Topic: T4D Studio

Ok here goes. I have not completed the new layout for the Swedish side yet.
http://www.t4dstudio.com

I still have to fine tune it, but this is the general layout.

I see it hasn't taken you long to find your way around the place. Allow me to welcome you to Site Reviews, where we take pleasure in tearing web sites apart--well, if they deserve it, at least.

I have to say, though, that you've got a very nice-looking website there. I really like the monochromatic color scheme and the photographs--it gives the site a very classy look, I think. I would like to offer a few suggestions, though, which may help make the site even better.

I understand the need for the front page--allowing users to choose between English and Swedish. I do not understand, though, why you have the "best viewed in..." text there. When I see this sort of text message, the first thing I think is, "Ah, this designer is too lazy to make the site work in every browser." Users also don't like to be told that they should use a certain browser or resolution.

The irony here, though, is that the message is completely unnecessary. I checked the page out in Netscape and Opera and had no problems with it. In addition, not only does it work fine (no horizontal scrollbars) at 800x600, but it even works in 640x480! Why give your clients the impression that you are designing for a specific browser/resolution set when the site can, in fact, be viewed in a number of browsers and resolutions? That text message should be the first thing to go. (While you're at it, I would also take out the "Last updated" line--if it has been updated, users who care will know, and if it hasn't been updated in a while, it will make you look lazy.)

So, with the unnecessary text gone, you've got a page with two buttons and a footer. What's missing? The site title, for one. How about replacing the text that is there with the site title and a suitable catchphrase--maybe "A Whole New Dimension" or "Envisioning the Future"?

OK, now for the site itself. The only recommendation I would have here would be to implement a "You are Here" style navigation. As it is, all of the links in your menu are active no matter where in the site you may be, and this may be disorienting for some visitors--you shouldn't really be able to click on the "home" link if you're on the home page. Instead of simply disabling the link, though, make the button appear in the rollover state, giving the user an indication of where they are in your site--and killing two birds with one stone.

I took a look at your source as well, and the first thing I noticed was the three separate style sections at the top of the page. You would be much better off removing those styles to an external style sheet. The reason for this is that these styles are the same for every page, right? Well, if you link to an external style sheet, those styles get loaded once and then are cached for future use. If you include them inline, though, they become part of the load for each page--in other words, they must be reloaded each time. The same thing goes for the JavaScript you are using. Two quick links to an external style sheet and an external JavaScript file would save an extra Kb or so for each page that your users visit (after the first one, of course, when the styles and JavaScript would be loaded and cached). It may not seem like much, but it can add up over time, and every little bit helps, right?

Going further down in the code, I see that the page is a series of nested tables. I understand that this is the way things have been done for a long time, but we now have pretty good CSS support in most major browsers. Redoing this page in CSS would cut down greatly on file size. I understand, though, that that would require a recoding of the entire site, and that is something you might not want to do right now. You've made a good start by removing some font tags (but not all--the address at the bottom of the page still uses font tags), but you may want to consider a more CSS-based approach in future redesigns.

Well, I hope that you find these comments helpful. Overall, a nice site, and with the few changes I mentioned above, I think it could be even better.




www.liminality.org

Well.....I don't have all that many things to say.

What I do have to say, isn't all that good.

1) Coding - Doctype - good start. No encoding though....not good
Uh......what the hell are all the different style tags about?

Errr....tables. and lot's of 'em. Doesn;t amke sense since the page consists of a couple simple boxes....

MM_ ahhhh....ok, dreamweaver code. That explains a little.... =(

2) Visual.... ok, cliche, cliche, cliche. Washed out beige and grey, pixel fonts, completely meaningless photographs that are supposedly meant to convey something.....yadda yadda yadda....

3) Best viewed in IE? Why? What did yo do wrong that this site shouldn't be viewed in my browser? What the hell have you done to make me use *your* browser instead?? Coding this site to work in multiple browser at mulitple resolutions wihtout the use of bizzarely complex nested tables would be about as simple as simple gets...and so....as you are tryin gto sell yourself as a 'design company' I would be quite taken aback as a potential client.

4) oh, a "news" section. Without much news....as usual. =(

So...in a nutshell: bleh.

Hope that doesn't seem as harsh as I know it could. It is honestly meant to be helpful......even if it's not "nice"

DL: Believe me, if the encoding wasn't specified I would have been the first person on it. As it is, the encoding is specified: iso-8859-1. You can find the meta tag right after the title (which is right after the redundant style tags) and before the JS.

ok, I have taken the best viewed at etc... stuff away. As for the splash, I will fix that before the site launches. I will try and fix the rest of the stuff, but I am not going to redo the layout. I liked it. I have three styles, what should I use to replace them? Thanks for all the help.

quote:

---

I have three styles, what should I use to replace them?

---

Not really sure what you mean by this... are you talking about the three separate style sections in your <head>? If so, you don't need to replace them, per se, you just need to do something with them. At the very least, combine them all into one group (ie, you don't need to open and close style tags three times). I would recommend taking both the style info and JS out of your HTML document altogether and linking to them externally, like this:

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" title="styles" rel="nofollow" href="styles.css">

for the CSS, and

<script type="text/javascript" src="scripts.js"></script>

for the JavaScript. Does that make sense?

As for the layout itself, no one actually complained about that, so I don't see why you would have to change it.

One thing I wanted to ask you, though: why are you using entirely different layouts and color schemes for the English and Swedish versions? It would make more sense to me to stick with the same design so your users can identify with something, no matter which version they look at. As it is, they almost look like two different sites. Not to mention that it's a lot more work for you...

I think DL didn't like the layout:

quote:

---

2) Visual.... ok, cliche, cliche, cliche. Washed out beige and grey, pixel fonts, completely meaningless photographs that are supposedly meant to convey something.....yadda yadda yadda....

---

Oh, the two different layout thing. I have not changed the swedish side yet. That is still in the old layout. Thank you for the help with the external scripting. I will try and work on that.




[This message has been edited by Erised (edited 06-30-2003).]

Ah... you are confusing layout with visual design. The layout is, very simply, the way elements are laid out on the page (hence the term). It has nothing to do with what colors or graphic elements you used. DL certainly was not wowed by your visual design, but I don't think he had a problem with the layout itself. Then again, I don't want to put any words in his mouth.

The external scripting should be a fairly simple matter, but if you run into any snags let us know.

Hm, odd that I didn't see the encoding there. Well, that's another plus for the site.

But Suho is correct, no problem with the layout...I mean it's not earth shattering, but a webpage layout rarely is (I know none of mine are...).

The visual elements the layout contains are more the issue. For a design studio, I would expect something with a little more....."umph".

Not that it has to be overly elaborate or anything....but it desperately needs *something* to draw some attention, and then it needs to do something with it. As it is, there is very little to draw my eye anywhere. The photos break the monotony a little, but once you get to them you're stuck thinkin "well what does this have to do with anything? "




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-30-2003).]

Nice site, although the visuals seem a bit, er... chiched?

The navigation font doesn't happen to be done in Silkscreen, does it?
If not, you'll have to excuse me. All them darn pixel fonts look alike... ;-)


In general though, it's not a bad site.