Preserved Topic: Feedback is appreciated... (Page 1 of 1)

I have two things I would appreciate feedback on, one is my site http://www.ourdome.com and the other is a flash intro I did for my new site (not open yet) which can be viewed at http://www.ourdome.com/temp/designs.html .

hrm.. it's, okay?

your graphic in the top left doesn't look good though. it's got jaggies in parts and has a lens flare, just looks kinda bad.

i don't like the mouse-overs either on the selection menu, the descriptions that pop up are too big and should all be anchored to the same place.

that site reminds me of, uhm... www.rushmagazine.com ...something like that, just seems like a "man's" web site.

not that i mind looking at sets of pictures of pretty girls, typically lacking a lot of clothing... but it's only really interesting if they have piercings, nice tatoos, or scarification. *shrug*

on the flash intro, there's a part where the ball bounces to the left side of the screen and gets partly cut off.. that looks bad.

uhhh.. does this thing ever finish loading?

*taps foot impatiently*

still waiting... sheesh.

okay, there we go.. the text looks bad. times new roman? come on, spice it up (just don't make it gaudy).

very basic, looks like a starting point in flash. keep at it though, flash is something i can't do.

cheers.mikey.milker

I got this when I attempted to load the first page.

"You are using netscape, you cannot view this site with netscape. Get Internet Explorer."

I didn't bother with the second link.

quote:

---

hrm.. it's, okay?

your graphic in the top left doesn't look good though. it's got jaggies in parts and has a lens flare, just looks kinda bad.

---

I agree, I was going to change that a while ago but I never got to it.

quote:

---

i don't like the mouse-overs either on the selection menu, the descriptions that pop up are too big and should all be anchored to the same place.

---

Hmmm, I like them. As far as anchoring, if I didn't center them, it might look bad I think.

quote:

---

that site reminds me of, uhm... www.rushmagazine.com ...something like that, just seems like a "man's" web site.

not that i mind looking at sets of pictures of pretty girls, typically lacking a lot of clothing... but it's only really interesting if they have piercings, nice tatoos, or scarification. *shrug*

---

Scarification ?

quote:

---

on the flash intro, there's a part where the ball bounces to the left side of the screen and gets partly cut off.. that looks bad.

---

Hmm, your right about that, didn't really notice it or think much of it till now.

quote:

---

uhhh.. does this thing ever finish loading?

*taps foot impatiently*

still waiting... sheesh.

---

Hehe, 56 user ?

quote:

---

okay, there we go.. the text looks bad. times new roman? come on, spice it up (just don't make it gaudy).

---

Times roman on that text panel ? At that point I was just getting tired of working on it.

quote:

---

very basic, looks like a starting point in flash. keep at it though, flash is something i can't do.

cheers.mikey.milker

---

Very basic ? It might be a bit basic looking but its not so basic to do. But thanks much, this is first set of real feedback I got that I can actually use <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/smile.gif">.

quote:

---

I got this when I attempted to load the first page.

"You are using netscape, you cannot view this site with netscape. Get Internet Explorer."

I didn't bother with the second link.

---

Oh yeah, I forgot about that, I got tired of making everything working with netscape. Its just too much crap that doesn't work with netscape, sorry I hate netscape. The 2nd link is flash, will work fine with netscape.

but thats your *job*, to make sure it works properly for as many people as you can. this means making sure it works in netscape.

there is no good reason why you cant figure out how to code a straight html webpage with simple mouseovers to work in netscape. no reason at all.

quote:

---

but thats your *job*, to make sure it works properly for as many people as you can. this means making sure it works in netscape.

there is no good reason why you cant figure out how to code a straight html webpage with simple mouseovers to work in netscape. no reason at all.

---

I do NOT need to figure out how to code anything. I got tired of all the extra lines of code for netscape, which infact ended up making my IE version look bad. And this is not a straight html web page with rollovers. The problem arises with inline frames and onclick events. For example, the resizable image which on click resizes, or the on click images which change the image on click. But yes I am supposed to make it all perfect for all, the problem is netscape is behind on technology, in netscape 6, you can view my site fine. Netscape is finally realizing how behind they are, and they still suck.

hahahahaha....

AHAHAHAHAHAAAA....

christ, not again.

cheers.mikey.milker

Yeah Netscape Sucks...So FUCK the 20% of visitors that can't see the page...cause 20%, that's not even half..and uh shit...and if they can't download IE because they have a slow 28.8 connection, and won't take the hour or so to do it just to view my weak page..FUCK them again.

This is business after all, and what's 20% of the market lost right off the bat because I'm too lazy to write a redirect, or learn to design without inline frames which aren't supported by the W3C?


Okay, that's it...somebody close this friggin thread, it's making me sick to see the "if you don't like the way I weakly design, don't comment" attitude pop up again.

I avoided commenting on the last one...now hopefully this one can run it's course early.


---------------------------

Oh, and just for MOC...in case you think you're being ganged up on...this is just me...the opinion of one designer who does it for a living. I get paid contract wages, and pay my bills from making content pages less ugly, and more functional. If someone suddenly cut my wage by 20% because Netscape users weren't going to be seeing the sites I designed, guess how well that would go over?

You wanted feedback, and here's the most honest that I can give. Your site looks average, but if I was using Netscape, it would look like nothing..so I even that out and say the site is obviously below average, and you have no idea how to work within the medium that you've chosen.

Browser elitism is for whiny children, or for those looking to fail from the get go.

Which category would you choose to fall under?

Please learn to listen to the people here, if you open your mind instead of your mouth, you might learn what makes them extraordinary.

That's it..end rant.

Peter



ICQ:# 10237808

'say what you mean and say it mean.'

seriously though, the fact that Moc doesn't know what scarification is really makes me upset.

wait no, i think the general consensus around the forum lately is a little frusturation.

from where i see it, there seems to be an influx of new 'designers' who throw together a site and then ask for reviews here. the sites are all pretty basic and in my opinion don't fit in with the stuff done by the 'regulars' around here.

that's not the problem though, rather i'm frusturated with the attitude a lot of people have been throwing around (this definitely includes me). shit gets started and people just get a little vocal..

i think it's just really rough because these new kids are not contributing to the community. instead they just show up and want a site reviewed, take our input with a grain of salt, and then split...

anyone else feeling me on this? or am i just talking out my arse?

cheers.mikey.milker

Hmmm, I didn't yell at anyone or bitch at anyone. Let me explain this to you guys. I get paid for making sites just like you do. This site is for myself, ourdome is mine and with school, girlfriend, personal time to do nothing, and 4 or 5 sites to maintain, I don't have time to make ourdome viewable for netscape users, I can make it now viewable but I don't feel the need to correct the problems, so I don't make it viewable to netscape users period. Maybe one day I will take the time.

As I said I appreciate all feedback, and I read and listen to peoples feedback, but I don't need you guys getting pissed that I don't want to put out the extra bit for netscape, netscape should put out more for us web-designers, make our life easier, not more difficult. Now if the fact that I think netscape sucks bothers you, thats another case. So Mr Dark Garden, cause you offcourse sound so much older and mature (ehm), listen to me before you tell me to listen to you. I didn't attack people who gave me feedback, in fact I didn't attack anyone here, but netscape. So "Please learn to listen to the people here, if you open your mind instead of your mouth, you might learn what makes them extraordinary." And thanks for your feedback, I am glad you think my site is average, but you gave me no other feedback than that I don't support netscape. I didn't post this to get into this whole bullshit talk, and I never said "if you don't like the way I weakly design, don't comment", I appreciate all comments, including negative ones such as my weakly design. But if you can't explain why its a weak design besides the netscape issue then it doesn't help me.

i think the feeling was...

if you're 'lazy' enough to not support netscape in your code, then that's about as weak of a design as you can make.

when i first discovered that one of my sites wasn't viewable in netscape, i almost shit myself because i realized that there were people out there that couldn't even see my site... and as a designer, that's a huge problem of MINE.

i must admit that we're all a little on edge around here lately, and you were nice enought to actually respond and acknowledge constructive input that was given...

as for anything you and dark garden might want to discuss, it's really not my place. but he's probably one of the best designer and graphic person in this newsgroup, so he does have a lot to offer...

hope no feelings were hurt with anyone, okay kids?

cheers.mikey.milker

Moc: What you seem to be missing is that the feedback you're getting is absolutely huge. "Consider your whole audience". Personally, I don't care if you don't ultimately design for Netscape...it isn't my site, but when someone here (sasha seems to be a very competent HTML programmer and designer from what I've seen) says that coding for Netscape is essential, and you turn around to say (paraphrased) "Netscape sucks, and I don't have to code for it if I don't want to", then the feeling here is, don't ask for feedback in the first place.

Now, since I do give people the chance to glean what they wish from a critique, I'll try to give you one, and see if you can accept it, hopefully.

Starting with ourdome.com

Graphically: The upper left logo looks bad. The bevels are sloppy, the lens flare is overused, pointless, and not a small bit ugly. The graphic doesn't seem to add to the site since it is basically repeated, larger just below, and to the right. The use of two different fonts on these two "logos" over what looks like improperly blurred lighting effected plates makes for a very amateur feel that I don't think you're looking for. I usually eschew the use of third party plugins, but using one to make these bevels might have resulted in them coming out looking better.

Layout: The low saturated dark blue on black is overused, but it works, so there's no complaint there. Very generic, but nothing wrong with it at all. The resolution is unfortunately a sticking point.

In your source code, the tables are set for 640 pixels wide...admirable that you're aiming for the low res people, but you didn't get them. 640 is the max width resolution of an entire screen set at 640x480...a browser has browser bars at the sides of the windows even when maximized (than god you didn't go "fullscreen" setting at least). Add onto the browser bars, a 18-20 px wide scrollbar, and guess what?..you're down to about 600 pixels MAX.
The tabled layout looks good other than this point. Again, generic, but good.

Content: Well I'm skipping that, since it's not my call to make, but I'll only touch on one fact that splits between this, and Layout...Text.

Youtr text shows as default size 3 Times New Roman. Not bad per se, but definitely boring, and not really fitting in with the clean, compact look that you seem to be going for.

That's enough for that, since I don't want to dig any deeper at the moment.

The Flash

I'm running on a DSL line, and your loading movie still took forever to cycle through to the animation menu/start. Again, the bevels on the text looked weak, and a bit amateurish, and I have the same complaint about the ball being cut off on the left as expressed by others.

I also didn't care to sit through it all without a "skip" button. Then, after it played, and I arrived at a flat page of bolded text, and a text "enter" button, I was unimpressed to say the least.

After clicking, I still sat an interminable amount of time waiting for another load to happen....and what did I get....nothing.

Yep..just a server error...so maybe it was bad timing, or just not hooked up..but the time issue alone made me think you should stick with your HTML setup and either redo an entirely new Flash intro (with skip button) or just trash it entirely.

All in all, an average design on the ourdome.com page...I give credit for use of decent colour, and clean layout...but that's really all.

Now, a quick critique, assuredly, but one that provides you with enough to "work on" other than just your lack of letting Netscape users see your page.

And there's a whopping load of help as you've asked for.

Hopefully you use it, or anyone, and everyone else's here.


Peter

And I'd still love to see this thread closed.




ICQ:# 10237808

[This message has been edited by DarkGarden (edited 10-09-2000).]

quote:

---

Starting with ourdome.com

Graphically: The upper left logo looks bad. The bevels are sloppy, the lens flare is overused, pointless, and not a small bit ugly. The graphic doesn't seem to add to the site since it is basically repeated, larger just below, and to the right. The use of two different fonts on these two "logos" over what looks like improperly blurred lighting effected plates makes for a very amateur feel that I don't think you're looking for. I usually eschew the use of third party plugins, but using one to make these bevels might have resulted in them coming out looking better.

---

I already answered this on mikeys first reply (time is an issue), but you are very correct on this.

quote:

---

Layout: The low saturated dark blue on black is overused, but it works, so there's no complaint there. Very generic, but nothing wrong with it at all. The resolution is unfortunately a sticking point.

---

Generic ? overused ? I am sorry but I didn't see it anywhere, I just happened to play with colors till I liked what I saw. Sticky resolution because I prefer to keep my layout the way I want it, where nothing moves around.

quote:

---

In your source code, the tables are set for 640 pixels wide...admirable that you're aiming for the low res people, but you didn't get them. 640 is the max width resolution of an entire screen set at 640x480...a browser has browser bars at the sides of the windows even when maximized (than god you didn't go "fullscreen" setting at least). Add onto the browser bars, a 18-20 px wide scrollbar, and guess what?..you're down to about 600 pixels MAX.
The tabled layout looks good other than this point. Again, generic, but good.

---

I know about the scroll bar issue, but I am basically going for 800 x 600 and up. At 640x480, its still not that bad, I know you end up with a horizontal bar because of the vertical, but at 800x600 + it looks very good. I don't quite understand the use of "generic" here.

quote:

---

Youtr text shows as default size 3 Times New Roman. Not bad per se, but definitely boring, and not really fitting in with the clean, compact look that you seem to be going for.

---

I understand that I use default font, I used a different font earlier but went back to default, since most people don't have the font I used. But yes it might seem boring, but it doesn't look that bad.

quote:

---

I'm running on a DSL line, and your loading movie still took forever to cycle through to the animation menu/start. Again, the bevels on the text looked weak, and a bit amateurish, and I have the same complaint about the ball being cut off on the left as expressed by others.

---

Agreed on this, I have the server local to me, so it loads too fast for me. The flash is only about 120 to 160 kb max I think. Still should not take that long.

quote:

---

I also didn't care to sit through it all without a "skip" button. Then, after it played, and I arrived at a flat page of bolded text, and a text "enter" button, I was unimpressed to say the least.

---

Reason there is no skip button is that I don't have the site up yet, so no need to skip the intro yet. I don't think I bolded the text, just a bigger size I think but yeah that text is boring.

quote:

---

After clicking, I still sat an interminable amount of time waiting for another load to happen....and what did I get....nothing.

---

Sorry, forgot to mention that domain is not up yet, setting up the dns and I haven't did any layout for the site.

quote:

---

...and either redo an entirely new Flash intro (with skip button) or just trash it entirely.

---

Adding a skip button does not require redoing the entire clip. I will be fixing the ball going off screen, as well as the text panel text. But I like my beveled text.

quote:

---

All in all, an average design on the ourdome.com page...I give credit for use of decent colour, and clean layout...but that's really all.

---

Your time and feedback is appreciated. And yeah I have taken some of what you said and it will help me, this is what I call feedback.

quote:

---

And I'd still love to see this thread closed.

---

Ha ! <img border=0 align=absmiddle src="http://www.ozones.com/forum/wink.gif">

OK; thread closed!

(I really would like to go into the cross-browser thing, but, THREAD CLOSED!)

Your pal, -doc-