Topic: Critique our competitors site? (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=10192" title="Pages that link to Topic: Critique our competitors site? (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic: Critique our competitors site? <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
DocOzone
Maniac (V) Lord Mad Scientist
Sovereign of all the lands Ozone and just beyond that little green line over there...

From: Stockholm, Sweden
Insane since: Mar 1994

posted posted 10-13-2002 01:47

OK, this is a weird request, but I would like to get a review of this site, *not* designed by me. This is actually the main competitor to my current client, and he's heard so many nifty good things about the Asylum crew, he asked me to get your feedback on the competitions website. I of course have my own opinions about what they've done, good bad and otherwise, but I'd like for you to look and help me answer some of these questions.

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really right?

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really bad?

In terms of concept and execution, what was your overall impression? Would you spend tens of thousands to buy one of these things? (Custom made fishtanks, that is. Huge monsters they are.) If so, why; if not, why?

Now, since I'm building the site that is going to make this one look sad and sorry (hopefully), what does it lack that I should use on my site? What have they done right that I should do, but even better?

Like I said earlier, I have my own opinions on what the other guys did, but I realize that I'm *not* an unbiased judge! I'll be sending my client to this thread, and he's heard all about your insight and brilliance, so try and be as honest and clear as you can, cool? Thanks in advance for your help on this somewhat unusual request!

Here's the urls...

Critique this site please! => http://www.livingcolor.com/

This is my clients current website => http://www.seavisions.com/
This is the web I'm building for him => http://seavisions.dreamhost.com/

It would make sense if you could to try and answer any of the same questions I asked for both his current website, and also the shell I have online at the dreamhost address. Help me make our site better!


Your pal, -doc-

JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: out of a sleepy funk
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 10-13-2002 04:15

Their bad stuff

Their logo, name and color scheme all conspire to make me think this is a website for a paint store. the spectrum would look nice on a black background. Their tanks don't.

FrontPage applets for navigation. Hopefully this not only bites them in their butts but chews chunks out

Their graphics are hideous on all counts, jaggie, compressed with wrong formats, picture gallery stuffs land on white backgrounds with no way to nav back.

Yucky frames, no reason for them here, they're just easy to do in FrontPage I guess, lotta FP users seem to use frames.

Their good stuff

Their tanks! They're beautiful. The professional photography is great (the compression, formatting and layouts, another story)

Tons of content! I reckon this site is probably a search engine magnet

Doc

It goes without saying that your site is blowing their current and their competitor's away, hands down. To round this out you're gonna need stuff from your client to match Their good stuff. I see plenty of fantastic content and photography on the current seavisions site (which is obviously ready for an update ), hopefully you can do some wonders with placing it, using the proper keywords in the proper places and getting it to be a bit more of a search engine friendly place. More keyword riddled content is a must.

One thing I saw on their site was a 'find a live display near you' thing. Nevermind the table it was in was hideous circa 1996, the idea is awesome, Doc could work in some dynamic db searching stuff to make this sort of thing more user friendly and comprehensive.

The 'secured projects' area they have sounds like a goodie. People might like to look at the building of their tanks in progress.

The future looks bright for Seavisions I think

Jason

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 04:19

Doc: Three reviews in one - we should get paid more but I love a challenge.

Living Color

1. First problem from a marketing front is that the name doesn't say aquarium to me although I see where they are coming from (it does however remind me of a band I've not listened to in well over 5 years).

2. I noticed the Java applet sign pop up in my system tray which made my heart sink and lo and behold one of my number one errors: making the top navigation in Java (doing it in Flash is also a bad idea if the rest of the page isn't Flash). I once visited a site and had no idea why I couldn't find any navigation - it was only when I went back (using another computer with the Java player installed) that I realised what they had done. I had my fingers crossed that the rest of the site would have ordinary navigation but it wasn't to be.

