Website Feedback

jjmax

Hi,

I'm working on a site for a client and I'd appreciate any feedback you can offer.
This is a link to the first page, the rest of the site isn't up so the links don't work.

http://www.mrjohnpcs.com/bwef

Aside from general feedback, I've a few questions.

What do people think of using the Irish flag to represent English language?
I've mulled that one around in my head for a while, and I'll wait and see what the client thinks, but I'm not sure myself. Any thoughts? (I played around with creating a half-Irish/half-UK flag, like the US/UK flags you see, but it didn't really look right!).

The page seems to view without any issues in IE 6.0.
I've also tested in Netscape and Opera without any apparent issues.
Firefox has presented a problem.
There is a slight gap between the links on the left-hand nav menu, on normal text size this gap appears between "Public Liability" and "Conveyancing".
Although I thought it was between "Conveyancing" and "Wills and Probate" before, so it may move around.
It changes and goes away as you go through the different text sizes.
Can't figure it out.

Lastly, I'm trying to make the page as accessible as possible. I've checked out the BOBBY tool - http://webxact.watchfire.com/scanform.aspx, is that the best way to check your page for accessibility or are there better guides/tools for this?

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

AARRRGH

Hmmm. I know what you mean about the Irish flag. It does seem wrong. Half-Irish half-English is what I'd use. It's a tough call though.

Check out your HTML here -

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.mrjohnpcs.com/bwef/

Looks nice and rosy.

I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.1 and I can't see that gap you're talking about. Maybe it's only in an older version?

The website does seem very accessible, but I maybe a little too simple? (Note: I like simple, but I think this site might be too simple!!!)

I like it overall.

misterq

seems ok to me (Firefox 1.5), if a little plain for my taste.

Just a couple of points about the flags:
- If your main audience is Irish based, I suppose an Irish flag is fine.
- If I hadn't read your post before I viewed the site, I'm not sure I would have know the flags were for different language versions. Maybe a "chose your language" before them?

Maybe text labels would be better?

colm_c

Just on the whole flags / language issue - why isn't there an Irish language version? - since you have 5 other languages there that aren't native of here.

That would also kinda solve the whole what flag to I use for english.

Cork Skate

Even if you are not going to have an Irish version, still put both flags there, obviously they'll point to the same place but it'll look better.

The site does look a bit plain to be fair, but you'll probably sort that when you meet the client next, they'll give you more info and requests for features etc.

Seth Brundle

I have a huge amount of whitespace on the screen (1024*768) and there is an empty 3rd column that looks as if it would be better off removed. There is also a great deal of whitespace under the left navigation menu
Another otption for the language is a drop down menu (possibly with the map on it).

Im also not a big fan of "Last updated Feb 2006" but thats because Im a contrary aul fecker! I don't know why but I feel its in the same league as the old "best viewed in Internet Explorer X at 800*600"

jjmax

cheers for the ideas,

looking at it with your feedback in mind and in the cold light of day has given me plenty to consider, I'll get cracking on it again over the weekend.
I just removed the "best viewed" line before posting!
time to sexy this mo'fo up

ballooba

I disagree with KBannon. Last time I checked 800x600 was the most popular screen resolution by a fair whack. You are right to work to accomodate those (vast propotion of) users.

I wouldn't personally have 800x600 on my screen in a fit. But some older people can't read 1024x768 and a lot of people can't afford larger monitors.

If i was building that I would however look into putting a vertical border on either side. This saves people drawing that border in their mind. This could be achieved with a thin (potentially dotted or dashed) line or by using a different fill colour outside the border.

Seth Brundle

@ balloba - I didn't say design it for a specific resolution. I said that I dislike the line telling me that the site looks best in a certain resolution and with a certain browser. However, a designer should design for all, not just those with a certain screen preference. Similarly, I don't think a site should be designed to 1024 wide and lower res users have to scroll across.
The likes of boards for example works at X% rather than a fixed width and if possible that is (IMO) often the best.
However the site under review still has loads of whitespace @ 800*600 so my points about that still stand.

ballooba

I usually use relative rather than absolute width when designing pages. I would usually use 600 to 650 pixels wide. I prefer to have as much control as possible over how my pages appear. If you use relative values for width then you run into trouble with the absolute widths on your images etc.

