First impression: Gentle in the eye. Good point
Second impression: Had i not read this was your gallery, i'd have had not idea at all what was the site about. Bad Point
I think the main page should be a bit more explanative, maybe just a footer, but something should tell me what the hell i am visiting. I think the only intuitive icon is the mail one, as the other two made me wonder what were they about; you know, the infamous Mistery Meat Design (forgot a link for it, anyone else help me on that :P).
Personally, i dont find the fader for text neither useful nor attractive. I'd say just butcher it, it is just adding a few more bytes not needed for the page.
Coding wise:
Some parts of it are well organized, while some other parts were kinda hard and messy to read. if your divs are going to have an unique id, why not put the positioning and such in the css for them. Just put them something like:
#GoodStuff{width : 411px;height : 36px;top : 338px; left : 0px;
position : absolute;
z-index : 1;
visibility : hidden;
}
If you have not noticed as for now, the #Name delimits that the style elemnets will be only applied to an object with an id labeled Name.
Back onto design, i just checked that there are not really that much pictures in each section, so i think all the sections could be somehow implemented in the main page. Maybe an iframe or some sort of rewriteable div with all the thumbs (i'd suggest slightly smaller thumbs for that) and then just make a popup for the full size pic.
Alevice, what about the words, "After effects" and "A Gallery" don't explain the kind of page you're looking at?... *shrug* seems perfectly clear to me.
Anyways, I'm not a fan of that repeating background image, seems a little overstated have the word "after effects" repeat that many times and it comes off feeling more like cheezy gift wrapping than anything else. But maybe that's me.
I like the navagation, the icons were more than enough for me. I don't see why you always have to spell things out for the user in text, the web would be horribly boring if everyone always did that, besides the alt/title text on those image links should be more than enough for most people to figure it out.
I've seen a lot of comments in this fourm about "mystery meat" navagation lately and whilst many of those comments have been justified, many have not. Just because some high profile jock stap said to do it, doesn't mean you should. There are times when words are wasted and a simple image is enough, and I think this site demonstrates that quite well. Hell, 70% of road signs are just icons. Our prinary sense is out vision (well, motion in vision to be exact) and it's been proven that an image can convey meaning much quicker than text can, so why waste congative proceses re-affirming self explaning imagery with text?
I am however a little miffed by the use of the up arrow. When viewing a full sized image the alt text for that icon reads "home" which is usually associated with the very front page of your site yet it only takes you back one level. I first thought the icon would take me one level back but upon seeing the alt text, I was confused. Perhaps seperate "back to gallery" and "back to index" icons would clear things up there.
Additionally, I can't use my back button from the "random" link. Might want to fix that, and possibly add a random link to each page. If only because I think the simplicity of your site would actually make people want to be thrown into it and move about it from random points, at least, that's how I'd find it most entertaining.
As for the fading / scrolling text, well, I like it. I'd like it a lot more if it wasn't for that repeating background though. .
Nice job on the site and the content. You have a good eye for photography. I hope you'll update it often. =)
[This message has been edited by Dracusis (edited 10-20-2003).]
Well, not being a truly english speaker (not being my first language may be one of the reasons), After Effects dont tell me anything at all. A Gallery does, but 'gallery' is such a wide concept...then again, thats just me.
About the icons: the mailto was clear enough for me, but an "i" and a bunch of blockies do not tell me anything. I barely check the alt/acronym text, and I lack perception for this. I kinda thought it could be an about, but checking the url ("links.html) made me wonder again...(yes i dont check alt text but i do the url at the status bar...im such weird at times :P)
And mind you, it took me a lot of time to learn the road signs. Some were obvious, but some were not until my dad told me what they meant like 50 times :P
Oh, and yes, i like the tiled background better than the fader.
...
After some thinkerin, i guess i am such a subjective person when criticquing.
quote:besides the alt/title text on those image links should be more than enough for most people to figure it out.
Just a quick note: Alt text is meant describe to non-visual browsers what an image contains. It is not to be used as a fancy tooltip gimmick (thats what the title attribute is for). In fact, IE6 is the only browser that displays alt text as a tooltip, and is the reason why some of us have become so accustomed to it...