3. The rollover effect is ugly and distracting and hardly worth using Java for.

4. I'd want that large graphic on the front page to be much crisper - is it me or does it look lke there are jaggies.

5. No DOCTYPE.

6. Poor use of keyword metatags.

7. Sloppy code:

quote:
<div align="center">
<center>



8. Poor use of CSS and the FONT tag sneaks in:

quote:
<p class="MsoNormal" align="justify" style="margin-top: -1; margin-bottom: -1"><font color="#C0C0C0" face="Arial">



9. The Enter Living Color site' would make me wonder what site I was actually on.

10. Logo is really poor - very jaggy.

11. Frames If the Java hadn't killed any possibility of having search engines index the site then the frames would. Ironically the Java navigation ruins any chance of the frames being used properly and it reloads the whole page not just the frame.

12. The scrolling things at the top is poorly done and poinless.

13. The first page of the main site is overly long. You really need to sell yourself here.

So your questions:

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really right? - nothing

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really bad? - yes a lot of things.

Overall the site is poorly put together (bordering on the amateur) with shockingly bad decisions at nearly every stage and nearly all the graphics are low quality. It would certainly not give me the feeling that I'd want to buy an aquarium from them.

OK next the old design from the site you are working on............

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

ZOX
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Southern Alabama, USA
Insane since: Sep 2000

posted posted 10-13-2002 04:25

Doc,
I had a quick look at the sites, and I think that as far as web design concerns the new site you are creating and the Living Color site are in whole different divisions. Your site is much more attractive in every way.
However, being a web designer myself I might be a bit more picky than most web users, and though the Living Color certainly does not have any "wow" factor to it, it is not horrible. I've seen worse. I'd probably give it a D for design and a B for the content.
The feelings the design conveys to me is more of "home made" rather than "exclusive, I would not mind spending a few thousands at this company". The worst part from a design perspective is probably that it is optimized for a higher resolution screen, and the horrible quality of the logo. The best part is the pictures - those tanks looks beautiful - though the pics. could be used in a much better way. (and be optimized!)
Can't wait to see your site with some beautiful tank pictures added.

As for the old SeaVision site... it is not very good... but I am sure you already know that

that's all I have time for for now... sorry I wasn't very elaborate.


Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 04:51

OK I can't access the current seavisions page - I'll try again later.

New seavisions site

1. I like the colours you are using but the range is possibly too wide for that black text to work on that dark blue.

2. It is a nice rollover effect but. at the other end of the 'spectrum' the light blue makes the rollover look odd for the top set of links (this goes for the sub menus too).

3. Its an interesting Flash effect but I wonder if the effect compensates for the fact that it will nag people to upgrade and not show for people trying not to use Flash. This could put some people off immediately and ruin the branding (and design) if people couldn't see it.

4. Coding is tight (as we would expect) but the mix of upper and lower case for the tags need fixing. Really nice minimal use of tables - should keep things light and quick to display.

5. It is completely lacking in metatags.

6. Really nice JavaScript.

7. You are loading the pages in using an iframe which (although I haven't tested it in anything other than IE6/Win) might suggest that other browser might have problems with that.

8. I would also use OBJECT as well as EMBED on that Flash.

9. Ah now unless you have something clever up your sleeve (always a possibility) I suspect that dynamic loading of the pages, whilst slick and quick, could prove very problematic with search engines and I would be concerned that none of the content would be indexed and by not loading a new page you can't take advantage of useful structural elements like title.

10. Not much content so I can't really comment on that.

So your questions:

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really right? - yes: colours, clean professional look, just enough DHTML to increase the interactve nature of things without seeming too much like a 'toy'

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really bad? - yes: The range of colours needs narrowing, the Flash header could be a little off putting and the dynamic loading of the pages could really destroy your search engine rankings..

Overall (although a WIP and lacking enough content to get an adequate grip on some aspects) the site looks really good and works very nicely giving a much more professional air while not seeming too informal (most business sites are distinclty cold and uninviting). Would I buy an aquarium from them? Its a little difficult to say but if they are similar to the ones on the other site (which are just about the only thing that I liked about the other site) then I would certainly be tempted if the content is presented in an easy to digest form. As the user would view and interact with the site (if it works on a cross-browser way) it is a really great piece of work its just some of the technical aspects that concern me. It is really great work.

