Site Critique...yes, another...ya know ya love it...

Adam

So it's that time of the day again! What do ya'll think?

And for the record, it's not the right domain, I've yet to register the domain I want yet.

On a side note, will having it on this domain and then changing it to the new one in a couple of weeks have any detrimental effects on SEO related issues?

monkeyfudge

Well it doesn't work very well on Firefox 2.0.0.1 on the Mac.



The text is almost unreadable and the navigation menu goes crazy and starts flicking when I move the mouse over it, clicking on the menu has no effect.

Adam

Hmmm... are there known issues on the Mac with things like font size and image src's??

I developed in FF 2.0.0.1...

monkeyfudge

Mirror wrote:

Hmmm... are there known issues on the Mac with things like font size and image src's??

None that I know of. Firefox has served me just as well on the Mac as on the PC.

My resolution is 1280 x 845, but it really shouldn't make any huge difference.

If I get the chance tomorrow I'll try it on another mac.

Adam

That would be appreciated, cheers. For the record, the nav bar is meant to be images, with javascript rollovers, and works fine for me, I even tried clearing my cache just in case... So what you're seeing is the images alt tags and they're flickering presumably because of the rollover effect remaining...

Ziycon

Im using the latest Firefox on a PC and the menu links shrink dramatically when the cursor goes over then and they stay small, also the text is very hard on the eyes to read.

Adam

*slaps self in face*

Sorry guys, stupid mistake, the images were still linked from localhost, hence why I was seeing them... :rolleyes:

louie

first i'll start by removing this notice:

Designed for Firefox © | Best viewed at 1024x768 resolution

so unprofessional. If you design a website then take in consideration everyone.

Second if you want to show the W3C logo make them smaller and fade them out a bit plus put them at the very bottom of the page. It seems it caches your eye quicker then anything else on the page.

I'll choose a different font-family as well and make it a litlle bit bigger.

mneylon

The text size is too small. I'm practically squinting to read it

phil

Use relative font sizes also.

Personally, I use 'em':
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-size-props

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html

Phil.

nikimere

louie wrote:

Second if you want to show the W3C logo make them smaller and fade them out a bit

The WC3 dont actually allow you do this... but most people do it anyway because their logos are kak!

mick.fr

Well I don't mean to be rude but when I see your website I really do not want to give you my websites design.

Your portfolio and the websites you designed look much better than your own.
You should really improve it and remove those W3C completely anyway in my opinion.

heggie

can't read it on camino on my mac. -same prob as monkeyfudge posted.

Adam

Ok guys thanks for all the comments, appreciated as always! I took mick.fr's advice for the most part because when I came back to the site this evening I found myself not liking it very much... So I just did a quick redesign in the last hour as I've to toddle off to work in a bit, but let me know what you think of the direction its taking now? Cheers!

DonkeyStyle \o/

Mirror wrote:

let me know what you think of the direction its taking now? Cheers!

1). The w3c badges look pretty nasty... they don't appear to have scaled well... I'd relegate them to text personally, but that's just me.

2). That 3D bevel on the roll-over buttons is so 2001... I'd abandon it and go for something more 'clean'.

3). On your "contact us" page, you then go on to say "use this form to contact me"... it makes you sound either schizophrenic or like someone who's pretending they have a big company when they don't... which comes across badly IMO and may be the cause of future embarrassment.

4). I'd consider using thumbnails on the portfolio page.

5). Also on the contact page, you have asterisks *, yet no footnote for them... I know they're a standard convention in forms at this stage, but sites having *'s without notes to resolve it is a pet peeve of mine... and you can't expect everyone to just think "Ah, he means 'required field'".

6). The site is sparse and plain. It could be considered minimalist if only it was a bit more elegant, but the loud colours rob it of any such dignity.

Honestly, if I were doing a site for myself and it looked like that, I'd start over**... retreat to photoshop and set yourself a real challenge... forget about what you can do with html/css and just shoot for the stars... worry about actually building it later.


**Which is probably why I don't have the balls to make a site for myself and start pimping out my services. I'm my own worst critic and probably never will.

axer

Just a few random thoughts...

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

1). The w3c badges look pretty nasty... they don't appear to have scaled well... I'd relegate them to text personally, but that's just me.

I second that. I never use the images - just a little text in the bottom of the page for my own testing purposes.

The website doesnt seem to be validating for me. Showing 2 warnings for me in tidy:

line 42 column 57 - Warning: <img> attribute "]" lacks value
line 20 column 809 - Warning: <img> attribute "width" has invalid value "368px"

0 errors / 2 warnings

and 1 error in the w3c validator for front page:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cavanrock.com%2F wrote:

This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!

Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Error Line 42 column 126: character "]" not allowed in attribute specification list....g" alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional"]></a> <a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css

I think you need to go back to the drawing board with this one. Keep it neat.

