Layout: hit me with it.... how bad's my site?

started by Ontheflyphoto on Sep 24, 2004 — RSS Feed

Ontheflyphoto Ontheflyphoto
Posts: 1

i just made this site about a month ago for a photo business and it seems to work fine but I need to spice it up.  I just need help, espcially on those really shitty links to the right.

give me some pointers... someone....

www.ontheflyphoto.com

Baxter Baxter
Posts: 157

Don't use frames. Frames suck. They're horrible. There's no advantage whatsoever to using them, and there's tons of disadvantages.

Joecaggi Joecaggi
Posts: 2

Good Work!!!!

I have to agree about the frames.

The frame on the right side needs to go. The first thing I did was scroll to the bottom and found nothing.

There is also alot of scrolling involved in your web site and might frustrate the visitor. Is there a way you can get the content on one page?

Good Luck
Joe

Lori Lori
Posts: 2

Good for you for trying, but I do agree it needs some spice.

First, address the frames, as has been said.

Since now, it is not content rich why not opt for a fixed and centered design rather than a fluid one.

As well, a professional photography studio should showcase a beautiful photo on entry --- loose the karate guy (and the other pic style headers), and go for a more CSS design approach...

Something more like these, where the PHOTO sells the client:

http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/118/118.css&page=1

http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/106/106.css&page=2

http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/085/085.css&page=5

I would work with your colors a bit. Choose your header photo, and pic colors from it... build around your "focus" which should again be the photography.

Good Luck!

Nobody Empty Nobody Empty
Posts: 7

#1 Frames are bad.

#2 I could probably rewrite this entire site in HTML 4.01 STRICT and CSS and have like maybe four lines of code..... to your...ten million....

Color scheme is alright... I work very well with earthtones myself. The white needs changed.


oh and ditch the tables...

Kk5st Kk5st
Posts: 15

It may seem like I'm piling on now, but I'm really not.  I like the 'look' and consistency of the site.  Like the others, I hate what frames are doing to it.  Worse, I can't imagine why you would use flash for your navigation.  I normally have flash turned off.  No navigation.  The same applies to any number of disabled persons using non-graphic  user agents.

Of all the times I've seen flash used, the only time it added value to a public internet site was as a demonstration in a maintenance/repair manual.

Lose the frames and flash.  You have a good look, otherwise.

cheers,

gary

Aidrice Aidrice
Posts: 4

I agree with the other posts regarding no frames and no flash for navigation. Open up your layout. As for the color scheme, for a non-photo site it would be fine, but for photographs I find that very neutral background colors are preferred. Especially because you are featuring portraiture, the colors must work with skin tones without overwhelming or clashing. Personally I don't think the colors you chose compliment skin tones very well.

Speaking of the portrait page -- on my monitor I notice artifacts, especially on the gal in the black tee shirt. Also, the  exposure of this photo compared to the gal to the left are quite different -- I'd work to even out the exposures for all the pictures on a page and to make the quality a little higher.

Overall these coments are detail-oriented: you have  a very nice site that can be much improved to showcase your work.    

Sjc Sjc
Posts: 3

i like the site.

i like frames. not because they are easy to use, or they make a site look good, or you can independently update your navigation without using php, or anything.

i like them because you get alot of stupid comments for using them.

"go for a css look"

sorry pal, but csszengarden.com is pretty ugly for colors.

sorry guys, but you are all saying
"ditch tables"
"ditch frames"
"ditch flash"

WHY?

does the site not show up on your UNUSUALLY-CONFIGURED BROWSER WITH RIDICULOUS SCREEN SETTINGS???

maybe that's because YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE AND NOBODY CARES ABOUT HOW THE SITE LOOKS ON YOUR COMPUTER.

awhh...did that touch a nerve?
do you HONESTLY think that people who are interested in getting a photographer ARE SURFING THE NET ON A CELL PHONE???

and do you REALLY believe that 98% of the net doesn't have Flash Player?

are you naive enough to think that most of the internet users don't user either 800x600 or 1024x768?

do you realize that 95% of the world users use IE?

do you really think that the average engaged woman looking to get a photographer for her site CARES ONE WHIT if she has to scroll the site a bit?


why don't you "web-designers" quit worrying about w3c and being a "super cool dude webdesigner", quit sucking up to joeG, and screw your heads on straight.

Matthstrife Matthstrife
Posts: 8

While going off-topic here, I'll allow myself to say only this as a Newbie: to each their preferences and we'll see how all that "Tables VS CSS" evolves to in the years to come... but you know, there is always more than one way to do things... in our case here there's the "straight out" way and the "think ahead" way.