I'll have a look at the old version of the site when I can but if you want a quick compare and contrast then this site is heads and shoulders above the competitor's (its not really much of a contest) but it may suffer a similar fate at the hand of search engines.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 05:13

Ah right the original sea visions site has popped up so here goes:

Original seavisions

1. Pretty poor layout, colour scheme and graphics (the animated earth, for example) on the main page (which pretty much goes for the rest of the site).

2. However, the aquarium pictures look much better than the Living Color ones.

3. Music on the gallery page?

4. No-one needs those kind of instructions:

quote:
If you do not see all of the photo without scrolling left or right click here

In order to best experience our photo gallery please use Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or Higher.

Resolution 1024 X 768 works best. Follow link below to get Real Player 8 Basic for free so you can watch videos of aquariums.

Down Load RealPlayer 8 Basic



and why RealPlayer? I can't see a reason for it and the site certainly doesn't explain why.

5. Keywords but no description (or abstract) metatags.

6. Poor coding (FrontPage again?) - the use of BLOCKQUOTE, FONT and the massive use of non-breaking spaces and P tags for spacing give me The Fear.

7. The use of more conventional navigation and of HTML structural tags would tend to make this design appear the most likely to work in all browsers and get indexed fully by search engines (this might just be a legacy of its late 20th century design ).

8. The layout is really loose with images and text floating around in space except for some bad use of tables.

9. There is no consistent navigation or feel through the site.

So your questions:

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really right? - a more 'conventional' navigation and structure make the site easy to get into and look around.

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really bad? - nothing outrageous - the design is just dated.

Overall the site is pretty amatuer looking (and feeling) but the aquariums are easily accessed and the site is fairly easy to navigate. Would I buy an aquarium from them? Possibly not - they do look good but I just wouldn't feel I trusted a company with that kind of site.

I'll do a quick comparison: Basicaly as I've said the Living Color site is poor but it is packed with content and information it is just poorly presented (and potentially inaccessible). Your design combined with the content in the old seavisions site have the potential to produce a very impressive site indeed and throw in some 'sticky' features (like those JKMabry managed to dig out of the Living Color site and I'm sure some even better ones) and it could really be going somewhere

I would also thank you for lettng us have a peak at this as a work in progress as it has been very interesting and enlightening.

[edit: and I've probably missed things so I'll drop them in at a later date]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 05:41

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really bad?
Yes!

"Living Color" and the logo(?) have a bad case of the jaggies.
Quality of the jpeg aquarium is poor. (at least to my eyes)
"Livingcolor" AND logo in top left and right corners on each page and neither is a 'home/main' link and then there's the non-stop scrolling "Creating New Worlds." (Don't like that!)

Navigation: Well if you were a pilot or a sailor you'd be flying into mountains or running into reefs. Navigation is less than adequate. When you get to the 'Secured Area' There's no obvious way to enter. I could go on forever about the navigation....beginning with the front page. a Menu across the top and "Enter Living Color Site" at the bottom. What's that about?

Did they do anything so "Oh! My god!" really right?
NO! but I think the logo has some pretty decent potential.

The quality of all images could be improved considerably. It's apparent the target audience for the product is affluent. One can then assume the potential client is not hooking up to the internet with a 56K modem thus loading time does not become a major issue. Something to be aware of yes.... but not extremely critical. A friend... just in the process of developing a site has made the decision to virtually ignore 56K based on these facts. Is this valid in all cases? Probably not but, if you're talking money and fast connections why give them poor images? A 56K'er at a site like this is the same as a "Looky-lou" in the showroom...it's nice to have them drop by but....

*Frontpage* was the first thing that came to mind when I viewed your clients existing page... confirmation was in the source. If your client isn't aware of FP's shortcomings.... http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum1/HTML/005561.html
We can only hope he/she didn't spend a whole buncha cash there.

