My roomate and I do web design together. We are putting the finishing touches on a website.
I just wanted to see what everyone thought of it. Be sure and check out the javascript engine behind the site.
And, to further HZR's point - make it display correctly.
There's really no excuse for it not to....
And, for what it's worth, the only thing that actually caused a problem for me (using firebird 0.7), was the Javascript pop-up itself. In fact, it showed on every damn page I tried to view, and crashed my browser.
Had you left that out, I would have been able to view it and possibly give some feedback.
{{edit - to top it off, I loaded up my IE 4.0, and it choked on your Javascript, and the Flash did not load......
I think you've got a view technical issues to work out here.}}
[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 01-26-2004).]
Always wanted to write onw of these so here it goes?
My version of a stream on consciousness review...
----
*clicks links*
javascript engine eh, this oughta be cool...
*pop* what the?...
Many not disp... use IE... oh fuck this.
*close popup*
*close window*
----
Sorry mate, but I got better things to do than jump through hoops for a website. I spend enough time doing that in other areas of my life, dun want a bar of it when I?m chill'n online.
Harsh... yes.
Needlessly rude... maybe.
But I guarantee you that at least 20% (and I?m possibly being generous with that figure) of your site visitors will react just like I did.
--------------
ps. I want back and actually had a look after that, and I see no design enhancing elements added through javascript save the menu. Infact I've even go to say that in some cases the javascript detracts form the site, espically when it breaks for parts of the content fail to load in certain browsers. In any event, you could have used a proven and tested cross browser script. In a business environment, there really is no excuse for wasting time re-inventing the wheel, espically when the one that's already avaliable works better and doesn't cost you a penny.
If you want to screw around and make cool javascript stuff, best to leave it on your personal website and out of the business sites unless it's *fully* cross browser and it degrades gracefully.
In Firebird there's about 10 pixels of extra space on the right side that looks like it's caused by your lavenderish bar with the phone number and date.
It also looks to me like your navigation bar is missing in Firebird as well. You'll definitely want to remedy that.
To continue the ruthless onslaught, that's the worst domain name I think I've ever seen. When you're p[icking a domain name you have to shoot for something that's going to be able to be typed the first time when you just mention it verbally. At most you might have to append "all one word" to your description for the impared. With that domain name you have some seeeerious splainin to do Lucy.
I just looked at it again and then back at this thread and then back at your site and then back at this thread.... and you know what? No one has shredded the poor navigation. You know your site has some problems when these ruthless SOBs don't even get to the navigation
The nav on the front page is unconventional, business sites should prefer a conventional means of navigation, espceially medical content professional sites (speaking of professional medical sites liking stuff, Flash is probably very bad from an accessability standpoint). Once you go deeper than the front page the navigation gets even more confusing, I saw some kind of breadcrumb type nav at the bottom of the page but it was pretty screwey, and it wasn't available on all pages. Some pages had no links away from themselves at all.
All these problems and you know what? I bet the clients love it =D it's got that Flash moving stuff after all.
But hey that's why I posted here. I didn't want anyone to tell me it was good.
The Domain:
Completely out of my hands, I was just as pissed.
The Popup:
I have never used that <noscript> before, so sorry it is going to be /deleted.
The all around Design?
Nobody thought the design was good?
The Navigation:
I'm in a toss up here... On one hand I love Dynamic Content. But in the other I hate the fact that
people are having problems with it. So s I would love to use a cross-browser script any websites come to mind?
Explaination:
You see I'm the programmer and my rootmate is the graphics. So bascially its all my fault.
I'm not sure what direction to move to make the navigation "business-like" and "smooth" in the same.
I'm going to fix all the error(s) that everyone metioned. If anything else comes to mind please don't be shy and post!
Thanks
-buddy
Ps - The clients love it!!!!!
[This message has been edited by buddylee (edited 01-27-2004).]
If the client loves it and you honestly couldn't care less about it, take the damn money and run!
But if you do actually care about them getting a quality product and are willing to spend time on things they probably won't even notice, then by all means, knock yourself out. =)
You can get a good cross browser menu script at www.dhtmlcentral.com -- don't know how well it degrades for older/non visual browsers but it'll right back to version 4.0 browser so you should be fairly safe. If you're really stressed about but still need the menu system then provide a text only version of the site.
Ditch the "loading" parts, you don't need them, and they make the loading times appear longer. Without them the text should load almost instantly, and the user won't sitting around waiting. If they have to wait for each and every content page to load, they?ll be very weary of navigating to a new page (of which you have many for them to choose form), so you better have some well designed and succinct menu copy. If a user is reluctant about their browsing experience and you give them ambiguous menu options they?ll simply choose to go elsewhere.
Of if you?re using flash, do the menu in flash two, which should eliminate your cross browser issues to a degree but it'll create some accessibility issues. But it's your job to decide what compromise to make in that area.
Other stuff...
Ditch the date, 99.9% of people viewing that site will be using a personal computer of some kind so the date it but a click away form then (or constantly visible in some operating systems) -- it's simply unneeded and it draws unwanted attention. People do visit websites to see a date, they go for content, so ditch any prominent non-content related items and put something useful in there instead.
The same goes for the "powered by" message and the scrolling text/flash animation thingy. You dun need it and your site visitors certainly won't care for it, that and the txt on the animation it too small to read and it moves too quickly for anyone to take it in. If that information is really important print it all out in one place where it can be read easily, if it's not important, get rid of it.
Content is king! Speaking of which, the menu is too difficult to read and it doesn't stand out enough. The bevel looks a little cheap and the font looks, well, ugly. Simplify the menu, plain flat colours and contrasting text should do the trick.
I also see a lot of font confusion. Fonts are cool useful yet fickle things. The more of them you slap onto the one page the worse it seems to look. A lot of people often try and use different fonts to differ between content types, which are a bad idea that usually results in a messy looking design. Stick to two/three fonts max and unify them (i.e., one font for body text, another font for headings) and use bold and colour to signify contextual differences -- italic treatments usually look bad with aliased screen displayed fonts so avoid them.
The colours are ok... not great but ok. I'm assuming that much of the colour is dictated by the logo which you can't change. In any event, if you do have some liberties with the colours I'd suggest starting over and letting the images you use dictate your colour scheme. Grab the eye dropper tool and start pick'n! -- Works for me =).
Oh and kill those horrid greys, they just ain?t working with those light blue/white images ? drags the whole site down.
Lastly, white space and form -- possibly the biggest problem with this site (design wise) is the lack of form and white space (and by white space I mean space in general, or negative space). Firstly, the site in the top left... kinda. It?s 10 pixels down and 10 to the left. Which just looks wrong unless your browser window happens to end 10 pixels form the bottom right edge of the design -- so centre it.
Then there's the apparent complete lack of attention to margins and line heights, which all seem different making the site seem messy. Add that to the differing heights of the different graphical elements and you get one rather messy looking page. Sure it could be a lot worse, but with a little attention to the details in between the lines it could be a hell of a lot better.
Yup, that about does it.
On, one more thing, if you're going to have a menu like that, make sure every group has items in it, don't make some that have pull down options and some that don't -- it breaks the convention it draws from the traditional applications menus which will just confuse the user as te'll expect there to be a pull down menu for each option. When there isn't, the'll likely think it's broke. This is why it's important to understand why and where trends develop from, so that you don't use them in disabling ways.
Ok, definatly done now.
On a whole it ain't too bad, but with some serious elbow grease and a little more grey matter, which you don't seem short on, it could be a lot better.
Just been reading up on what you guys are posting (I'm the 'roomate').
Thanks for the suggestions. We're changing the menu around some other misc. stuff. I feel like I've just been shot (I thought one year as a graphic design major would leather my hide). But seriouslly thanks for the help, we enjoy making websites and this is only our second one.
Ps. The powered by Fonar stays! (Doctors are dorks [not computerish nerds] that like silly things like that)
From: there...no..there..... Insane since: May 2001
posted 01-28-2004 19:00
about the dynmaic content...how is this content loaded?
because in Firebird it doesn't load right. The content is sometimes overlapped with the bottom images or is just too wide.
so i would really look into that. not everyone viewing these pages would be using IE
Cprompt, I noticed that issue as well, but I figure it's a bug with firebird itself as in renders properly in Netscape 7 and Opera. Considering Firebird is still in it's beta testing stages I'd actually err against trying to fix it as it'll likely cause issues down the road.
Seeing as many of the asylum users now use firebird this is something we should keep in mind. Just because it doesn't render right in FB doesn't mean the designer is at fault. Check it in the mainstream browsers like Netscape 7, IE and Opera. If it works fine in those browsers then chances are your looking at a FB specific bug, something you really should be prepared to encounter when using beta software.
The last thing we want to be doing is recommending specific fixed to accommodate buggy software as who's to know what will happen once those bugs have been fixed. Will the site then render incorrectly in a bug-corrected version of the same software?... For this reason it's best not to use alpha/beta software to test your code. I know you can't grantee that any software will be bug free, but at least with a full release version you'll know that any of the relatively major bugs should have been picked up and resolved.
