Sporting Arms Review (Full Version)

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



Message

SuperConductor -> Sporting Arms Review (3/12/2002 0:46:49)

Hello All...again.

This is a site that has not been released, still testing. Wanted to get your feedback. Some info is still missing.

This was a quick revision to the original...please make a comparison.

Original: http://www.sportingarms.com
Test: http://www.sportingarms.com/test

Please feel free to place orders on the TEST site. We will not be live for another 2 weeks or so. The ORIGINAL is LIVE, Please no test submission on the Original site.

Also, this is the owner's vision...not mine. I have convinced him to let me take the next revision to a more 'professional' look (with more functionality)...so you won't be telling me anything new about the look of this one, but it is appreciated and welcomed.

Thanks in advance.

SuperConductor

If hindsight were foresight...I'd be a friggin' genius!


Edited by - SuperConductor on 03/12/2002 01:30:06



Paula -> RE: Sporting Arms Review (3/12/2002 1:49:44)

It looks good to me, much more professional and functional. The only thing I would comment on is the logo, I think it's a little difficult to read at the smaller size. Great job!

Paula
The more I learn the less I seem to know.



Non-Profit -> RE: Sporting Arms Review (3/12/2002 11:48:52)

Hi, SuperConductor.

Nice work.

I noticed 2 thihngs.
1. You didn't have alt-text for graphics
2. On the Contact page, I don't know that I would put "Not Required" right next to the boxes like that. I think that you could make a box where the default text says anonymous but the user can overwrite it if they want. I've seen this before but don't know exactly how to do it myself. If you're going to just go with the words there, consider putting them in parentheses.

That is IMHO.

Tony

 



SuperConductor -> RE: Sporting Arms Review (3/12/2002 11:58:44)

Tony,

Thanks for the input.

I'll take care of the graphics.

The problem we have had for the past 2 years is that people were either not inputting information, or not inputting the right type of information. Initially, we had a lot checks and balances, via JavaScript, but we also found we had quite a number of users with JavaScript off. We've gone to a lot server side business rules, but we still had people getting frustrated with the 'format' / 'required' info...I couldn't understand it. We found for the most part that AOL users were simply putting their username in for an email address, etc., etc. So we are trying to make it as idiot-proof as possible.

Is it overkill?

SuperConductor

If hindsight were foresight...I'd be a friggin' genius!



Non-Profit -> RE: Sporting Arms Review (3/12/2002 22:32:50)

I don't know if "overkill" is the right word. I know that when I'm filling out a form and it just has an asterix next to the required fields that's usually enough for me. As long as it is says that an asterix denotes a required field somewhere at the top of the form.

Another way to do it is to color code fields. Say, required info is typed in blue and optional info is in red. This might cause problems for people who are color-blind but you could get the same effect by using bolded type and regular type.

I'm not positive how accessibility issues will fit in to your site, but that's my two cents!

Tony

 



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625