think a video company is a lot about style Your points taken onboard, yes I will have to look at the branding side of things. Thought I would go with something simple to start with. My next rebuild will hopefully have something more adventuress. Unfortunately the video side of things eats up a lot of time. If I don’t act on your recommendations its not because I don’t want to, I do, its just difficult getting the work/home life balance even. Many Thanks Mr H

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 15:37:12)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaybee Well I rather like the main site. It's clean and uncluttered. The photography page could do with being tied into the main site better. At the moment it looks like a separate site. The rest of the site uses black red and white. Change the Photography bit to use the same colours. Jaybee Advice taken, had a quick shuffle with the .css in the colorpack directory. Hopefully it blends in a bit better now. Thanks Again Ps thanks for the Firefox recommendation.

womble -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 15:38:03)
I actually disagree with Anders - I think simple's what the site needs. With the video content you've got I think if the titles and nav start to get "fancy" it'll all look too busy and cluttered. Simple and uncomplicated is what the site needs, and I think that it looks professional as it is. Sometimes simpler is better, and I think this is one of those occasions.

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 16:07:13)
quote: ORIGINAL: womble I actually disagree with Anders - I think simple's what the site needs. With the video content you've got I think if the titles and nav start to get "fancy" it'll all look too busy and cluttered. Simple and uncomplicated is what the site needs, and I think that it looks professional as it is. Sometimes simpler is better, and I think this is one of those occasions. Hi Womble Ok this is where my ignorance shows through. Are iframes old hat? Should I have gone for a pop up window or a new page for each clip? I was trying to keep it all contained and give the appearance it was all on one page. Thanks for all the comments. Yes I don’t like any complications nice and simple (just like the man himself) Mr H

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 16:09:23)
quote: ORIGINAL: d a v e no doctype either Hi dave Sorry, no doctype I don’t understand Mr H

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 16:15:37)
Everyone On my first submission, there were issues viewing the video clips. Now that I have converted the files can anyone advise if there is a problem? The original format was in .wmv I have since converted to flash and recently installed firefox at my end and all seems ok. Mr H

womble -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 16:48:08)
Hi Mr H, These two pages - Alistapart: fix your site with the right doctype, and Web Design Group: Choosing a doctype explain all about doctypes. Basically they tell the browser which variety of HTML to expect and you stand more chance of your site displaying right with a doctype rather than leaving the broswer to make it's best guess. As for the iframes, I didn't mean the video content, rather the text that's in iframes with the horrid scroll bars (screenshot attached). You've not got huge amounts of text so there's really no need for the scrollbars, and especially on the portfolio navigation - it's distracting from the cleanness of the rest of the page. That said, not all browsers support iframes, and personally for your video clips I'd use includes rather than iframes, simply because includes are processed server-side so don't need the browser to do anything, so you're not going to get browsers that can't see your films. I'd also if possible not have the vids start playing automatically, for the simple reason that if you've got speakers on your computer switched on, the instant you hit the site you get blasted with the music - that and the fact that if you're browsing at work when you're supposed to be working, your computer blaring out music suddenly is a bit of a giveaway. [;)] [image]local://upfiles/14943/15666D54CC564AE1ADC87F1C77549091.gif[/image] btw, the vids are displaying fine for me.

jaybee -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/3/2006 17:21:26)
OK photography page is better but the title text at the top looks a bit weedy. Can you do it the same ways as you've done with the black and red in JGFilm.com? Also, put the menu bar at the top that you have on all the other pages. I felt a bit lost when I wanted to get back to the home page. I guessed at the JGFilm link but anyone coming in direct to photography won't have a clue. Vids fine here as well.

anderskorte -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/4/2006 8:35:48)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrHodgepodge branding That is the keyword I wanted to see! You need stronger branding. quote: ORIGINAL: womble I actually disagree with Anders - I think simple's what the site needs. With the video content you've got I think if the titles and nav start to get "fancy" it'll all look too busy and cluttered. Simple and uncomplicated is what the site needs, and I think that it looks professional as it is. Sometimes simpler is better, and I think this is one of those occasions. I didn't say professional means cluttered. Vice versa. Professional means also handling simplicity professionally. Taking out everything that is unnecessary, but leaving the real substance. If everything you ever needed was a white background, black text and a simple copied-from-your-neighbour layout, everyone would be a professional and we'd be out of jobs. This is professional handling of simplicity. And this. And this. And also maybe this. Typography is the common quality factor.