[This message has been edited by Cameron (edited 01-28-2004).]
I'm gonna go through, click by click, and focus on the 'little things'.
Everybody else here is bang on. Listen to them and learn. My points are auxillary...and some would call them nit-picky. I call them professional. =)
New Patients > How to Schedule Exams
404
New Patients > Insurance Information
First sentence could be reworded. Perhaps, "We accept most major health insurance and workers' compensation plans. We also offer private payment plans."
New Patients > Patients Rights
Fine
New Patients > My Results
Fine
New Patients > Online Forms
Perhaps it is a colloquialism, but 'print it up' sounds not professional to me. How about simply, 'print it'?
Don't use 'Click Here'. Instead, make the name of the form the hyperlink.
Warn the user:
A) the documents will be non-HTML (pdfs in this case)
B) the documents are of what size
New Patients > Online Forms > Privacy Practice Form
Second page, first heading "Healthcare Operations" should read "Health Care Operations"
Second page, fourth heading "Others involved in your healthcare" should read "Others involved in your health care"
Third page, near the bottom heading "Workers Compensation" should read "Workers' Compensation"
Third page, last sentence "Following is a statement of your rights..." needs final punctuation
Fourth page, first non-heading sentence ends with two periods
Fourth page, second non-heading sentence "...will be fulfilled within 7 days..." spell out numbers less than 10
New Patients > Online Forms > MRI Patient Screening Form
First paragraph, list of items not to be taken into MRI room -- Jewelry is capitalized and shouldn't be
10th item in check list reads "An insulin or infusion pumps" -- 'An' is singular, 'pumps' is plural. Resolve.
New Patients > Online Forms > Patient Registration Form
Looks good
About MRI > What is Stand-Up MRI?
Menu heading reads "About Stand-up MRI" which is not consistant with the page heading
First paragraph is indented. Others from New Patients pages were not. As briefly look at other pages, I notice some are indented and some are not. This should be resolved. Though the trouble runs through your site, I won't mention it again.
About MRI > About MRI
First, I would change the name so it wasn't the same as the main heading...and I'd probably put it before 'What is Stand-Up MRI' because it is more general information
More padding on the left side of the page
"Previous gun wound"...what if I just got pistol-whipped in the jaw? Maybe "gunshot wound" or "bullet wound" would be more appropriate
While we're here, why "Previous"? If it happens in the future I won't likely know about it...and if it's happening now an MRI is the last thing on my mind! =)
About MRI > MRI Images
clicking on image does not allow me to view the images in full size as advertised
About MRI > Position Images
Fine
I might have put some descriptions about the use of some of those positions...but that's really an 'extra'.
About MRI > Case Studies
First sentence, "...doesn't just enable clauserphobic..." should be "...claustrophobic..."
First sentence, "...it also produces quallity images!" should be "...quality..."
Remove the exclamation point. It isn't professional.
Second menu item "...Hernation" should be "...Herniation"
About MRI > Case Studies > Bladder and Uterine Prolapse
Second sentence "Note the decent...pubococygeal line which occurs with standing..." should read "...pubococygeal line, which occurs with standing..."
About MRI > Case Studies > Position-Related Recurrent Disc Hernation
This page is not laid out like the previous case study. Consistant layout is good.
About MRI > Case Studies > Evaluation of Spinal Stability
Fine
About MRI > Case Studies > Upright Dynamic MRI Reveals Hidden Disc Herniation
Fine
About MRI > Case Studies > Postoperative Hypermobile Instability
Fine
About MRI > Case Studies > Upright Dynamic MRI Reveals Occult Disc Herniation
Again with the different layout. No good, man.
Driving Directions
Blank page
About Us > Interpreting MD's
This is not possessive. The menu "Interpreting MD's" should read "Interpreting MDs".
The heading "Interpreting Radiologist" does not match the menu item. Consistancy is key.
Also, Interpreting Radiologist is misleading, as there are more than one radiologists on the page.
About Us > About Our Staff
Again with the menu and page headings not matching
I'm going to take this moment to write about writing for the web. Less is more. A general rule-of-thumb I use is this: Take every sentence and rewrite it to say the exact opposite. Now, imagine a someone -- anyone -- using that sentence. If you can't, delete the original. It is useless. Let me give you an example from this page.
The staff of Medica Stand-Up MRI is highly experienced and thoroughly trained.
Now flip it.
The staff of [insert company] is not very experienced and poorly trained.
Would ANYBODY EVER put use that sentence in their advertising? Nope. Kill it.
People come to a web site to get information and get it fast. They are not going to be impressed by bloated words on a web site. They will believe you are pros by seeing Dr. credentials, meeting friendly staff, and seeing a clean, warm, comforting facility.
Also, if at all possible, don't write in the passive voice.
About Us > About Medica
Again with the menu/page heading mismatch. I won't mention it again. This is an issue.
Second paragraph, third sentence is too long. Perhaps, "With their technology, and sub-specialties...times on interpretations. We guarantee a preliminary report to the referring physician within four hours..."
Also, remember to spell out all numbers less than 10. Four is less than 10.
Third paragraph/sentence misuses the semicolon. Semicolons are for connecting two clauses, both of which are capable of standing as sentences on their own.
Read my note above about verbosity.
Third bullet item "...even the same say in most cases" should read "...even the same day in most cases"
About Us > Mission and Values
Now I'm double confused. What is the name of the company? The header graphic reads "Medica Stand-Up MRI", the previous page starts with "Medica Imaging, LLC is owned..." and now this page says, "The mission of Medica Forsyth Open MRI & CT..."
Values are not sentences and do not have punctuation. Goals are not sentences and do have punctuation. consistancy
Contact > Contact Us
No mailing address
No colon after "Fax Number"
Urgh, not with the "Click here" bit again...
Contact > Billing Inquiries
Inqueries, in the heading, is misspelled
First sentence has no punctuation
Required feilds... should read "Required fields..."
Contact > Email Us
First sentence, "Please Use..." should be "Please use..."
Another "click here"
No exclamation points, please.
FAQ
WHAT IS STAND-UP MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING(MRI) AND HOW DOES IT WORK?
Fourth paragraph, "An Stand-UP MRI..." should be "A Stand-Up MRI..."
Second bullet item doesn't make sense in the form of a sentence. "[A] Stand-Up MRI differs from a traditional MRI in that it lower noise levels."
Third bullet item, more of the same
What the hell is a 'contraindication'? I know what it is, but the general public does not.
Is MRI for Everyone?
Second sentence, "...if you have either of the following:" and then a list of three. 'Either' implies two.
Next paragraph, "...may prevent individuals from having an MRI." Previously on the site this was always written, "...a MRI...". Be consistant.
How Do I Prepare...
Second bullet item, second sentence, "We may request that you to change into..." Reword.
Fifth bullet item, "...30-60 minutes at a time due to pain an/or..." should read "...due to pain and/or..."
What Should I Expect...
Fine
How Long...
Fine
Links
More padding
MedicalImaging.com
...want to consider scheduling your next exam at one of these center...
...want to consider scheduling your next exam at one of these centers...
Quantum Radiology
Rewrite first sentence -- awkward. Perhaps split into two sentences at "...known for..."
Fonar
No exclamation points, please.
That's it. Every page of your site, hastily visited and commented on. I hope it helps.
Good luck.
Does not work with Firebird or Mozilla -- just 'template' with no content.
I don't have lots of time now to fiddle w/ anything else.
I'll be back later w/ more.
From what I understand firebird is still beta?
Anyway it's kind of like why should I cater to every new browser that comes out?
Besides the statistics speck for themselves....
However the site does work with Opera, NS and IE
[This message has been edited by buddylee (edited 02-05-2004).]
quote:From what I understand firebird is still beta?
The fact that it's beta software has nothing to do with its page rendering capabilities. It uses the same engine as Mozilla, which is already version 1.6. The only difference is that the Firebird interface itself is not as polished as Mozilla's.
I would make sure that pages are at least readable in IE5+, Opera 7, and Mozilla 1.6 in Windows, and if possible, IE5 and Safari for Mac.
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 02-05-2004 21:55
I would care about firebird, it is quickly become a very relavent browser. I have been using it for a long time now, and have not had any problem viewing any of the major sites. It wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure to work with it. It is not hard to install on any machine and to open it up to run a quick check. I also have firebird installed on the machines that my family uses, as well as the machine in which my grandmother uses. I also have notices that at my school there are soom 1,000 sun workstations that only have mozilla installed, and that a number of my professors use firebird on their machines as well, both their laptops and workstations.
So you might find you are pushing away some of your more ardent users by not catering to all browsers. It might be a mistake to say this, but many of your more professional clientelle would from universities or even big business might not have the ability to use Internet Explorer and would not take the time to explore the site.
As for the new design it is nice and clean, however, the menu is broken under Firebird (running on FreeBSD). I don't know why it is broken but it is, which if it is the DHTML central script it shouldn't be, as it is very robust in its ability to work with multiple browsers.
posted 01-26-2004 18:18