Doc, comparing these two sites to your proposal is almost unfair. One word sums up yours and it doesn't enter my mind on the other two.

Professional.

One can only hope your clients product is as good as yours.




Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 05:42

A few last thoughts:

1. I would have thought that the Flash effect could be easily replicated with DHTML (like a simplified version of your Lost in the Ozones page).

2. The idea of a 'find live display near you' is a good one but it could be integrated with some sort of partnership with regional fish suppliers. Seavisions provides a kind of 'one stop shop' service ('we build it and they fill it' kind of thing) and possibly also gets a cut from the fish suppliers (a fish slice perhaps?).

[edit: 3. Perhaps one could really push the boat out - some kind of Flash/QT kind of thing might offer people a really good close up, interactive feel to the site. That thread on interactive panormaic views springs to mind]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

vogonpoet
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Mi, USA
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 10-13-2002 05:43

a quickie Doc

The product doesnt look cheap. If I was in the position of spending that sort of cash on a aquarium, I would expect the web presence to reflect it. Neither their current or imho the comps proposal speaks of quality, class or sophistication (or money).

The only negative things I notice in your design is the moving sea level in the title graphic, not sure if that is too distracting or not? The other one was the logo, the way the 's' and 'e' , and, the 'v' and 'i' are connected. Just strikes me as out of balance.

Just first impressions from me, hope it helps ~Vp~

jstuartj
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Mpls, MN
Insane since: Dec 2000

posted posted 10-13-2002 05:52

I though I would just chime in on one thing. I recently was doing some web research on buying highend homes in thailand. What I found was most people who can buy items at this price range, don't do the the research. Rather they hire someone else to do the search and provide a report or summary. I needed to provide documentation on 20-30 homes and company's. The bigest problem I ran into was non-print friendly sites, and flash sites I ended up screen capturing about 100 pages of documents or mailing for document which just waisted my time so most I didn't bother there for no sale.

An item of this price should realy have a downloadable PDF or at least a print friendly version, with detailed info.

jstuartj

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 10-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by jstuartj (edited 10-13-2002).]

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 10-13-2002 09:40

Although I don't usually do it this way, I'm going to post my reviews without looking at what everyone else wrote first. As a result, I will probably repeat things that have already been said. In this case, though, I'd rather just give my opinions without any outside influence.

I. Current Site

A. Things Done Right

1. OK, I hate to be harsh, but I really can't see anything really done right on this site. Picking out mistakes is like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun, but picking out good design is like, well, trying to spear the fish with your big toe while blindfolded.

B. Things Done Wrong

1. Well, I guess I'll start with the color scheme. Yellow, blue, green, and red on black? It reminds me of the Strip in Las Vegas--very bright, very garish, and ultimately very annoying. Also, there is no consistency in the choice of colors. Links are blue (which, by the way, is a horrible choice for text you want to stand out against a black background), but there are other sections of blue text (even underlined blue text) that aren't links. Add to that the fact that the color scheme should bring to mind aquariums (not neon), and you have a dismal failure. It just looks very unprofessional.

2. Graphics: Outside of the photographs, there are four graphics on the front page: the logo, the two animations, and the two credit card graphic. Of these four, only one is really necessary, and that is the logo--and the logo looks horrible. It looks like it was scanned in, made into a .GIF, then shrunk down as an indexed file. At any rate, it's almost illegible, and at the very least it doesn't help make the site look professional. Then there are the animations--not only do they look terrible (you've got a halo on the globe and transparency artifacts in the flag), but they serve no purpose. Well, actually, they do serve a purpose: they serve to focus the customer's attention away from the content. I'm not sure why the credit card graphic is there, or why it leads to the products page.

As for the photographs, some of them have border and some don't--that's just bad coding. Also, there is no indication (outside the status bar) of where these photographs will lead when you click on them. That's a demerit in the usability department.

Oh, I forgot the huge sea graphic running across the width of the page--this is a horrible background for your pictures.

3. Other stuff: This may be personal, but I cannot stand sites that play music automatically. At the very least I should be given a choice.

