Ok I've pretty much completed my first complete flash site, actually it's almost done, the shopping cart isn't done yet.
It was a little difficult deciding on a final design and after working on it for like 2 weeks there were quite a few things I wanted
to change but couldn't due to design restrictions.
I have a couple other sites to develop in the next month or two so I'd like to get some feedback from some Flash designers.
Like reisio, I'm not sure why this has to be a Flash page. Did the client specifically request Flash?
Maybe this is just personal, but all the wipes and other transitions really start to grate after only a few iterations. At first it's not too bad, but after a minute I'm thinking, "Does everything have to wipe, fade, or fall down from the top?"
It's very possible that it's just my connection, but when I clicked on the "go hawaiian" link it wouldn't load up any other pages until the video finishes. That is, I tried to click away, but it just kept loading the video until it finished. My connection is kind of crappy at times, so this could be something on my end.
On the usability front, I almost didn't see the "read more" link on the company history page.
Aside from the whole Flash aspect, the site itself seems fairly well designed.
the animations without exception need to be sped up by a factor of 2 at least. If you're going to take the browser functionality that people know and love away from them, they're likely pissed already to varying degrees, and suffering the transitions on top of that will cause further grief if they don't leave quickly. If they're coming for info it'll take too long to get it, though it's organized logically.
the first Flash page with the 5 product pics is the worst offender on waiting time, and the products are very jagged
useability wise on your products, when you isolate one and it comes to the fore, the "back to {parent product list}" should have some sort of quick scan visual cue as opposed to white text just like the descriptive text above it
sun safety, that grey box is, for lack of a kinder term: nasty! make it the same width and border as the box above with the same background, or the secondary color, yellow? at the sameish opacity level
the go hawaiian page seems a dead end, can't get out of it, order page is the same
this'll do nothing to make a search engine happy if that's a consideration in their plans to drive traffic
i think I got what the others didn't mention, aloha!
1) The only reason I have a "splash page" is eventually I needed to create links to their other company websites. (distribution, retailers, etc.)
2) I don't quite grasp the whole "fixed width" concept. Not sure how I would implement that.
3) Believe it or not the "go hawaiian" page was a problem I couldn't figure out but my client liked it that way. I hate it personally but cant figure out how the hell to fix it. And the order page is not done.
4) The jagged images is something I can't figure out either. In Flash they're crisp and clean but somewhere along the publish swf it screws it up and gives it a funked up jaggedy edge. Any suggestions for optimizing image quality would be great.
5) I agree with the Sun Safey box... that page is supposed to be redone with a more "eye catching" graph. It was just there so they knew what goes where.
That was quite a bit to take in but I appreciate all the feedback and comments. I would eventually like to have a part flash / part html site but for ease of use this was quicker. I totaly love the whole flash thing and hopefully I get over the "ooh ahh" factor. There isn't a whole lot of support for flash users. (not like here) I frequent kirupa.com flashkit.com and a few others and post requests for help but they go unanswered.
2) I don't quite grasp the whole "fixed width" concept. Not sure how I would implement that.
What you have is a box using up maybe 50% of the page (at around 1280x1024 resolution, anyways). Higher resolutions will have a smaller box and alot more empty, wasted space around it - lower resolutions may lose parts of the box.
If you set the width/height to be 100% (or 75% or something, even), it will be viewable on just about any resolution and won't waste space.
reisio's^ a bit dogmatic with his convictions, he's not aware that others (idiots!) feel differently
#3 is dogmatically, without reservation BS you can't get out of that page period, gotta be fixed! And the jaggie images and lack of Flash support? You should head over to the gurusnetwork's animation and multimedia forum and get to know folks, there's a few guys that putter around over there that know the app well.
I see what you mean reisio... I like the expandability. I would just be worried that my product images would lose quite a bit of quality. (hell it's already jaggedy as it is...) I always figured a fixed site would be more "safe" for lack of a better term. I know I have much to learn about flash.
Based on that link seems like you have a pretty good grasp on things.
What would you suggest to help with the image quality after publishing the swf files?
JK I totaly agree with the whole stuck thing... It's irritating to me. Problem is figuring out how to fix it. hehe... :-)
To elaborate, the Flash at the link reisio provided is a site built by another inmate who had made the site very miniscule in FF, and reisio threw that together as an example of how much easier it would be to use at 100%.
I gotcha. I've adjusted the site based on a few comments, mainly cleaning up the images was my priority. Still have a few images to go but for now I did the main pages.
I figured out a way to navigate out of the "go hawaiian" page.
And lastly, sped up a few of the transitions so's not to bore the viewer.
On the fixed width theory, I'm going to stick with what I've got (at least untill I grasp that a little better)
August 15th is the official launch of the new site so I'm a little releaved that most of the work is done.
I've done quite a bit of looking around since I read everyone's dislike for fixed widths and personally dont understand what the big deal is. I mean from the creative stand point isn't it best for a designer to have viewers see the site how they envisioned it and not how a certain browser will interpret it?
I can see where in some instances a fixed site is definately needed, but not always correct?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to piss in the wind here, just wondering because I've spoken to many web designers and it seems that every one has their likes and dislikes. (CSS/TABLES) etc...
"everyone's dislike for fixed widths"? only reiso said so in this thread unless you've been reading elsewhere. reiso is very opinionated on the matter, just becasue he states it as if it were fact does not make it so.
Use your own best judgement man, personally I think your site reviewed in this thread would have no reason to be 100% width imo unless you just filled the viewport with the flash and the text scaled as well. It would be ridiculously out of proportion with wacky white spaces if the text stayed small and the layout got full sized (which is often the irritating case with full width site designs).
I'm a full width hater myself in most cases, the only time I'd consider it is if you have massive amounts of textual content to present and even then I prefer that the lines not be too long, it's much harder to read a long line of text and drop back to the beginning of the next line the farther away the end is from the beginning.
Just touching on the whole fixed width site layout, these sites would be considered fixed wouldn't it?
Yes, they would be.
quote:Radical Rob said:
I've done quite a bit of looking around since I read everyone's dislikefor fixed widths and personally dont understand what the big deal is. I mean from the creative stand point isn't it best for a designer to have viewers see the site how they envisioned it and not how a certain browser will interpret it?
It's not the browser, it's the user's resolution.
quote:JKMabry said:
reiso is very opinionated on the matter
opinionated: Holding stubbornly and often unreasonably to one's own opinions.
How so?
quote:JKMabry said:just becasue he states it as if it were fact does not make it so.
I agree with that, but what I posted in response to Rob's 2) is fact nonetheless.
quote:
opinionated: Holding stubbornly and often unreasonably to one's own opinions.
How so?
You appear to me to have a dogmatic mantra of "Flash Yuck Fluid Layouts Yum" with no room for variation. Since my opinion is that different jobs call for different designs, I don't agree. Stubborn yes, unreasonable? probably not, you've got reasons, and good ones, I just don't feel they apply to every situation that you think they would. Difference of opinion, I value your mantra, it pushes a lot of people in good directions, I just feel the need to play devil's advocate to all things dogmatic. edit: not saying you are dogmatic or being derogatory, but ou do, without a doubt, come off that way in forums. Don't worry tho, I understand and loves you How's that for a validator
quote:
but what I posted in response to Rob's 2) is fact nonetheless
posted 08-04-2005 22:45
but the site itself looks good 
you can't get out of that page period, gotta be fixed! And the jaggie images and lack of Flash support? You should head over to the gurusnetwork's 
new design JXRStudios.com check it all flash let me know what ya think