Shadows can work well at the edge of the content but the shadow (repeating) background you used doesnt look right. Looks too hard.

Give different page titles for each page e.g. adamgibbons.net - Irish Web Design - home, adamgibbons.net - Irish Web Design - portfolio etc.

Are you really going to have advertising on the page?

I think the page also needs some images or even one image. Maybe you could incorporate it into the header somehow.

Yes, include thumbnails in your portfolio and remove the "give out about" link in the portfolio - links to a suspended page.

Thats all for now.

Adam

Thanks again guys!

I pre-empted you DonkeyStyle, I had gone back to the drawing board before even checking back here, the second design really was thrown together and it shows!

So in response to your post:

1)I agree, I'm already sick of them, they're not very elegant and mean little to the average client anyway I imagine!

2)I agree again, even when I was putting them together I was thinking to myself "Why? They're tacky..."

3)Yes, you're right, its just me, but I hope to expand as soon as I can to pick up someone with flash perhaps rather than try and master it myself, also I started with "me" rather than "us" but found it hard to sound professional, it just seems more like a personal web page... thoughts?

4)Had that in mind, going to get right on it!

5)An honest mistake, I always do place a note.

6)True, but I plan to add some more content, perhaps a neat, relative news feed of sorts, and maybe a sort of work related blog section, undecided yet but something more than there is...

And lastly, I think we are alike in a sense, I doubt I will ever be completely content with my site, but its necessary and I enjoy the process regardless, its all experience!

@axer

I don't know how that crept in, the pages were validating originally... I mustn't have rechecked after changing the latest bits. Thanks for pointing it out though. As for your other points, all are taken into account with the new(and hopefully final!) design.

Cheers all!

Adam

Alrighty then, here's where we stand! http://www.cavanrock.com/

It will probably need to be refreshed mind you!

This is definitely closer to where I want to get... I'm pondering something to jazz up the home page a little, I like keeping it clean and I feel it looks a lot more dignified now. Just some little injection on the home page.... *ponders*

Seth Brundle

I don't know what the previous version looked like but I don't like the current one at all.
Too much white space, nothing jumping out at me, rotten looking buttons on the left, etc.
Also why is cavanrock.com about adamgibbons.net?
your disclaimer link gives a 404.
Sorry for being blunt.

Adam

Thats ok, critique appreciated! I suppose it's different strokes for different folks to a degree. I cant please everybody unfortunately.

The domain thing is just because I haven't registered the .net yet and wanted to put the site up somewhere for critique before officially advertising a launch. Also haven't written a disclaimer.

Can I ask what you might change? Why do you find the nav buttons rotten? Any suggestions to fill the whitespace, which I acknowledged was a bit much in my previous post?

Thanks again

mick.fr

Templatemonster.com is a great place where I found lot of inspiration myself.
I am not a web designer but I have got about 15 websites and to have something nice and cheap I was looking for templates.
So even if you do not buy anything from them , you can actually get inspiration for sure.
Some of the authors are fu**** good. And definitly nowadays web site design goes with Flash. No flash : Not pretty, can not sell !!

heggie

thats not true at all, a website doesnt need flash, take a look at cssbeauty.com for starters, there is plenty of sites without flash that look great.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Mirror wrote:

Why do you find the nav buttons rotten?

They're a bit... ehh... phallic, especially when they thrust in and out of the screen like that (or am I just sick? )
They still look like something from a gaming clan website... I think the font has a lot to answer for there.
They're also a bit "out there on their own" especially when the browser window is enlarged.
The rollover for them jumps a bit too much, an animation like that is probably better suited to flash where the transition can be smooth and smart looking.
For html/css I'd opt for a something more subtle like a colour change or highlight.

Mirror wrote:

Any suggestions to fill the whitespace, which I acknowledged was a bit much in my previous post?

Stock photos of a woman with a headset smiling and another one of two men in suits shaking hands ... or whatever, they're both horrible clichés and take buckets of skill to use them without looking stupid and off-the-shelf, but it's one general direction (stock photos) you could take to fill the gap.
Look at how other sites fill the whitespace... often they just use random crap like a slightly differently coloured circle plopped somewhere... things with little or no real significance but for some reason look spectacular... I suppose this is what people study design for.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Mirror wrote:

also I started with "me" rather than "us" but found it hard to sound professional, it just seems more like a personal web page... thoughts?

There's nothing unprofessional about being a freelancer.
There's a lot unprofessional about being the junior vice president of your one-man mega corporation.

Think about it like this, if a client asked you to your face how many people were employed at your company or how many people are on your design team... would you regret having given the impression that you're more than a one-man operation?

If you think using "me" and "I" sounds too mickey mouse, re-word it... hell, refer to yourself in the third person if you want... but know that making your business/experience out to be more than it is can eventually backfire with awkward silence and red faces.