Lose the page transitions--they just look very amateurish and are, again, pointless.

Why does "21 years in the business" lead to a products page? Shouldn't it lead to a history of the company?

Overall Impression

This site looks like a nightmare out of the Web's murky past--pretty much everything you want to avoid in design. I could have said more, but all the negativity was starting to get to me.

II. Livingcolor.com

A. Things Done Right

1. This is all pretty much relative, I suppose. The site is a lot cleaner in general, with no clutter. The one picture on the front page is topical, and shows a nice product.

2. The site structure in general makes more sense--you now have logical sections that make it easier for the client to find the information they want.

B. Things Done Wrong

1. I've still got a beef with the color scheme. Granted, it's better than the original site, and definitely more uniform, but the black background just doesn't do it for me.

2. The menu text gets cut off in certain places, which immediately takes away from any feel of professionalism that there might have been. Also, while we're on the issue of text, the source fails to specify encoding (the character set used on the page). While this may not be a big deal for most people, it makes some of the text break on my computer (I'm running Korean Windows). Not to mention that it's just not professional. These are bases that you're supposed to have covered.

3. Not really much of an improvement in terms of graphics. The text graphics, in particular, are clunky and jagged.

4. I really don't like the page layout--it's very mid-90s. The links at the top leading to anchor points on the same page makes for very long pages in certain sections. Also (for example, the Photo Gallery page), there is just too much info on one page. It needs to be broken up.

Overall Impression

While it is a decent effort, design-wise it just does not get me excited about extremely large aquariums. The color scheme and poor quality of the graphics destroy any professional feel that there might have been. Decent, like I said, but definitely nothing to write home about. This page would not stick in my mind if I were in the market for a large aquarium. Yes, I know, you're supposed to shop for the best product, but let's face it--it's human nature that a nice-looking site is going to make a better impression regardless of the product itself. This, however, is just not a nice-looking site.

III. Seavisions (Doc's site)

A. Things Done Right

1. Color: Thank you, this is what my eyes have been waiting for. The main product is aquariums, and it never occured to anyone (until now) to go with a blue color scheme. Very soothing, definitely brings to mind the ocean, fishes, aquariums, you name it.

2. Graphic Design: Very nice to look at, and it fits with the color scheme. The menu is beautiful, as is the logo. We do have an animation behind the logo, but--believe it or not--it works. And this is coming from someone who hates animation on a web page. It works because it is very gentle and it is low contrast. It's definitely not necessary, but it's a nice, subtle touch.

3. Information Structure: The menu pretty much spells it all out, and the fact that each section expands to reveal subsections ensures that the visitor won't be overwhelmed with too much information at once. The information also seems to be ordered fairly logically, making it easier for the visitor to find what they are looking for.

B. Things Done Wrong (Although it's more like "quibbles" in this case)

1. The contact info on the bottom seems a bit dark to me. It is visible, and perfectly legible, but it wouldn't hurt for it to stand out a bit more. That information is one of the main things you want your visitor to walk away with, and you want to make sure it doesn't get lost in the woodwork.

2. I'm not sure about the red for section titles. I can understand the need and desire for a highlight color, but I don't think that red is it. Maybe a green, in keeping with the ocean theme?

3. In the expanding menu, it seems a bit counterintuitive for the Home button to collapse the menu. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but it would make more sense to me if a second click on the same button collapsed the menu again (first click: expand, second click: collapse).

Overall Impression

Definitely professional, and definitely a site I'm going to remember (and probably bookmark). It's also easy on the eyes, making it a pleasure to browse through.

Well, that's it. It's not everything, but I'm sure others will cover (or have covered) what I missed.

InI
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist

From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 10:09

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Emperor
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist with Finglongers

From: Cell 53, East Wing
Insane since: Jul 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 15:21

InI: I suppose the big issue is that some people really don't like Flash - our FAQ:

How do I completely disable or uninstall the Flash player?

is the second most visited FAQ:
http://faq.ozoneasylum.com/FaqWiki/mostvisited.php

and might actually be gaining ground on the free sig hosting after a slow start

The introduction of Flash ads is a real factor in this backlash I'm afraid.