Seth Brundle

[I think we have gone off topic here but anyway]
True, thats why I said 'often' the best rather than 'always'.
I like fixed widths. I just don't like being told that I should look at the site in a certain manner if you follow me.
Anyhow, we got onto this from my reference about the text at the bottom of a page which shouldn't (IMO) appear, not about the design methods used.

CuLT

ballooba wrote:

I usually use relative rather than absolute width when designing pages. I would usually use 600 to 650 pixels wide. I prefer to have as much control as possible over how my pages appear. If you use relative values for width then you run into trouble with the absolute widths on your images etc.

The solution? Why, to use dynamically resizing vector images

fre

A few observations

The links at the top (Home - Sitemap - links - Contact) are difficult to see - maybe make the text white on the dark blue bg?

I'd change 'links' to 'Partners' or something else - 'links' infers link farming to search engines.

Will you be publishing a Privacy Policy / Security statement?

On Firefox 1.0.7, I saw the white line between Pub. Liability & Convayencing


Hope that helps...


fre.

ballooba

kbannon wrote:

[I think we have gone off topic here but anyway]
True, thats why I said 'often' the best rather than 'always'.
I like fixed widths. I just don't like being told that I should look at the site in a certain manner if you follow me.
Anyhow, we got onto this from my reference about the text at the bottom of a page which shouldn't (IMO) appear, not about the design methods used.

I wasn't trying to disagree with you. Just encouraging healthy debate.

For the record, I agree that those statements are a waste of space. As if someone is going to change their setup just so that they can view your page. I think that developers and designers should try and cover as many bases as possible in terms of user's configuration. They should at least appeal to the lowest common denominator.

What annoys me even more than those statements is when you aren't allowed fill in a form because you aren't running MSIE/Netscape V6+.

The Muppet

I agree with alot of what has been said already, not having read the thread before I viewed I didn't realise the significance of the flags. The image of the building does not look right to me, its either out of focus or taken from too far away It just does not look as sharp as it should.

rsynnott

jjmax wrote:

What do people think of using the Irish flag to represent English language?
I've mulled that one around in my head for a while, and I'll wait and see what the client thinks, but I'm not sure myself. Any thoughts? (I played around with creating a half-Irish/half-UK flag, like the US/UK flags you see, but it didn't really look right!).

It's bloody stupid. Most people will assume that it means "Irish".

We provide expert advice and professional service throughout a variety of legal vocations to include:

Did they provide the text? Grammar is dubious. Oh, and capitalisation the list of services is broken.

jjmax

They're providing all the content including the pic of the building.

I should probably let this go but f' it -
rsynott -
It's a bit rich to comment on other people's grammar and then come out with a "sentence" like -

"Oh, and capitalisation the list of services is broken."

mneylon

The Irish flag would probably cause confusion unless it linking to a version "as gaeilge"

A Union Jack or Union Jack split with a Stars and Stripes is more likely to be recognised by international visitors

Any reason why the translations are in Eastern European languages only and not in French , Spanish or Italian?

rsynnott

Oops, yes, missed a word. How very, very embarrassing.

jjmax

yeah, they're aiming for business from those countries.
I think I'll go with Cork Skate's idea on using both flags, and let the client decide then.

dangerman

looks fine.

one thing:

any particular reason why you've stuck the w3c buttons there? Are people looking at a solicitor's website going to look at them and understand them? no. And because they're that eye-catching yellow and on the bottom right without needing a scroll my eye is drawn straight to them.

Remove them. Confusing for 99% of visitors, and the 1% of people who are webmasters who will understand those buttons who visit the solicitors site looking for info...well...

jjmax

I know what you mean, but isn't it also an accessibility thing?
It is important for a site like this to comply to these standards. It also doesn't hurt to show this!
I plan on putting the "WAI" accessibility logo there too, but I want to finish the site and make sure it is fully accessible first.
Thanks for the input though.

dangerman

jjmax wrote:

I know what you mean, but isn't it also an accessibility thing?
It is important for a site like this to comply to these standards. It also doesn't hurt to show this!
I plan on putting the "WAI" accessibility logo there too, but I want to finish the site and make sure it is fully accessible first.
Thanks for the input though.