Yes of course not much clients will be surfing from their cellphones, but WHAT IF one client IS because he's in a hurry and doesn't have immediate access to a computer... he'll look at the infos, note the address down and see it on a computer when possible to have more details and there you go, one more customer. MARKETING and VISION!

The resolution size problem is quite solved by CSS as the site will fit in ANY resolution if done the right way.

Frames are a PAIN to reference in search engines, poke the net around for articles on that, you could be surprised. But here is something I found while searching a bit for you:

User Preferences
Many websites that offer users a choice between regular and framed versions have found that most users prefer frame-free designs.

Found here: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html. at first you'll see it was written in 1996 but the author has added a bit this year to it. I would suggest you start your search from that point.

The use of flash really depends on what kind of site you're doing, no?

Personally I find it annoying to have to scroll left and right to be able to read... so some people will mind and some won't, again it's a matter of preferences, no?

Ok, this Newbie has said more than he wanted at first.

Oh, almost forgot:
does the site not show up on your UNUSUALLY-CONFIGURED BROWSER WITH RIDICULOUS SCREEN SETTINGS

maybe that's because YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE AND NOBODY CARES ABOUT HOW THE SITE LOOKS ON YOUR COMPUTER.


I have what's about the most usual config. haha! Heck I bother checking only on Internet Exploder and Netscrape... I'll check with Fireforks, Mozarella and others when I'll work on a site that has 100% more chances of being seen by users that run them... because what I have worked on so far is more aimed at users that have chances of using less recent equipment or who aren't computer maniacs.

Now that should end my two cents to this off-topic part... which is much more than what I wanted to [s]say[/s] type.

Joe Gillespie Joe Gillespie
Posts: 528

The fact is that the original poster came to a Web design forum and asked for opinions about his site. Had he gone to a forum of photographers or 'engaged women' he would have had different answers. In a way, he was asking 'how can I improve the Web design of my site?' and he got several opinions.

Now, the thing about opinions is that everybody is fully entitled to have them. You like frames, fine. You don't see the point in validation, fine. You don't like the colour in csszengarden, that's okay too.

The fact that you are objecting to other people's right to express opinions is not okay. All the 'whys' you ask have already been argued ad nasium in books, lectures and other design web sites and the more you know about the subject the less is the likelyhood of asking them again.

Baxter Baxter
Posts: 157

Having already replied to one of SJC's misguided and intentionally dense postings, I suspect we have nothing more than a troll on our hands.

In a nutshell, SJC, the reason I care about things like validation, alternate user agents, page load times, and all the other things I worry about is because I build sites with pride, and I'm not just a mindless hack adding to the pile of crap code the internet is already saddled with.

One of us will continue to be employed. History shows its' usually the craftsman who cares about his work, not the one who will slap it together fastest or cheapest.

Laziness has no rewards.

Alonzo_the_armless Alonzo_the_armless
Posts: 4

Not a bad looking site. the color scheme is very cheery and inviting. But I do have some criticisms as well to add to everyone else's.

Is there a reason the "Home" button isn't extended or made to look the same as the other buttons on the right? It seems to stand out, but in an undesirable way. You may want to make all the buttons look more uniform.

Another thing that bothers me are the photos of the ladies on the portraits page. Two of the photos link to a page with thumbnails, but the othertwo don't link to anywhere. There's no indication that any of them link to anywhere. It should be made more obvious.

Also, the headings look like stock photos. If you're a photographer trying to sell your talent, you should make sure all the photos on your site are yours.

Last of all, call me boring, but I prefer my text links to be underlined to make them more obvious. A lot of us web geeks can figure out a link like that by placing our cursor over it, but you'd be surprised how many people don't realize what they should be linking on if it's not underlined.

I commend you for sharing your site and allowing us to criticze it. It takes guts and smarts to do that. Good luck with your site and your business.

Draigtiene Draigtiene
Posts: 2

Baxter said:
Having already replied to one of SJC's misguided and intentionally dense postings, I suspect we have nothing more than a troll on our hands.

In a nutshell, SJC, the reason I care about things like validation, alternate user agents, page load times, and all the other things I worry about is because I build sites with pride, and I'm not just a mindless hack adding to the pile of crap code the internet is already saddled with.

One of us will continue to be employed. History shows its' usually the craftsman who cares about his work, not the one who will slap it together fastest or cheapest.

Laziness has no rewards.

Given his wonder of a site i don't think your status is in any real danger .  You would figure for all the mouth running he did that he would at least have a decent looking website.

You must login to reply