Oh, and I suggest that you not place any important content in the faded text effect thingy, as only IE users will see it.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to look at this, and I'm gald at least some of you liked the pictures. Most of the comments were about the site itself, so I'd like to discuss some of the issues raised:
My main aim when designing the site (my first, by the way) was to keep it clean and simple. I wanted to show off the pictures with the minimum of fuss, and as a result I put nothing on the front page to explain who I was or what the site was for! My original prototype used frames to separate the title from the explanatory blurb from the thumbnails, and it looked awful, so I opted for the simple approach. Having said that, I also felt that some explanation of the different sections of the gallery was necessary, hence the fading text when you roll over a thumbnail. Looking at it again, I think I was wrong and I'll probably remove it.
As for the tiled background, I can't make up my mind whether I like it or not, and I see it has split opinion here as well. Having seen the site with and without the background, I feel that it takes away some of the starkness of a totally black background, but perhaps repeating the name of the site over and over is a bit sickening! I'll experiment with different backgrounds to see if I can come up with something better - perhaps just a dark but not black colour will do it?
Icons - how many icons are truly intuitive, especially when they are trying to convey abstract concepts? The 'Information' icon is based on a British road sign which indicates an 'Information Point', but I can see that most people wouldn't know that! I suppose I could have used a question mark, but that doesn't really mean the same thing. I guess that if the visitor really wants to find out more about the site (rather than just look at the pictures, which is what it's really all about), they will try clicking a link or two to see what happens. Maybe another solution would be to write 'Info' or 'Random' in small letters under the icon?
HTML - I'm aware that some of this is not as pretty as it could be, but I'm just a beginner Much of it is generated by my web page software, but some of it is my own fault! What really annoys me are the miriad differences between Explorer and Netscape - what the hell happened to standards! I notice that the navigation icons on the individual pictures don't show up in Netscape 7, since they are in a separate division, and what's happened to the horizontal rule under the picture title? What part of <HR> doesn't Netscape understand I'll have to try and sort it out one day, but I'm more interested in photography than HTML!
Enough already. I've taken note of the other comments you've all made, and I'll be adding some more pictures soon, so don't forget to come back.
Thanks again,
Simon
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say."
I dont think the text on the icons may be that necesary. probably something else as icon may work, although atm i have no idea what could be..:P
Dont take out the explaining text, just the fading effect. I often visit many sites in ahurry, and if the info takes time to appear, i simply dont read it. My fault, but i think there is much more than just one person who does the same than me.
I did not meant to use frames either. My idea had to do a bit more with replacebale content in a block, or just some cssed iframe, although some people tend to dislike it. Still, thats rpetty much up to you.
On the tiled background: Maybe try something else on a black background. I dont think a color other than black would suit better for the mood on the page.
First off, great photos. They were a pleasure to look at.
As for the site itself, it's simple, and I think that's good. The focus here should be on your photos, and a fancy design would just get in the way. On that note, I'd like to cast a vote against the tiled background. Honestly, I think a pure black background would be fine. That's the way I would go.
On the issue of navigation, I'm going to have to agree with Drac. Dogma tends to be harmful, especially when you adhere blindly to it. In this case, images are fine for navigation, especially with the tooltip info. However, you've got to be careful of what images you use. As you mentioned, symbols mean different things in different cultures. The "i" for info was clear to me, but the die image completely missed me. Not sure what you could do with that, though. (I also agree that the up arrows should go to the level immediately above the current.)
I don't mind the rollover text, but I do mind the fade effect. Maybe I'm just impatient, but I can't stand fades. My personal opinion is that I would drop it.
And a comment for Alevice:
quote:i guess i am such a subjective person when criticquing.
Everyone is subjective when it comes to critiquing... otherwise it wouldn't be a critique.
I finally found the time to finish updating my site. Thanks again to everyone who reviewed it for me - taking their comments into account, I made the following changes:
Removed the tiled background, and went for plain black.
Made slightly bigger icons for the title page and wrote their meaning underneath - hopefully this will help when viewing the gallery pages.
Added a new Home icon to every page, to distinguish it from the Up icon.
Added the Random icon to every page - you can now jump from one random picture to the next.
Fixed the back button problem when using the Random icon.
Removed the scrolling/fading text from the image pages in favour of some simple Location/Date information at the bottom of the page. I left the fading text on the title page - you don't have to read it if you don't want to Alevice!
For pages with multiple pictures, put all the tumbnails on every page, in order, and highlighted the currently displayed image. Also made them stay in the same place when jumping from a narrow picture to a wide one.
Added a link to the Ozone Asylum in recognition of all your help.
Oh, nearly forgot - I added a couple of new photographs as well!
