Critique our competitors site? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Critique our competitors site?

This page's ID: 10192

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	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 [b]away[/b] 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? [b]Overall Impression[/b] 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. [b]Overall Impression[/b] 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 [b]hates[/b] 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). [b]Overall Impression[/b] 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. Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu