AmbitiousLemon.com

[Sasha-1]

No insult at all

There is no insult, I said you appear to be talking to an ignorant audience. Ignorant is not a bad word. It simply means lack of knowledge on a particular subject. For example, if you post something about Apple’s ad campaign and it is already a well known event, then you would appear to be talking to an ignorant audience. That means, you appear to be telling people who do not already know about Apple’s ad comparing. What I said is right on target. Perhaps you feel it is an ugly word but I used it 100% correctly. I also said “appeared”. The article is written as if to enlighten. Who didn’t already know of this subject? Perhaps someone ignorant to the fact that Apple and others have already widely publicized the event? Again, that is a true statement.

Again, I not trying to bagger you. This is exactly what I feared would happen. I really do not want to repeat all the reasons why I feel the site is unnecessary as I have already posted that. What do I think the site needs? Nothing, I think I made the point that there are too many sites already doing what you do. They are in fact doing it better already. The whole point of the site, at least in my humble opinion, is to fill a void and your site, again in my humble opinion, does not fill any void. Again, please do not take offense. I simply think others are already accomplishing what appears to be your agenda.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

wow, I was amazed at the size of the images - you definitely want to go to gifs - I took the home image (generic_home_big.jpg) which was 188k and made a gif out of if it, looks more than acceptable.

But one thing you need to do is make sure all the images share the same color map - otherwise the rollovers might not have the same background colors when swapping. You play around in photoshop and its export for the web and get great results and then take that main image and slice it up for the pages.

Here's the generic_home_big.gif with 256 colors and only 20k - almost 1/10th the size

D

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Re: I don't think so guys...

Originally posted by sfoalex
I checked out the site, and if I can be honest without getting shot at, I just do not see the need for this site. The Mac community for what ever reason appears to have a ton of new web sites devoted to the Mac, rumors and everything else in between. One rumor site repeats what another site reports and before you know it, another repeats that repeater.

Alex I am sorry you do not like the site. The response from everyone else has been overwhelmingly positive. Also this is not a new site. The site is 2 years old and has a small but loyal group of viewers.

I appreciate your comments about sites that should bring something enw to the mac community. This is actually something I thought of a great deal as it is a comment I have made to a number of other website developers.

But you seem to be terribly confused and out of sorts. Perhaps we caught you personally at a bad time, I am not sure. People have been raving about the site design, its quite the hit. So i think comments to the contrary are largely an individual thing. And as far as content, perhaps you did not spend time looking at we have to offer. this is not a rumor site or a news site. none of the content in any way is in regards to news or rumors (we felt that is well covered in the mac community).

What we do offer is information that from my time here at macrumors, other discussion boards, and in the real world, is something that mac users are scrambling to know about. the number of threads here alone dedicated to suggestions on how to use the dock, what disk maitenance apps to use, and what are some good shareware apps is a testament the need for a site that focuses on this. you might call our readers ignorant for asking these questions, but ignorant or not it seems most mac users need somewhere to get this information.

you find desktops boring? i am sorry. most mac users spend a great deal fo time customizing their computing experience. look again at all the threads here at MR dedicated to wallpapers and screenshots (and thats not even the focus of MR). people like to share their work and there isnt a single website that allows people to do that as we do. typically if a site allows submissions there is a 2-4 week wait before it is posted. with a site that dynamically adds content we feel we are offering the mac community something new.

there are a lot of great mac sites out there. i dont visit them all. in fact i only requent 3 mac sites. so if ambitiouslemon.com rubs you the wrong way we are sorry to lose you but find someplace else that suits you better, but please do not insult us or peopel who enjoy our site.

 

[Rower_CPU]

500K

Are you guys sure about that? I downloaded two of your logos, and they come out to 340K for just the two of them!!!!

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

i am quite sure. i get info on the folder housing all the images and it is 1mb. (that includes some of the stuff not posted yet and some design stuff).

the largest individual image for the template part of the site is 12k.

there are no 100+k images, and i have no idea why you claim there are.

we have tested the site load time and found that on a 56k modem getting 5k/s (some people get less than that if they have a very poor connection, but 5k/s is using most of the 56k connection) you can load every single page on the entire site (including pages not yet posted in 3 minutes.

all this talk about load time is a little bit insulting. as if you people have not used the internet before. i think some of you see lots of images and assume it will load slow and just give up. as i said before please give us a chance we took great care to make the site laod in a reasonable amount of time (we use 60% .jpg quality which is smaller than gif at similiar quality for most images) and we compressed the html.

please just let the whole image thing drop. contrary to what you may believe we do actually know what we are doing. we spenta great deal of time measuring the quality of various compression schemes and used the one that gave us the best results.

i am sorry some people feel the site is too 'graphics intensive' (odd since its mostly text) but as i have said the we have recieved several dozen emails and only 2 have commented on the graphics in a negative manner.

people will always find something to complain about, i understand that, we are looking for constructive criticism not a flamewar.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
…
there are no 100+k images, and i have no idea why you claim there are.
…

I don't claim it, "Get Info" does.

I think the site is just fine: looks great, loads quick on my cable modem.

 

[awrootbeer]

Re: Re: I don't think so guys...

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

people like to share their work and there isnt a single website that allows people to do that as we do. typically if a site allows submissions there is a 2-4 week wait before it is posted. with a site that dynamically adds content we feel we are offering the mac community something new.

I think AL is a nice site, but I also tend to think there are other sites that do the job already. It's too soon to tell if you can do that better.
However, I take offense in the quoted content. I'm a member at Spymac.com and they have an excellent gallery.
"there isn't a single site that allows people to do what we do," is simply not true, and I think you know that. The Spymac gallery has something like 4000 pictures and more than 2million views, so I'm sure you've heard of it. And only about 400 of those are rumor related.
Please do some research before posting such general statements.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Re: Re: Re: I don't think so guys...

Originally posted by awrootbeer


I think AL is a nice site, but I also tend to think there are other sites that do the job already. It's too soon to tell if you can do that better.
However, I take offense in the quoted content. I'm a member at Spymac.com and they have an excellent gallery.
"there isn't a single site that allows people to do what we do," is simply not true, and I think you know that. The Spymac gallery has something like 4000 pictures and more than 2million views, so I'm sure you've heard of it. And only about 400 of those are rumor related.
Please do some research before posting such general statements.

i knew spymac posts galleries but since they are so disorganized ive never really investigated them closely. i still dont see the submit thing though im sure its there somewhere. frankly i dont think much of spymac, their site tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing well. but thats just my opinion, as you said many people love spymac despite their sordid beginnings.

 

[awrootbeer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think so guys...

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


i knew spymac posts galleries but since they are so disorganized ive never really investigated them closely. i still dont see the submit thing though im sure its there somewhere. frankly i dont think much of spymac, their site tries to do everything and ends up doing nothing well. but thats just my opinion, as you said many people love spymac despite their sordid beginnings.

It's not disorganized, maybe look at it more closely. You have to be logged in to upload pictures (obviously). And what don't they do well? please back up your statements, as I personally feel they have great webmail, forums and gallery. And their gallery is far superior to yours, btw.
Im not trying to start an arguement, AL looks ok for some areas, but I won't be using you gallery feature.

 

[arn]

Re: 500K

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Are you guys sure about that? I downloaded two of your logos, and they come out to 340K for just the two of them!!!!

You guys are incorrect.

Here's another test. Drag your avatar to the desktop... Avatars are limited to 20k.

If you download it, it appears to be 128k.

I'll leave it to you to sort it the discrepancy...

arn

 

[Rower_CPU]

Thanks for the correction, arn.

It's weird that files "grow" like that when processed by the browser...is it just IE doing this?

 

[Rower_CPU]

Upon further research, it appears that Terminal shows a "true" file size.

Finder=168KB
Terminal=5904B

Now the question is: Why does Finder report an incorrect file size on these particular files? Files that I've created in Photoshop show the same in Get Info as they do in the Terminal...but these ones, downloaded through IE, are vastly inflated...

 

[Lz0]

It seems we have a problem with the definition of "downloading" an image.

If you download the generic_home_big.jpg it is 12 KB on disk or a 9,626 byte file in reality.

If you drag and drop the file using IE it becomes 172 KB on disk or 172,659 bytes.

 

[Finn]

Originally posted by j763


'All the images on the site total just over 500K, which is not really very large.'

In fact it is VERY large. Most design agencies have internal guidelines stating that webpages should not be larger than 50K, which is ten times smaller than your 'not really very large'. Of course there ar variables: a homepage is usually larger: it may be 100K (5x smaller) and a contentpage may be 25K (twenty times smaller).
I would try to redesign the 'brandbar' on the top. Make it smaller in realestate, more elegant. This wil get rid of most of the useless kilobytes.

Finn

 

[obeygiant]

copyright symbol

hey ambitiouslemon

at the bottom of your site there is "(C) 2002 Amitiouslemon" Blah Blah

try option+g to get the appropriate © symbol

just a tip

bye

 

[ibjoshua]

Originally posted by Finn

Originally posted by j763


'All the images on the site total just over 500K, which is not really very large.'

In fact it is VERY large. Most design agencies have internal guidelines stating that webpages should not be larger than 50K, which is ten times smaller than your 'not really very large'. Of course there ar variables: a homepage is usually larger: it may be 100K (5x smaller) and a contentpage may be 25K (twenty times smaller).
I would try to redesign the 'brandbar' on the top. Make it smaller in realestate, more elegant. This wil get rid of most of the useless kilobytes.

Finn

Finn is right.

where i work we tell people 30k just to keep them on their feet - knowing few will do it.

240Kb+- is not very modem friendly guys. and the graphics are pretty garish

my 2 cents

josh

 

[Gaz]

Sorry it's a bit of a long post

Hello,

I’ve spent a good deal of time studying your site today and I’m impressed that you want to listen to the views of others. As a result I’d like to impart some thoughts that I hope make your site more accessible while maintain your own unique style.

The first thing that really struck me when I arrived at ambitiouslemon.com was that I had no real idea as to what the site was providing. A good way to inform the user is by providing good clear navigation. I don’t know what HCI background you have but research has suggested that structured navigation is not a great thing. I know this sounds strange but a new user does not want to have to wade through every section trying to find the content they are surfing for. With this in mind I would consider restructuring the navigation. For example rather than ‘design’ which is confusing to the user (I initially believed you might be offering a design service) try ‘desktops’ or ‘backgrounds’ if you wanted to group information. Again I’d replace hints with either something more meaningful ‘Mac OS X advice’ and I’d consider extracting certain parts which don’t really relate, i.e. Articles. I’m pleased to see the use of breadcrumbs but they would be better placed at the top right or left of the main page body. I’ve read this in a previous post and I agree that the software spotlight should become a section in its own right. At the moment its placement makes it appear more of an advert than a piece of useful content.

I would suggest you look at the content structure as well. At the moment the layout isn’t consistent across the site. I think you could perhaps make the design page easier to navigate but grouping images. For a suggestion check out my photo-gallery on my site www.gareth-davies.com.

I think the homepage needs rethinking. At the moment it is just a collection of random parts of other pages. I think for the type of site you are trying to create you should use this page as a way to collate all the new changes to the site (see both spymac and MR as goodish examples). The homepage needs to make it clear what ambitiouslemon.com is and the type of content there is. It would be good to provide a brief summary of latest updates and links to those features (like you have done with the recent designs, that’s really good).

I won’t hassle you about the graphics as I think most people have been pretty over the top. I might suggest shrinking them a little as at the moment the users focus is on that and not the content. Really the two should compliment each other. This can be done by shrinking the graphics a bit.

In terms of making it stand out from other sites you need allow the users to interact with each other. Forums would be a good start. Perhaps a way to add comments to desktops pics and screen grabs. Allow users to put up their own work and allow people to interact with it. All the successful non e-commerce sites I’ve seen are biased around building up a sense of community.

Anyway I think you have the basis for a really good site (as you already have regular visitors that’s great). If you want anymore feedback or you’d like anymore views please email at GJ_Davies@hotmail.com

One last thing, don't use graphics where normal text will do. It only slows things downs.

Best wishes

Gaz

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by Finn

Originally posted by j763


'All the images on the site total just over 500K, which is not really very large.'

In fact it is VERY large. Most design agencies have internal guidelines stating that webpages should not be larger than 50K, which is ten times smaller than your 'not really very large'. Of course there ar variables: a homepage is usually larger: it may be 100K (5x smaller) and a contentpage may be 25K (twenty times smaller).
I would try to redesign the 'brandbar' on the top. Make it smaller in realestate, more elegant. This wil get rid of most of the useless kilobytes.

Finn

hahahah. man people love critisizing without thinking first. i didnt say the home page was 500k i said the entire site was. that is the home page and every single content page. considering the limitations yu just arbitraryily set (100k, 25k) i would say we are doing VERY well. as i sadi the very largest image is 12k, while most images are below 1k. i appreciate all the people trying to 'help' but please believe us when we say that all the images have been adequately compressed and that load times have indeed been tested on a 56k modem and found to be quite acceptable (load times are faster than MR pages, so if you can browse this thread you should be fine browsing AL).

Comments such as provided by Gaz are far more appreciated (he is telling us something new and something that is true). Thanks Gaz, I will read that over again when I have some more time.

 

[Finn]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


hahahah. man people love critisizing without thinking first. i didnt say the home page was 500k i said the entire site was. that is the home page and every single content page. considering the limitations yu just arbitraryily set (100k, 25k) i would say we are doing VERY well. as i sadi the very largest image is 12k, while most images are below 1k.

I stand corrected. You did say that all the images on the site add up to 592K. You also said your site takes 65 seconds to load. Here's another guideline: a page should load within 15 seconds. Usually this is not realistic, especially for a homepage. But 65 seconds is too long, no matter what Apple does. Maybe you should compare yourself to Macrumors. It takes me 30 seconds to load the homepage (modem, no cache). Including ads an A LOT more content then AmbitiousLemon. Maybe this could be your aim?

 

[job]

never mind.

forget this post. i was having problems uploading but it works now.

nice site.