But I dunno, maybe it won't... maybe nobody will even pick up on it... but I wouldn't take the risk personally, I'm not a good liar.

mick.fr

heggie wrote:

thats not true at all, a website doesnt need flash, take a look at cssbeauty.com for starters, there is plenty of sites without flash that look great.

Well non-flash websites are pretty static. This is a matter of fact.
But of course you can do quiet nice and effective non-flash websites. I agree.

Anyway a webdesigner that is unable to design flash websites is not a webdesigner in my opinion.

heggie

sure, but to quote you, no flash not pretty isnt true, there are practical applications for using and intentionally not using flash in any given situation

mneylon

mick.fr wrote:

Anyway a webdesigner that is unable to design flash websites is not a webdesigner in my opinion.

That's rubbish

Would you consider Eric Meyer to be a designer or a fake?

Seth Brundle

Personally I have a disliking for the gratutious use of flash!
Is a flash website a true website or just an online animation?

mneylon

IMHO a lot depends on how it is done

Some Flash websites are truly fantastic

Others seem to be completely pointless

axer

mick.fr wrote:

Well non-flash websites are pretty static. This is a matter of fact.
But of course you can do quiet nice and effective non-flash websites. I agree.

Anyway a webdesigner that is unable to design flash websites is not a webdesigner in my opinion.

Wow, that is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever read.

The majority of flash websites I have visited are ruined by the use of flash.

Flash is a great tool for as part of a website but only if done right and it is not by far an necessity.

Adam

Ok guys, thanks all again! It's been updated a bit this afternoon, good or bad? Also, can anyone work out why the portfolio page extends to wide in IE7?? (possibly IE6- too, but I dont have any other versions to check)

Thanks!

axer

There are more problems. If your screen resolution is 800*600 you get the page like is attached. You really need to work on your layout and structure your divs better. I think that is why the portfolio page is messed up.

louie

Mirror wrote:

Ok guys, thanks all again! It's been updated a bit this afternoon, good or bad? Also, can anyone work out why the portfolio page extends to wide in IE7?? (possibly IE6- too, but I dont have any other versions to check)

Thanks!

Don't like it.
First: try to work on a fixed width layout (800px)
Second: used % to get the width of the inside divs, like 25% for the left and 75% for the main div. That will sort out your problem for screens with smaller resolution.
Third: those button style are so 70's (sorry).
Forth: Try the logo without the button look. It will look better. 70's as well.

axer

Mirror wrote:

Also, can anyone work out why the portfolio page extends to wide in IE7??

Your id called "main" has a width defined as 600px but the images in your portfolio page is wider than 600px.

I dont see the point in having your main div on the page set to 98% but yet having your content div set to a static 600px.

I'd follow louie's advice and stick to a fixed width layout.

Adam

Cheers guys, I'll sort the latest out tomorrow sometime. I know the divs and that got a bit all over the place, I had intended to just get the jist and then refine it all and make it nice and neat and cross browser compatible as much as possible, thanks for the advice though, I know what your saying!

I'm surprised about the opinion on the buttons, I didn't think they were really that bad...

Adam

Ok, I've spent the entire night (no, I haven't slept, thanks for asking!) swinging back and forth around different designs, and tiredness has prevailed, so I'm not sure whether I'm actually pleased with the result here or just too tired to care! I think I'm pleased though... if I could only come up with something nice for the navigation I'd be happy... any suggestions are welcome!

louie

First anytime you want us to look at the new changes try adding a link to the website in the post. I have to keep going back to the first post for it and this forum is kind of slow.

It looks a lot better, but for some reason in IE7 the text is bigger and it breaks apart the Portfolio page. In FF it looks grand.

I will try to use the logo directly in the source so you can make it a link back to the home page.

axer

It is a small bit better.

Why has the port id got a width of 600px when its contents are wider than that?

Would it not be better to use divs for each of the portfolio items than a table?

You put an image and text in the same link in the order of <img>TEXT but put the <br /> before the image. I think that is another thing that is causing the problem in IE7.

<a href="http://www.propertysaleorrent.ie/" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.cavanrock.com/images/psor_thumb.gif" alt="Property Sale Or Rent" class="port_img"><br>
Property Sale Or Rent</a>

instead of

<a href="http://www.propertysaleorrent.ie/" target="_blank"><br><img src="http://www.cavanrock.com/images/psor_thumb.gif" alt="Property Sale Or Rent" class="port_img">Property Sale Or Rent</a>

Adam

I need to stop working and start sleeping!

Have a munch on this anyhow: http://www.cavanrock.com/

More styles coming to a website near you!

axer

Definitely better.

You may want to drop the blue on word/phrases like "most competitive prices" etc. as blue suggests a link. Use the blue for links in the page and highlight the words using a different colour or just bold.

See if you can put an image or two in there somewhere as it looks a bit plain without any.

Overall a great improvement - well done.