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/4/2006 10:36:32)
quote: That is the keyword I wanted to see! You need stronger branding. Hi, Anderskorte, This forum is great. I love this place!! OK, OK, I am slowly ploughing a track through all the recommendations that have come my way. I’m grateful for all. I consider myself to be one notch above a novice: so it’s going to take time… but I will get there (I hope). I’m no way a professional. A wise man knows his limitations and I’m at my boundaries with all this. I feel like a shark swimming with the dolphins. I appreciate the links/examples to straightforward Typography logos. I will endeavour to be a little more creative once my head stops spinning. Kind Regards Mr H

womble -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/4/2006 11:28:25)
quote: ORIGINAL: anderskorte This is professional handling of simplicity. And this. And this. And also maybe this. Typography is the common quality factor. Sorry Anders, but I see nothing outstanding about those.

anderskorte -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/4/2006 15:02:25)
quote: ORIGINAL: womble Sorry Anders, but I see nothing outstanding about those. It's okay, I guess it depends on the situation. If web design is all about doctypes, accessibility and ”clean looks”, it's just one way of doing the job. For me it's design-oriented and I judge webworks based on that. I think web as a medium isn't inferior to print, so the same principles apply. Most of the audience doesn't know anything about design, and most of the designers themselves know only little. Web design is a young field and common measures for quality are still under debate. In those links, I see attention to detail and careful visual balance. It's not always easy to see on a first quick glimpse, but they are surely works of professional graphic designers. Yes, I believe good design does stand out. But it surely doesn't stand out for everyone. [:)] User experience is what counts the most.

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 13:18:02)
quote: Basically they tell the browser which variety of HTML to expect and you stand more chance of your site displaying right with a doctype rather than leaving the broswer to make it's best guess Hi Womble, OK I had a look at this, all I did was copy and paste from top one of my flash pages on to my FP pages . Do not know if this is right or not but its all I could think of. My brain hurts!! Many Thanks Mr H

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 13:20:59)
quote: That said, not all browsers support iframes, and personally for your video clips I'd use includes rather than iframes, simply because includes are processed server-side so don't need the browser to do anything, so you're not going to get browsers that can't see your films. I'm Lost!! I have no idea what includes are[:o] Mr H

jaybee -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 13:34:58)
You set up a separate page that contains, for example, just your menu. Then where the code for the menu would be in each page, you put an include call and the server automatically drops the code in when a page is requested. The advantage is that if you need to change something you only have to change it in one place, not every single page. Likewise, you can include page content so you set up a page with menus, headers etc, then set up a load of others with the content only, then copy your basic page use an include in each one to bring in the content. Gives you something similar to frames without all the associated problems. The Outfront Tutorials (Blue bar top of page) expalin all about includes. There are 2 tutorials there covering FP includes, PHP includes etc.

MrHodgepodge -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 14:37:45)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaybee The advantage is that if you need to change something you only have to change it in one place, not every single page. Hi Jaybee Many thanks, this sounds ideal. Will give this a lot of attention. Unfortunately I,ve been taking an ear bashing for spending to much time on the pc again. Im trying to tidy up my forum page, took your advise on the blending in of the photo album page so thought I would try and extend it to my own forum. Not that I am expecting many visitors its just good to practice these things. I,ve have not touched .css (it was always on the back burner with me) until this week so I,m enjoying all the new features that are associated with this. Thanks again Mr H

jaybee -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 15:20:08)
quote: I,ve been taking an ear bashing for spending to much time on the pc again. Tell me about it. My OH was threatening to advertise for a lodger as he thought I'd moved out. [:D]

dpf -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 19:12:35)
quote: lot more professional ..why should a personal site be more professional?

dpf -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/5/2006 19:14:25)
quote: Professional means also handling simplicity professionally ..Logic 101 - circular reasoning

anderskorte -> RE: I’ve got broad shoulders, I can take it. (12/6/2006 8:27:11)
quote: ORIGINAL: dpf ..why should a personal site be more professional? Why not? And why post it in critiques if you don't want to make it better? [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: dpf quote: Professional means also handling simplicity professionally ..Logic 101 - circular reasoning Minimalism doesn't automatically make you a pro.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125