Would you believe i just realized that the random icon was a dice? :P
I cant say i dont miss the bg, i liked that better than just black bg
I am not seeing the random icon on any other place than the home page Could not check the code, but I am using Firebird, and i suspect this thing happens on any other Gecko browser as well.
And i would like to read the text this time, but does not show up on firebird :P (i would check how everything looks in ie, but right now i am a bit lazy :P
Yes, it is a dice (or a 'die' to be precise) - do you think it would be more obvious if I made it a five instead of a six?
Sorry the nav icons don't appear in Firebird - they don't work in Netscape either, so I guess I'm going to have to try and work out why. Don't be surprised if you see a couple of questions appearing in the Javascript forum!
Thanks for your kind comments about my site, Simon
So i went to check the site on IE6. I still do not see the random/home icons other than the main page. I checked the code and well....I could not find them there either, so...
[EDIT: Silly me, they are on the top right! Gee, I'm blind]
[EDIT2: Still, they dont show up on FB. Why dont you position the nav bar with css rather than javascript. There are many methods with it that can easily accomplish your goal and make it cross-compatible.]
Its just me or the fading text is slightly quickier?
And as for the die/dice/whatever...well i have no idea, i seem to be the only one who didnt realize that after all. Hehe
Alevice, if you can give me an example of how to position the nav icons in css, I'd be happy to try it. I position them with Javascript because I want them to be aligned with the right edge of the browser window, and to move if the window is resized - can this be done with css?
It can be done very easily with CSS. When specifying the position, just use "right" instead of "left". For example, if you want the element to sit 10 pixels off the right edge of its parent element, you would use right: 10px;
The same goes for "top" and "bottom"
If you'd like to see a real-world example, the content div of my site is positioned using "right"--just take a look at the css file (it's the first link in my sig).
[Edit: just to clarify, I use two style sheets, one for layout, one for color/presentation. You want the layout sheet. Scroll down to "ID Selectors" and look for "#content".]
___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org
I can't believe it's that easy, but it is! I've updated the site and the icons now appear in NN7. Alevice, can you confirm that you can see them in Firebird?
BTW, I think it's time I invested in a proper textbook about CSS, rather than just trying to pick it up as I go along. Can anyone recommend a suitable book?
Sometimes you gotta love CSS. Of course, there are other times when it makes you want to cry...
quote:BTW, I think it's time I invested in a proper textbook about CSS, rather than just trying to pick it up as I go along. Can anyone recommend a suitable book?
Well, I'm afraid I won't be much help here. Personally, I think "picking it up as you go along" is a perfectly good way of learning CSS. There are a ton of good resources online (for starters, try searching for "CSS" in the FAQ), and you can always fall back on the specs. Granted, they can be pretty cryptic at times, but once you get a good grasp of CSS they are invaluable.
The only book I ever bought for web purposes was a JavaScript book. HTML, CSS, PHP, etc., I all learned by following online tutorials and resources and just plowing ahead. I don't really think you need a book for these things, but maybe that's just me. I know some people prefer having books.
So, if you're going to go that route, I would recommend anything by Eric Meyer. I'm not sure what he's written, but I know he's written on CSS. I only know him from his web presence, but if his books are half as good as what he has on his site, they'll be worth the money.
[Edit: Oh, snap--I almost forgot. Maybe you've seen this already, but I just can't get enough of it. It's a superb source of inspiration and a great repository of real-world CSS examples: CSS Zen Garden. Chances are that you've seen this link before, because I tend to post it an awful lot. Can't help it--it's just that good.]
___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org
From: Den Haag: The Royal Residence Insane since: Jul 2000
posted 11-26-2003 20:45
My compliments your final site looks brilliant, simple, easy on the eyes and very beautyfull content.
And now with the navigation visible (moz 1.5 on win2k) it gets a 10 out of 10 from me.
__________________________________________
"Art has to be forgotten. Beauty must be realized."
Piet Mondriaan
[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 11-27-2003).]
Sorry to disappoint you Hugh, but actually I'm an Englishman abroad - hope that's not a problem!
Thanks for your kind comments on the site, Rinswind - I'm still working to improve some of the formatting to make it more cross-browser compatible, but as you can see from the above posts I've got a bit to learn about CSS and so on. Keep checking back, and you never know I might find time to actually load up some more photographs!
posted 10-20-2003 13:10
.
I'll have to try and sort it out one day, but I'm more interested in photography than HTML!