I think it's sort of like a car manufacturer actually putting the safety (NCAP is it?) star rating on the front of the car.

I'd throw things like this in a seperate colophon/help section etc. it's definately not main page material but each to his own!

Actually, the compromise is to show this in small grey writing at the bottom of the page, giving it the level of visual importance it deserves - The buttons are far too big and eye catching.

jjmax

cheers,
I'll resize them.
I've tried already, (they're about 33% smaller than the ones from w3c) but if resized further they look "off". Any ideas on ways to resize without loss of quality?
I'm using Photoshop, and I've access to Fireworks.

dangerman

open up the w3 icons in photoshop.

goto image >> image size. and choose a smaller pixel size, should look ok if it's set to bicubic downsampling.

jjmax

i'll give that a go, thanks

evilhomer

dangerman wrote:

Actually, the compromise is to show this in small grey writing at the bottom of the page, giving it the level of visual importance it deserves - The buttons are far too big and eye catching.

There are a good few buttons here that are more subtle and will probably suit your needs jjmac: http://gtmcknight.com/buttons/validated.php

jjmax

thanks, they'll do the trick, I (hopefully) should have the updated site done in the next day, I really appreciate everyone's feedback it's been a great help.

jjmax

hey folks,

I'm almost finished the site, I think it looks much better.
As before, it's just the frontpage of the site, all the links are dead except those going offsite.
Here's the url -
http://www.mrjohnpcs.com/bwef
I'm fairly happy with it at this stage, I've a few things to add, but I wanted to get your feedback on it's current progress.
I know the initial site was very basic, but I'm afraid I might have gone a bit overboard with this one! :eek:
I'm probably a bad judge though.
The main thing that has me scratching my head now is the RSS feed on the right from RTE News.
Not sure whether to keep it or bin it.
It took a bit of doing to get it working properly, but I'm not sure I like it anymore.

I got rid of the W3C icons altogether, partly because of what dangerman was saying and this article:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon
But also because the feckless thing (the webpage) doesn't validate anymore due to html tags in the php script calling the rss feed.
I don't think this will cause any issues cross-browser or for accessibility, so I gave up trying to fix it and moved on.
Although I'd like to get it working properly, in Javascript you can use '\' to get around this problem, is there a similar work-around for php?
BTW, evilhomer thanks for the link, I came across this on the web, which could prove useful in the future -
http://ekstreme.com/buttonmaker/index.php
But for now the Validation buttons are gone from my site (yep, I'm just that fickle :rolleyes: )
I think I've addressed most of the issues that were pointed out earlier, but again I'd appreciate any feedback.

dangerman

great work on loosing the buttons.

One last thing that annoys me, is the fading in/out constantly animating graphic up the top. No reason for it.

And what's RTE news got to do with the site?

Look I lied, thats two things.

jjmax

cheers for the feedback,

That animation was annoying me too!
I think I'll just let it go through once then hold.
I know what you mean by the RTE thing, I'm not sure it works either, but I think I'll leave it in and let the client decide.
Thanks again for the help.

dangerman

The reason i brought up the rte one was:

would the client really want visitors to the site distracted by unrelated news items? they could be out shopping for a solicitor, see something interesting on your side bar, and leave the site. = bad for the client.

jjmax

yeah, I'll show it to the client and give them that scenario.
I think they'd like the idea of the news feed, but practically speaking it's probably not right.
From a design POV does it look ok on the page?

dangerman

you need padding on the grey box it's in. Apart from that it looks ok.

leftofcentre

Yeah bin the news feed, its not relavent.

jjmax

Howya folks!

Thanks again for all the feedback.
I presented the site 80% finished to the client yesterday and they seem very happy with it.
Thanks for all the help, I hope I can return the favour sometime.