So I would hate to think that a site would loose any customers because as the page is loading they Flash nagging at them to upgrade their player and they hit the back button. Or they have disabled or uninstalled Flash and the whole logo doesn't display - rather spoiling the effect (and possibly putting people off).

Its a nice effect and I agree with Suho it is one of the most nicely done, subtle bits of Flash out there but is it worth potential lost sales? I'm not sure - that is after all the Doc's call and thats just my side of the coin I still think it would look good as just a graphic really and as vp has suggested the constant movement could distract people from the meat of the page.

Also about this:

quote:
nowadays, in webdesign, Flash improves productivity
(10 minutes in Flash vs 3 hours in dhtml).



This better not be a sign from you that you are less enamoured of DHTML as the world would be a duller place without your DHTML and DHTML expertise

[edit: typos]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Dracusis
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Brisbane, Australia
Insane since: Apr 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 17:31

I'd agree with 99.9% of what's been said so far.

One little thing though. I'm running Windows XP and I have clear type enabled (Smoothes out text) and it's really tearing the text in your DHTML menu:



You might want to look into that. I've also noticed the same problem with the text on your main Ozone pages. Although Clear Type isn't enabled by default in Windows XP so I don't think too many people would be using it. The blame for this problem most likely lies with the clear type technology but it's still something to consider. Oh, the content text looks fine. It's just the menu text that has issues.

CPrompt
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: there...no..there.....
Insane since: May 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 22:04

OK, I've only read a part of what was said, that way I can give my own judgment.

Living Color
Don't like the logo. The type is boring. Nothing really special about it. The little "swooshy" thing doesn't really fit. Colors I mean. The name
doesn't fit well either. If they sell really fancy smancy fish tanks, the name "LivingColor" doesn't go.

Front Page
The front page is boring and looks cheap. The picture they used is not a good one and could use a little Photoshop magic. The menu system that they have looks very 80's. All the links at the top makes it look top heavy and there is no balance to the page. The rollovers don't help this matter in the least. And niether does the border they have around that groovy fish tank. They have the "Best Viewed" in there which really annoys me. If I have to have a certain size to view the site, if I don't, I might just move on and find someone else that sells this product. Loosing business can not be good.

Gallery
That scrolling marquee stuff has got to go. This is not the stock market and I don't like things moving around if I am trying to concentrat on the matter at hand which is the product.
If they are going to use bookmarks for the sections, I would put in a "Back to Top" for the user. I don't really care for book marks anyway. Nor do I like frames. It makes it hard for me to add to favorites when I want to refer back to a specific tank.
When you click on one of the tanks to take a closer look, the background is white and it makes the tanks look cheap.

Well, the rest of the pages, really look the same. So, I won't ramble on about the bad stuff anymore.

I really don't like the site at all (Living Color that is). Nothing really jumps out and says "Hey, this is cool. I'd buy from these guys." The only thing that would sell me on this is the product itself. Which they didn't do a very good job of presenting.

With a business site, I would have to say that presentation is the key. Kind of like when you go out to eat. Presentation is 65% of the meal. If it looks really good, then it is going to tast that much better.

On the Seavisions side, I would have to agree with Draciuss. The font is kind of messy on my box too.



Later,
C:\


~Binary is best~

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

posted posted 10-13-2002 23:17

About the font on Doc's menu... is it perhaps not the font but the gradient and roll-over?
I'm running 1024X and as I go down the menu the font 'seems' to degrade a bit but I think it may have more to do with the roll-over state than the actual font. The 'over' state becomes more severe from top to bottom... hardly noticable at all at the top and close to 'on' at the bottom without even doing the mouseover. The resulting visual is a bit 'bleed' like if you will. Make sense to anyone? I'll go back to house cleaning now or *I* will bleed when my wife gets home. <lol>




[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 10-13-2002).]

