Working on design, Comments?

Ow. My eyes.

Horrid colors, but maybe thats the idea.

 

your tabbed menu repeats the color yellow, for a colorful site, this id odd. the hover glow is kind of "so-last-decade".

there is a ton of dead space with no rhyme or reason to it.

things dont line up very well along the edges.

 

I'd definitely get some content above the fold.

Wikipedia: Above the fold

In a nutshell: When people first visit your site, assume they're going to give it only a painfully quick glance, and make a decision on whether or not they're going to stay to find more. If they have to scroll to find anything of value, a lot of them will hit their back button and move on to the next Google entry.

Identifying "the fold" on a Web site is very difficult because of all the different resolution settings out there. Not to mention that some people surf in full-screen mode, while others do so with their browsers "windowed".

At the VERY LARGEST, I would assume the fold is the top 384 pixels. That would be 1/2 of 1024x768. Keep in mind, however, that 14% of the general online population still uses an 800x600 display. While it's easy to say "screw them", 14% is HUGE, imo. That's a lot of people to ignore.

Try to get (at least some) of the most appealing content near the top of the page. If not the top 300 pixels, the top 384.

 

the oppression of 'the fold' is over. article

 

werther,

Great article. Thanks for posting that.

I actually make a living doing something similar to what ClickTale is doing here, but it's based on getting visitors' opinions of Web sites. We do a buttload of Web site usability testing. I like to think I do a good job of blind testing site elements. It's kept me in business for 10 years now.

I agree with them to an extent. The fold is not the savior of a Web site, like it used to be. People are comfortable scrolling (vertically) and don't mind doing so.

However, there are a few things to consder:

If I read it correctly, according to their data, 74% scroll. That means 26% do not. Sure 74% is a majority, but why not go for more if you can? I can't imagine a television media buyer running a spot that only 74% of the viewing public would be able to see properly. If I can do something to capture half of that 26%, that would be a 13% traffic boost. I'll take that any day!

My advise isn't based on what's "acceptable" or "good enough". My advise is based on how to make a site better than what's "good enough". Then again, I'm one of those oddballs that still thinks fast-loading pages are a good thing. What people are willing to do is one thing. Taking it a step further and making it the best experience possible is where I'm coming from.

One school of thought in the Web usability testing world is that people scroll because they have to, not because they like to.

My most important point: I'm not saying you need to save the world above the fold. No need to squeeze everything of value you possibly can up there. I'm not even saying it must be body copy up there. I'm just saying it's a good strategy to have something of value above the fold. Text, a quote, an intriguing image, a Flash movie (ug)... Something... Anything.

Some of my sites have very little above the fold. But I do my best to make the area above the fold is intriguing enough to encourage a user to want a user to scroll down to see what else I have to offer. I'm not a fold nazi, but in some situations, it is still good advise. Click this attachment to see a full-size version of her site (800x600) and I'm guessing you'll agree that the "above the fold" rule is applicable in this case.

 

this website is quirky and cool. good job!

 

Heavy Dooty,

I believe you are quite right. For instance, when babyjenniferLB first started posting questions about the site some time ago, I checked it out. I had no idea that the site had to do with an erotic fetish. The reason I did not know: I did not scroll down. I thought (because of the design) that the site had to do with baby-sitting or was a community web-site for stay-at-home moms. I was wrong.

So it was apparently hypacritical of me really to post the article. I design for the fold as well, but do not stuff it with tons of info/graphics. I think mostly the article and the statistics there-in are useful for those times when a client has multiple departments wanting a piece above the fold.

I think the site in question would benefit if it had a different banner. Perhaps one with real people. Though, I am not the user base.

 

werther,

Glad we're on the same page. For the record, I had no idea that's what the site was about until you told me! I figured it had something to do with children and babies, which aren't a part of my life, so I was just looking without reading. LOL.

 

babyjenniferLB,

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to be brutally honest. I didn't mention this stuff before because, after looking at the site 4-5 times, I didn't know what it was about.

Keep in mind, it's just my opinion and you (and everybody else) are entitled to your own.

I think the design itself is all wrong, top-to-bottom. What I see when I first look at it:

- A child that appears to be about 4 years old.

- Two babies.

- 11 baby bottles.

- A color scheme suited for decorating a nursery.

I've looked at the site 4-5 times now. Each time, just looking at the design, and not reading the copy. I had no idea what the site was about, even after reading the moderator warning in your initial post. I figured that was a standard disclaimer, or something.

When I first learned that it actually was somewhat of an adult-themed Web sites, my initial reaction was: Pedo!

That is not a judgment of what you're promoting or the people that are interested in that sort of thing. It is only a judgment of the design itself. Simply put, the design (not the content) looks like it was designed to appeal to young children.

My advise: Sleaze it up a bit. I'm not saying it needs to look like your typical pron site. I'm just saying you should do something (definitely above the fold)
to make it clear that it's a site for adults.

Oh, and the gallery preview is a sweet feature.

 

Somebody else needs to weight in on this.

I still say "sleaze it up".

 

Heavy Doody is right in my opinion. If I was about seeing people in diapers and did a search in google and clicked on a link to your site I would quickly close out. The banner looks like a child. I too have no problems with people that are interested in this (the diaper thing that is), as we all have a fetish of some kind or another.

The reason why I was suggesting changing the banner to use photographs was because the banner as it is now suggests pedophelia.

Again this is only my opinion.

 

How do others feel about the same pastel colors on a black BG?