[PixelBit]

Here it is, I welcome and CC.

http://i43.tinypic.com/20r1mk3.png

[modi123_1]

What, no link for me to see in action?

[PixelBit]

modi123_1, on 11 February 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

What, no link for me to see in action?

No it's not coded I purely want the design CCed at the moment. Before I go ahead and code it, did I post in the wrong section or something?

[GunnerInc]

It is not coded and you want us to criticize it? That could be air brushed like models are. It looks good on your monitor and picture, but what about everyone else setup and browser? In order to criticize, we need a live demo.

[PixelBit]

GunnerInc, on 11 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

It is not coded and you want us to criticize it? That could be air brushed like models are. It looks good on your monitor and picture, but what about everyone else setup and browser? In order to criticize, we need a live demo.

I don't think you understand what I'm asking for. This is still in the design stage, In photoshop, Ignore browsers for now, focus on the design and the design only. What should I change? What looks good, what looks bad? I'm not asking you to test out my website or anything, just look at the picture and tell me what you think of it aesthetically, assuming that I can code it and make it look like that on browsers, assuming it fits your screen resolution assuming all the other things, remember just look at the picture.

This post has been edited by PixelBit: 11 February 2012 - 11:45 AM

[GunnerInc]

A picture is NOT a browser. How it looks in a picture is NOT how it will look in various browsers, screen resolution, security settings.

[PixelBit]

GunnerInc, on 11 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

A picture is NOT a browser. How it looks in a picture is NOT how it will look in various browsers, screen resolution, security settings.

For goodness sakes, I just want you to imagine your looking at it in a browser and tell me what you think. Please if you're not going to be of any help, don't post? Because if you're not going to take my request seriously... Well I'll leave it at that.

Anyhow as I said, this is in photoshop, CC my psd, it's a design for a website, what do you think. If it helps your way of thinking imagine you are looking at it in a browser.

This is the stage of building a building where I've drawn up plans. Take a look at my plans and tell me what you think. Before I build the building.

Once again I'm not asking you to test the browser compatibility for my site, nor am I asking you to test out how it looks with javascript turned off. Just as it looks now.

Thank you in advance.

This post has been edited by PixelBit: 11 February 2012 - 12:11 PM

[modi123_1]

Okay.. well I am not a fan of your design there. They gray on gray on gray is so over used.

The menu buttons look out of place being shoved to the left and in such a large font.

The circle navigation buttons look even worse with that inner shadow and some sort of glowish effect for the arrows.

The submit visually makes no sense - inner shadows and then shadowed text?

Why is the copyright from 2011 to 2013?

On face I have no idea what this site is for... that's bad.

I also don't understand your coloring scheme for the 'you do the talking'... what are you trying to emphasis? you-talking, I-listen? Ah, what? Also capitalize 'I' when it refers to you. It looks sad otherwise.

That center graphic only confuses me more on the purpose of the site.

The mailing list bit needs to be rewritten.

Your center graphic has a drop shadow around the frame, right? Why does the mailing list/twitter feed have an inner shadow?

Kudos on trying to keep a semblance of cohesive blues.

[PixelBit]

modi123_1, on 11 February 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Okay.. well I am not a fan of your design there. They gray on gray on gray is so over used.

The menu buttons look out of place being shoved to the left and in such a large font.

The circle navigation buttons look even worse with that inner shadow and some sort of glowish effect for the arrows.

The submit visually makes no sense - inner shadows and then shadowed text?

Why is the copyright from 2011 to 2013?

On face I have no idea what this site is for... that's bad.

I also don't understand your coloring scheme for the 'you do the talking'... what are you trying to emphasis? you-talking, I-listen? Ah, what? Also capitalize 'I' when it refers to you. It looks sad otherwise.

That center graphic only confuses me more on the purpose of the site.

The mailing list bit needs to be rewritten.

Your center graphic has a drop shadow around the frame, right? Why does the mailing list/twitter feed have an inner shadow?

Kudos on trying to keep a semblance of cohesive blues.

First off, thank you this was what I was looking for, very helpful.

"Okay.. well I am not a fan of your design there. They gray on gray on gray is so over used."
I see, I didn't think about other websites while designing this, I guess I should. I'll mess around with the colours.

"The menu buttons look out of place being shoved to the left and in such a large font."
Yes I intend to change the navigation bar a lot. Thanks.

"The circle navigation buttons look even worse with that inner shadow and some sort of glowish effect for the arrows."
There's no glow effect but, ok a shadow is easily removed

"The submit visually makes no sense - inner shadows and then shadowed text? "
Heh, I was meant to change the submit button before posting this, it slipped my mind. I don't like it In anyway. It's getting changed.

"Why is the copyright from 2011 to 2013?"
Ignore that, it's more place holder text than anything.

"On face I have no idea what this site is for... that's bad."
Yes That is bad, what kind of things would you suggest to make it more obvious? Obviously the image slider will have different and more images, that relate to the cause, but anything else?


"I also don't understand your coloring scheme for the 'you do the talking'... what are you trying to emphasis? you-talking, I-listen? Ah, what? Also capitalize 'I' when it refers to you. It looks sad otherwise."
Well I wanted to highlight the words that had the most meaning in the sentence, I felt if I highlighted you talk and I listen, it would give sort of a double meaning to the sentence, to seem like the customer is held at a high priority, maybe people won't look that deeply into it though As for the lower case letters, the font didn't have upper case letters, and I was too lazy to find a new one. I'll get round to that, if it stood out as a bad thing, it must be changed.

"That center graphic only confuses me more on the purpose of the site. "
Yes I can see where you're coming from. Maybe it shouldn't be an image scroller either? Just one picture that is relevant and tells of the sites purpose?

"The mailing list bit needs to be rewritten."
Ok, I couldn't really think what to type there, I might peruse through other websites and see what kind of thigns are usually put.

"Your center graphic has a drop shadow around the frame, right? Why does the mailing list/twitter feed have an inner shadow?"
Are you saying the shadows should be the same? That makes sense, I'll change that, thanks.

"Kudos on trying to keep a semblance of cohesive blues."
Thanks

[PixelBit]

updated taken modi's CC into account.

[Shane Hudson]

GunnerInc, on 11 February 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

A picture is NOT a browser. How it looks in a picture is NOT how it will look in various browsers, screen resolution, security settings.

No but design is a very important stage to critique at.

I am not a designer so I too will wait until the development stages to review.

[midgetboytom]

I think the new colour scheme is much better but i did love the original text.

Secondly i think the menu bar needs to fill that space its been allocated otherwise it sort of looks like it's missing something

Thirdly there looks like there is two white gradient circle bits, one at the top and one at the bottom, but they look like they are slightly out of line.

Otherwise i like it.

[Lemur]

The first thing I'd like to say is behave yourselves... It's not that hard to be civil about things, when you choose to post here you leave personal life and other issues out of it because the point is to help.

Now I agree that the coding will be difficult, browser compatibility is the bane of all web des/devs. I get that, I've done it enough times by now.

Where I disagree is that it needs to be coded before reviewed. It's foolish to code an entire design that should never have gotten a green light in the first place. Until the design is solidly established you cannot hope to have any success coding.

If you do choose to code, you have the wonder of having to recode completely if your client or employer doesn't like it. I don't know about you, but there's a limit to the amount of masochism it would take to get in those extra billable hours.

Now, a rough idea of how I would define the Web process:

• Preliminary Study
  
• Analysis of Needs
  
• Preliminary Design and Sketching
  
• Detailed Design(s)
  
• Development
  
• Implementation

A rough guide, but a general idea.

Now then, regarding the design itself:

I'm not particularly a fan of it.

There are some things that I think are done well, and others that kill it. I'd rather end on a good note, so we'll get to the negative first.

The contrast in the header feels too much. Albeit a clever use of contrast and quick to gain my attention it does not smoothly flow in with the rest of the design and sticks out for the wrong reasons. Subtlety is a must in a good design, an element may catch attention but the trick is to use that to flow into the next element instead of constantly detracting attention back to itself. Try instead to promote flow of elements and smooth the visual hierarchy instead of using such a staunch difference.

The shadow to the left of the box is too pronounced. It becomes noticeable the more opacity it has, and at this point it detracts from flow and draws attention. As a background element its job is to promote flow and accent instead of playing stage front. Tone it down and make it more even (the top seems to prod out a ways.)

I would do away with the center image, it looks tacky to me and really kills the mood of the page. Only showcase the absolute best on the front page, recents and WIPs belong in different sections only for the curious. The arrows need to not have the inner shadow that they do, it darkens them too much and bleeds it over to the circle.

Now as for the positive.

The use of gradients is good. The font choice is good as well, not a fan of the banner font but it works. The main content organization is good.

It has potential but work still needs to be done before you touch a coding app. Good luck.

[PixelBit]

Thanks lemur I'll work on it, some good cc there, one thing though, this flow that you keep mentioning, what does it entail

[Lemur]

The flow of a page is the natural path your eyes follow. You want eyes to generally follow:

Header
Menu
Content
Footer

Plan which elements need the most focus and design your site to draw attention to those elements as needed. If an element is too strong it disrupts the hierarchy of elements and kills a natural flow.