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 10-16-2002 01:31

I'm using FreeBSD/Opera:

Competition: I only see the main page. I can go nowhere else, so I don't know what is going on there.

Your Main: I see the logo then it disapears and I get overlapping content, you basic design and a large scrolled background that is below your content box. I get nothign readable.

The Origional: It is ugly as hell but I can read it all and navigate it all.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 10-17-2002 01:30

Ok, a lot of points have been made, so I'll try to keep this brief -

"living color" - Right away that logo just screams 'ugly' at me.

Right after that, those rollovers make me just about gag.

Then the beautiful photo of the Aquarium loads, and 'oooooh, that's cool'.

Then I see 'best viewed at 1024x768'. Why? What is there that needs that much space?? So I click (why am I entering the site that I just..uh...entered?) Oh, great frames....and, they're set only to accomodate 1024 or higher. Eck.

**if not before this point, I would have left this website at this point and found a dealer who had the forsight to have a well designed page**


Ok, seavisions.com - HSBOD!! Ack. Big gaudy background image that's not properly set!
Weird images across the center that....aren't quite lined up right....??

Ok, right about now, I'm thinking "13 year old with a Geocities account" and I'm not wanting to buy anything there either... =) However, the photos do draw me in....so I'll look around a bit and stomach the ugly. The navigation is a bit confusing though....so it takes a while

Ok, so yours Doc -

Right away - wow, beautiful logo. *love* it. Pretty quick re-direct, hardly noticable, not annoying as some can be. Page loads, and rather quickly, and again...wow. Nice.

Eh....funky moving thing at the top....don't like that. A static image of the same would carry as much allure and not get annoying or distracting (and leave out the possible flash problems...).

Funny - I move the mouse over the top button, and nothing happens. As I move down the menu, a slight rollover effect becomes more pronounced with each successive button. Very Odd. A more consistant and obvious effect would be much nicer. Menu movement itself is fantastic - smooth, quick, precise. Lovely menu setup all in all.

Content area - I am tempted to say that such a confined 'box' may not be enough for the content, but *really* need to see the content in place to be able to judge.

So, to boil it down:

Living Color: Bad design, bad functionality, bad *approach* period. Only postive thing: Nice photo on front page. Screams "I've never done this before!"

Current Sea Visions: Bad design. Functionality is ok, but navigation extraordinarily difficult. Cries for update.

Doc's Seavisions: *Beautiful* design and functionality. Very intuitive navigation. Need to see content.




JKMabry
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: out of a sleepy funk
Insane since: Aug 2000

posted posted 10-17-2002 03:15

yeah, DL, click (next) on he first page below the greeked content, that will bring up more content. Click that (next) again and still more content, with pics!! That part's very hard to navigate, I was assuming it was just sample stuff and didn't mention it. Hopefully that's not a real navigational element.

I wonder about the search engine readiness of your design Doc, Google returns your competitor for "custom aquarium builder" in the number one spot. I'm not sure how your content is coming in so it's hard to say...

Jason

nobodywebsite
Nervous Wreck (II) Inmate

From: This planet
Insane since: May 2002

posted posted 10-19-2002 02:37

DOC, on livincolors site I see a very old style and too simple; hard for them to face its competitors on the web, especially when you are at work, (?Oh my good, really bad!.)

Then bro. not even resizable to 800x600 (what for?) wrong not scalable frameset?the menu makes scrollbars- pictures ? logo resolution, etc etc? (I am not a good designer, but it scares me more then some of my dreading works!)
So what remain to say on:

Oh my good really good!? They present nice pictures, with the black background, more html ( then php) for s. engines, -but I would revisit anyway their content using different words.

--You know, a few people may still say: well, a web page is just a web page. Well unfortunately for them nowadays, this is not true for most of their customers.
I?d like your flash a bit more interactive, and pixel images in flash, and out;
can you make it also scalable?( I mean on bigger browsers)?
Take care.




[This message has been edited by nobodywebsite (edited 10-19-2002).]



Post Reply
 
Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:
 
Your Text:
Loading...
Options:


« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu