Latest work and was only given a week to do it (due by this Monday). Kind of graphically heavy, but the ad agency mostly deals in print...Not 100% complete but getting close. Let me know what y'all think. www.netninjas.com/pp/
For anyone who wishes to see the client's previous version (not even completed), check it out here: www.pocketpeepers.com/preview/
[This message has been edited by Thumper (edited 04-11-2003).]
Thumper: I think you've done a really good job there - the old site wasn't anything special but that works well. I'm not overly fond of the green but I suspect you didn't have a choice
Some thoughts:
1. You are doing a stretching kind of thing wih the top graphic aren't you? I'm not sure it is that trick or the 'base' graphic but there is some slight jagginess on the curves either side of the peak.
2. You really need a DOCTYPE.
3. You have tables nested at least 4 deep - I'm sure there is really no need for more than 1 table there.
4. Think about also using the TITLE attribute instead of the ALT - the ALT should be used to describe the actual graphic although it has been used as a tooltip in the absence of god support for the TITLE attribute but that support now exists.
5. The Simulator text is smaller than the rest of the menu - I'd think about using less text and bumping it back up to the same size as the others (how about just simluator?). In fact it might just be me but the text size there seems a little variable and you try and keep it consistent if it isn't my tired old eyes playing me up
6. On the simulator page I'd only have the glasses appear over the eye chart - I was wondering why it didn't work on the photograph.
Anyway its good work - nice, clean and simple and everything seems to work well, What more could you want??
That's really pretty good. (Dr T E Ozone; this really does look like about a week's worth of work, if not more, primarily because of all of the little details and subtle ways that it works - for instance, expanding when the browser window's size is changed.)
You *should* use a DOCTYPE, as emps pointed out, and I'd like to see fewer tables and more CSS. The images would also benefit from alt attributes (which you used in some places but not all).
The appearance (colors, fonts, etc) is pretty good. The little black and white picture in the upper left of the front page's main image looks a little cramped, and the rollover text appearance on the left is a little busy. Very nice overall.
home page: a tad too much text for my liking. not very low-res friendly, i think. other than that, fantastic! it looks very crisp, clean and professional.
other pages: "under contruction" never EVER looks good.
try and be a bit more creative/intuitive, even if you don't have approved content. if someone were to click on the 'buy' area, they would want to know how to buy them, right? so go link them to the contact us page, or copy some of those details. feel free to say that it's still under construction, but provide something useful for them, too!
oh, also, the little picture on the left on the 'contact us' page - doesn't sound right. "Goes in your wallet... never forget again!"
i dunno, maybe never forget them again? or "this goes in your wallet... never forget it again"?
it's not that important.
very nice work. sharp stuff.
edit: *gives DTE special round of applause* that's fantastic, that's stellar, sooo talented - i've never seen such arrogance before. please tell me that these posts of yours are some sort of pre-pubescent self affirmation, maybe that will give you some sort of excuse.
[This message has been edited by reitsma (edited 04-16-2003).]
Dr T, the brunt of it was complete within 3 days. Considering the fact that this project falls wrapped between two very large projects; and that I had that much done a day before I posted this thread; and that I have a wife to pay attention to...I'd say it was done faster than usual. Step down.
Emps, as always your criticisms are valid and will be taken into consideration before the site goes live. Unfortunately, I have not mastered CSS yet and still hide under the safeguard of tables. I hope to resolve this soon. DOCTYPE I temporarily ignored due to the fact that this is mostly in composite state. It is in place now.
Slime, you're right about the cramped image...fixed on the client's server.
reitsma, sorry about the "Under contstruction" crap...That was actually there even before I undertook the project. Turns out the "wallet" copy is actually a service mark of some kind. I am not at liberty to change this.
A lot of the elements of this site I cautioned against. Unfortunately, I am taking directions from a guy who would rather I just do what I'm told, and not question whether it is standard or not. For instance, adding a Flash site introduction that ended up being 150kB in size (after diligent attepts to optimize), or adding annoying sound effects within the site... Who am I to question though? I am getting paid well for this; and the alternative would be him just finding someone else to do the same thing with potentially worse results. He came to me with a vision that was not to be "restructured" from some silly web standards. After a "go ahead with work" after throwing all of my warnings on the table, I just did what I was instructed to do...down to font usage, colors, and amazingly inefficient animation.
Thanks for the crits guys, I will post the live site soon...
"DOCTYPE I temporarily ignored due to the fact that this is mostly in composite state..."
I caution you against doing that in the future (especially if/when you start experimenting with CSS), as adding a DOCTYPE can significantlly change the way browsers display a page, and you may end up creating more work for yourself.
"...adding annoying sound effects within the site... Who am I to question though?"
Well, you're the guy he's paying to make him a good web site. =) If you know that something's a bad idea, do question it, and strongly encourage him to take your advice as a designer. Only do it if he's determined. (Say something like, "If you're determined to have this, I'll do it; but I'm *really* telling ya: it's a bad idea.")
Looks sharp. Nice color scheme. The point of the site is to sell the product, and you've kept that focus.
The guy in blue looks a little... insane. Like he's sizing you up to see if you'll fit in the trunk. It's a minor nitpick, really... aren't we all sizing up people to see if they'll fit in the trunk?
The wallet pic is good, I also like how the purpose of the device is stated immediately in the copy.
Currently seeking a technology analyst/instructor/web developer position in the research triangle, any tips appreciated!
posted 04-11-2003 09:28
