test my site redesign

mnkeybsness · Jul 19, 2004

I've noticed a lot of new people here in the web design forums... welcome! I've been pretty absent lately because of my new job as an assistant web designer... blah blah blah, on to the fun stuff.

So since the end of May I've been working on my site. With the announcement that Movable Type would be a pay software, I went searching for something new. I tried Wordpress and it just doesn't suit my needs, redesigned my site using Movable Type but found that I over-complicated things. So then I decided to give Wordpress a try again and that was a definite no-go. So I'm back on Movable Type with a few new plugins at my side.

What I'm looking for is some people to just go around and test things out on my site. Key points that I am really looking for are navigability and layout. Other than that I am looking for hard criticism. So don't be afraid to rail on my about something.

Make note that I am not supporting Internet Explorer or other non-standardized browsers. This is my website and I have worked hard to learn how to use standards. The site will display in almost every browser, but only looks correct in Safari/Mozilla-like browsers. So pretty much I'm saying it is my site and that is how I want it. Screw everyone else.

Note that there is a style switcher in the bottom of the menu... Safari usually needs a refresh after you have switched styles to make it respond correctly... Mozilla-based browsers usually don't, but it is a good idea to refresh the page anyway.

Pages *should* validate with the W3 validator... okay I'm going on again about random crap...

visit paularms.com

So go there and come back with good feedback!

sorryiwasdreami · Jul 19, 2004

The Jumbly "Paularms.com" logo at the top should be clickable to bring you back to the start page (yes I know you have a "home" button). It's just more intuative to have the logo clickable.

The upside-down logo at the bottom doesn't work.

The photos are nice but if you can, I would like to see make load in the same window as your first page pic, just switching photos, rather than re-loading a page. I like the ability to add comments.

Layout is easy and intuative, somewhat confining. Nice however.

Colors might be a bit "stock" looking but I enjoy the ability to switch and choose from three styles; "Beta" is this writer's preference.

mnkeybsness · Jul 19, 2004

The Jumbly "Paularms.com" logo at the top should be clickable to bring you back to the start page (yes I know you have a "home" button). It's just more intuative to have the logo clickable.

unfortunately it's a background image and it is not possible to make a block element a link (standards-wise).

The upside-down logo at the bottom doesn't work.

that's just part of the "blue" style... it's meant to be fun

please note the style switcher at the bottom of the right menu!

also, I have changed the default style to "beta", which I had meant to do before posting this thread... oops.

paulypants · Jul 19, 2004

the paularms.com logo is very hard to read when it's fuzzy--almost looks like a mistake instead of being puposely done...

layout of site looks solid and logical--nice photography...

decksnap · Jul 19, 2004

The 'beta' look should probably be best left behind as a beta. Very boring, very 'been done'.

Although I know you designed it to look good at all screen sizes yet fit the sceen for those with 600x800 browsers, I think you need to retool it to ditch the horizontal scrollbar at that size. As it stands, if I scale my window down to fit on a 600x800 monitor, the hor. scrollbar is still there, even though the content fits inside the area.

Underneath your lead image you've got left and right arrow links. It's as if natural logic is telling me they will give me the next and previous image, but they do two very different things. Beyond that, it's confusing to have a 'previous' button on the home page, as I have not previously viewed anything yet. Just needs to be retought.

Site looks great though. Nice and clean. You might want to retool the HTML to allow the logo to be linkable back to the homepage. Maybe float in a transparent gif with CSS over the background image.

decksnap · Jul 19, 2004

Also- your hat appears to be a bit crooked in the picture. You might want to fix that!

me_94501 · Jul 19, 2004

I'd increase the contrast of the linkbar a little in the "beta" appearance, so the current page is a little easier to differentiate. Blue is my personal favorite.

Lookin' good overall.

mnkeybsness · Jul 19, 2004

the paularms.com logo is very hard to read when it's fuzzy--almost looks like a mistake instead of being puposely done...

'd increase the contrast of the linkbar a little in the "beta" appearance, so the current page is a little easier to differentiate.

--done and done... I was in agreement with the two of you there. I also darkened up all of the test to #666666

The 'beta' look should probably be best left behind as a beta. Very boring, very 'been done'.

How is it "boring" and "been done"? By saying it you really aren't making much of an argument. The point of it is to be clean and simple --pleasing for the eye and keep the attention on other aspects of the page instead of the page itself. It is about separating the presentation from the content.

Also- your hat appears to be a bit crooked in the picture. You might want to fix that!

I don't think it is my hat that is crooked... I think it is my head

Thanks everyone, and keep it comin!

decksnap · Jul 20, 2004

Well you asked for constructive criticism, so please don't get defensive. I don't need to make an argument, I am making a comment. I see ten sites a day that try to pull off the look you are going for in your 'beta' look. By saying 'been done' I simply mean I've seen it 1000 times and it has little originality, and very little to define it as your own.

That said, I do like the other looks- they have personality. I also like the attention to detail. Keep up the good work.

mnkeybsness · Jul 20, 2004

decksnap said:
Well you asked for constructive criticism, so please don't get defensive. I don't need to make an argument, I am making a comment. I see ten sites a day that try to pull off the look you are going for in your 'beta' look. By saying 'been done' I simply mean I've seen it 1000 times and it has little originality, and very little to define it as your own.

That said, I do like the other looks- they have personality. I also like the attention to detail. Keep up the good work.

i'm not trying to get defensive... but if you are going to criticize you need to give reasons and examples would be nice. i'm not trying to sound like a whiny little girl, but it is annoying when people can't back themselves up. if you've seen this 1000 times, then show me!

thanks!

decksnap · Jul 20, 2004

Whatever dude. It's your website. Just trying to help you out.

ExoticFish · Jul 20, 2004

looking good mnkeybsness. it was a little to bright before but no i like it a lot better.

decksnap, he's just asking for more detail in your critique. saying it's not unique and then not giving him examples doesn't help him to use your input to make it better, that's all he's trying to get at. sheesh.

seamuskrat · Jul 20, 2004

I am not a professional web designer/etc.

Overall I liked the design. Clean and simple. I like the beta more than Black or Blue. They were different, but would get stale very fast.

As for the plain design, it does look somewhat generic. In the sense that I have seen the white/greys/open space look on many websites. Yours is unique is many aspects, and looks nice, but still reminds me of any number of other sites. If you wanted originality, then add some personalized flair.
But its a lot nicer than anything I could have done.

My only other observation was the speed. On a University T3 line it was slow. I do not know if it was my end, your end, the server itself. But it was slow on Tuesday 20, 2004 at 11:38 Pac time.

mnkeybsness · Jul 20, 2004

Thanks ExoticFish and seamuskrat...

I've also been noticing that the server seems a bit slow... I will have to contact my host and see what's up.

cheb712 · Jul 20, 2004

I agree with seamuskrat. Beta is nicer and easier on the eyes than the other two. Nice and clean.

Also, as for the design being "done" before... well, it isn't the most original design. BUT are you trying to "sell" the design of the site or the content?

If you are trying to "sell" the content then a clean, simple design (like you have) will work best. If you are trying to sell "unique web design skills" then you may need to go with one of the other designs or rework the 'beta.'

The white/greys that seamuskrat mentions are done a lot because it is a recipe that works.

IMO I like the look of the site. A few things. There seem to be competing elements on the page. As a user, I'm not sure where to go first. I notice the image first but then get 'stuck' without much further direction on where to go. Maybe I'm not making sense?

The navigation bar, on my monitor, still doesn't seem to have a lot of contrast. Maybe that is the way you want it? Hard to see on my LCD. I also feel that the main nav gets lost on the page. It doesn't stand out enough.

The logo may be distracting from the photos when I view them larger.

404 Errors on the News and Projects page.

Terrific photos. I especially like the 'vandalism' section. Other photos have such attractive contrast and emotion in them. Maybe incorporate a tiny bit of that 'flavor' into the website to satiate those that feel your site doesn't have 'originality.' ;-)

Overall, nice job. (for whatever my opinion is worth)

mnkeybsness · Jul 20, 2004

cheb712 said:
Also, as for the design being "done" before... well, it isn't the most original design. BUT are you trying to "sell" the design of the site or the content?

If you are trying to "sell" the content then a clean, simple design (like you have) will work best. If you are trying to sell "unique web design skills" then you may need to go with one of the other designs or rework the 'beta.'

The white/greys that seamuskrat mentions are done a lot because it is a recipe that works.

The navigation bar, on my monitor, still doesn't seem to have a lot of contrast. Maybe that is the way you want it? Hard to see on my LCD. I also feel that the main nav gets lost on the page. It doesn't stand out enough.

404 Errors on the News and Projects page.

Overall, nice job. (for whatever my opinion is worth)

first... i'm "selling" the content... not the packaging...

second... i would still like someone to point me in the direction of other sites that use as much white/grey as mine does... i'm not coming up with anything

third... does anyone else feel the that nav bar by the header gets really lost? it gets really hard for me to tell since i was the one who put it there

fouth... as for the 404s... i'm not seeing real 404s... just links that aren't displaying anything because i haven't built up the "archives by date" yet... are those the links that are causing problems?

and fifth... your opinion does matter... that's why i asked for opinions.

rendezvouscp · Jul 20, 2004

Your third point: The top of the site looks great, but I can barely see the change on the mouseovers. Yes, I can see it, but it's not very visible. I would try something else with that.

Overall, looks good. The new "banner" looks better, but still a little "fuzzy" or, I should say, the letters are a little too close and create a fuz. If you want them close, I would go for a Jack in the Box look (hopefully you know what I'm talking about). The site is looking better from a few months ago.

BTW, I'm using an older 20" Cinema.
Chase

cheb712 · Jul 20, 2004

I never said my opinion didn't matter. I only said for 'what it's worth.'

(my opinion matters more or less depending on the individual)

But, as for examples...I have a few that I will email to you. Take them for what they are worth. I'd put them all here but there are a few.

If you are selling the content. I think the site works fine other than my previous comments.

I like the new photo too. You've got a nice 'eye.' Are you looking to get into web design or photography or both?

The 404 error I'm getting says "The document you requested is not found."

Hope that helps.

Search

Search

test my site redesign

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030

sorryiwasdreami

macrumors 6502a

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030

paulypants

macrumors 6502a

decksnap

macrumors 68040

decksnap

macrumors 68040

me_94501

macrumors 65816

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030

decksnap

macrumors 68040

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030

decksnap

macrumors 68040

ExoticFish

macrumors 6502a

seamuskrat

macrumors 6502a

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030

cheb712

macrumors newbie

mnkeybsness

macrumors 68030

rendezvouscp

macrumors 68000

cheb712

macrumors newbie

Our Staff