[tim4christ]

I am a web designer. Here is the website I just finished designing: http://www.webconstructions.org. Tell me what you think. I would love any input (good or bad).

[gregwhitworth]

Looks ok. The graphics need a little work. First of all - your paperclip has unnecessary artifacts around it. The black text in your nav doesn't have enough contrast to make it EASILY legible to all users.

Most important - currently - your site loads in 9.9 seconds and that is not necessary. You only have 1 image in your flash and yet it is almost half a meg. You need to optimize your graphics and flash immensely. You logo for instance is 4 colors plus the gradient for the shadow - so a top of 15-30 colors (margin for aliasing of text) is needed to produce your logo. Yet it comes in at 75K. I have redone it as a 50% jpg - and now comes in at 23K. You may even be able to go lower with a gif - didn't have time to test too much.

Anyways, look at optimizing the site then I'll look into your layout.

Keep it up - it's looking good.

--

Greg

[kewlkreator]

The blue logo and black background don't fit together for my eyes. I like the paperclip , it gives a bulliten board feeling. The menu looks alright, again it doesn't fit with the background.

I like the cobweb (don't know why). But if you change the BG, it might have to change.

A good site idea, not bad. B Seem fitting Greg?

[gregwhitworth]

Quote

A good site idea, not bad. B Seem fitting Greg?

I think that you should ditch the grading system - mainly because it may inhibit some people to continue working on their site - while others that get an A may think that they shouldn't continue working on their site.

I would say a checklist is more optimum - and I guess you could use that as a grading system - for instance:

- Colors work well together (contrast and comfortability)
- Navigation is easily noticeable
- Navigation is easy to discern
- Overall GUI is intuitive

This could be built upon easily.

[tim4christ]

gregwhitworth, on 12 Aug, 2009 - 08:09 AM, said:

Looks ok. The graphics need a little work. First of all - your paperclip has unnecessary artifacts around it. The black text in your nav doesn't have enough contrast to make it EASILY legible to all users.

Most important - currently - your site loads in 9.9 seconds and that is not necessary. You only have 1 image in your flash and yet it is almost half a meg. You need to optimize your graphics and flash immensely. You logo for instance is 4 colors plus the gradient for the shadow - so a top of 15-30 colors (margin for aliasing of text) is needed to produce your logo. Yet it comes in at 75K. I have redone it as a 50% jpg - and now comes in at 23K. You may even be able to go lower with a gif - didn't have time to test too much.

Your right, the paperclip needs to be fixed. Could you suggest a color that would work for the nav? I always thought the low contrast looked cool, but I never thought about it being hard to read. Maybe your right though.

Do you think the bg should change too? I always thought the color scheme of black and blue looked cool kewlkreator.

The site definetly needs a serious compressing job on all the images. I'll try to work on that and get back to you in a couple days. Thanks!

[gregwhitworth]

@kewl -

been here the whole time.

Thanks firebolt.

http://www.dreaminco...topic117912.htm

--

Greg

[kewlkreator]

'S okay. I like your system (no hard feelings bolt )
<ontopic>
That was just my suggestion, I'm not an expert in backgrounds but perhaps a dark image background?
http://www.idesktopb...-background.jpg
^ Something like that?
</ontopic>

[tim4christ]

Quote

That was just my suggestion, I'm not an expert in backgrounds but perhaps a dark image background?
http://www.idesktopb...-background.jpg
^ Something like that?

That bg might work, I'm not sure. Honestly, it is mostly black anyway. What do you think Greg?

I also was able to cut the size of my flash down to less than half of what it was before! And I cut the size of my images down by a lot! Thanks Greg for the suggestion. I think that will make the loading time a whole lot faster now.

[gregwhitworth]

Quote

I think that will make the loading time a whole lot faster now.

And that is huge. We have done case studies for our agency and we have found that if you DON'T grab your audience withing the first 5-10 seconds, they're gone. So whatever you have on your site - you better have something that engages your user right away. (Also Depends on Demographic)

Quote

What do you think Greg?

WAY to distracting. We want people's eyes to be diverted to the web, which done currently. I personally would take that web, duplicate it and scale it by maybe 300% and fix it in the top right hand corner at about 50% opacity, basically a watermark in the corner. It's subtle, brand specific, and allows the user to maintain focus on what you want them to maintain focus on.

[tim4christ]

Hmm... I like the idea! Any more suggestions?

[markhazlett9]

Ya for sure, Change up the buttons. Add in some JQuery/ CSS hover effects. Also add some transparency to some of your elements. Try checking out http://bestwebgallery.com/ for current website trends/ etc. I would suggest a grunge background for your type of site, with maybe some very basic buttons. Cheers

Mark

[tim4christ]

markhazlett9, on 14 Aug, 2009 - 10:47 AM, said:

Ya for sure, Change up the buttons. Add in some JQuery/ CSS hover effects. Also add some transparency to some of your elements. Try checking out http://bestwebgallery.com/ for current website trends/ etc. I would suggest a grunge background for your type of site, with maybe some very basic buttons. Cheers

A grunge background? I honestly cannot picture my site with a grunge-type bg. Did you have a specific one you want to suggest? I am not saying it won't work, but still, I can't picture it for my site.

As for transparency, I don't doubt that my site needs it. But could you give me some suggestions on what to make transparent?

Also, you suggested "basic bottons." First off, a lot of people, I have found, like the fading bottons. Maybe it would look better with more simple bottons; I'm not sure. What do you think Greg? Thanks for your input Mark!

[tim4christ]

gregwhitworth, on 14 Aug, 2009 - 07:36 AM, said:

WAY to distracting. We want people's eyes to be diverted to the web, which done currently. I personally would take that web, duplicate it and scale it by maybe 300% and fix it in the top right hand corner at about 50% opacity, basically a watermark in the corner. It's subtle, brand specific, and allows the user to maintain focus on what you want them to maintain focus on.

OK, I liked your idea best Greg. So, I tried it! Tell me what you think: http://www.webconstructions.org. I think it really looks cool now! Thanks Greg!

[firebolt]

The OCR font isn't the best choice and the blue gradient doesn't fit in with the other content. The header is pixelly and that mixed with a dark background doesn't help at all.

[tim4christ]

firebolt, on 18 Aug, 2009 - 09:42 PM, said:

The OCR font isn't the best choice and the blue gradient doesn't fit in with the other content. The header is pixelly and that mixed with a dark background doesn't help at all.

What do you think I should do with the bottons? I kind of like them, but maybe your right. Could you explain why you don't like the bg color? And give me a suggestion on a new one? Thanks for all your help!