another critique request

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com

Thanks!

-R

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:08:42 -0800, rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com

Thanks!

-R
takes way too long to load....

Art2U

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com

Thanks!

-R

Took over 2mins to load the home page. After that I wasnt interested.

I won't go there again.

Ed

kchayka wrote:

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com


It looks pretty much the same as the other site, except this one has a
white background. So, I think the following applies to both sites.

You *must* learn how to optimize graphics for the web. Nobody on dial-up
will ever get the home page loaded, let alone get past it.

Splash pages are usually worthless. Yours isn't an except to that rule.
Frames are usually a bad idea. Your use of them isn't an exception to
that rule either.

To me, your text is the size of fly droppings and is unreadable. Have
some respect for your visitors and let *them* determine what font-size
is tolerable. I recommend font-size:100% per accessibility guidelines.
BTW, the topic of font-size has come up here and in other web-related
newsgroups about a zillion times. Go look up the arguments about why
absolute font sizes are bad, then why Verdana is bad.

Looking at the code, I think I see one of those silly no-right-click
scripts. I hate to burst your bubble, but these don't work. Any user
with an ounce of sense knows how to get around stuff like this. If you
are trying to protect your images, the best thing you can do is put a
watermark on them, coz the only way to prevent people from taking them
is to not put them on the web at all.

Thanks for your honest response/criticism. Being on a fast connection,
it is not always easy for me to judge how long some of the images would
take to load on dial-up, so that was my error. I removed the larger
images from the preloader script, so hopefully it moves faster now.

As far as splash pages go, the people I designed these sites for wanted
them, which is why I created them. I'm interested in your opinion
though; do you honestly think they are so bothersome that people would
actually abandon the site rather than click through them? And why are
frames generally "a bad idea"? As far as I can see, on these pages, they
don't hinder the viewer in any way.

As for the right click code - I appreciate the fact that you assume I am
an idiot and that I need my bubble burst to clue me in to the fact that
the code isn't a foolproof way to protect the images. In fact, I know
there are always ways around these things, but I thought if it were a
hindrance, it would be worth it.

Ed wrote:

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com

Thanks!

-R


Took over 2mins to load the home page. After that I wasnt interested.

I won't go there again.

Ed

Sheesh!

Um.. thanks?

rebecca wrote:

kchayka wrote:

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com



It looks pretty much the same as the other site, except this one has a
white background. So, I think the following applies to both sites.

You *must* learn how to optimize graphics for the web. Nobody on dial-up
will ever get the home page loaded, let alone get past it.

Splash pages are usually worthless. Yours isn't an except to that rule.
Frames are usually a bad idea. Your use of them isn't an exception to
that rule either.

To me, your text is the size of fly droppings and is unreadable. Have
some respect for your visitors and let *them* determine what font-size
is tolerable. I recommend font-size:100% per accessibility guidelines.
BTW, the topic of font-size has come up here and in other web-related
newsgroups about a zillion times. Go look up the arguments about why
absolute font sizes are bad, then why Verdana is bad.

Looking at the code, I think I see one of those silly no-right-click
scripts. I hate to burst your bubble, but these don't work. Any user
with an ounce of sense knows how to get around stuff like this. If you
are trying to protect your images, the best thing you can do is put a
watermark on them, coz the only way to prevent people from taking them
is to not put them on the web at all.


Thanks for your honest response/criticism. Being on a fast connection,
it is not always easy for me to judge how long some of the images would
take to load on dial-up, so that was my error. I removed the larger
images from the preloader script, so hopefully it moves faster now.

As far as splash pages go, the people I designed these sites for wanted
them, which is why I created them. I'm interested in your opinion
though; do you honestly think they are so bothersome that people would
actually abandon the site rather than click through them? And why are
frames generally "a bad idea"? As far as I can see, on these pages, they
don't hinder the viewer in any way.

As for the right click code - I appreciate the fact that you assume I am
an idiot and that I need my bubble burst to clue me in to the fact that
the code isn't a foolproof way to protect the images. In fact, I know
there are always ways around these things, but I thought if it were a
hindrance, it would be worth it.




Hi Rebecca,

Great looking site!

But I am not surprised people left before looking at it... The main
problem it has is file bloat!

The file sizes of the images are too big and they could do with some
more 'dumbing down'. For example, 'painting_gift.jpg' is a whopping
219kb. Exporting it through Fireworks and reducing the quality to 75%
made the file size drop to 28.53kb. Afterall, you want to provide a
preview of the file and not a high quality one that someone would want
to steal.


I agree with kchayka on Frames. Frames are not so good, If frames must
be used, Iframes (inline) are better as there is actual content in the
'parent frame'. No one seems to like frames because one cannot save a
page to favorites, search engines have problems with then and... I am
sure there are more...


I think the font size was alright. Nothing the "CTRL +" could not solve.
But hey...

Anyway, If you go through and reduce the size of your image files, the
website will already be vastly improved. That is, if you concentrated on
the design usability side a little more and a little less on the
hinderence side, you would be a great website designer.

Good luck!

Just out of interest, are you hard coding this? If not, what editor are
you using?

MMD

MMD wrote:

rebecca wrote:

kchayka wrote:

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com




It looks pretty much the same as the other site, except this one has a
white background. So, I think the following applies to both sites.

You *must* learn how to optimize graphics for the web. Nobody on dial-up
will ever get the home page loaded, let alone get past it.

Splash pages are usually worthless. Yours isn't an except to that rule.
Frames are usually a bad idea. Your use of them isn't an exception to
that rule either.

To me, your text is the size of fly droppings and is unreadable. Have
some respect for your visitors and let *them* determine what font-size
is tolerable. I recommend font-size:100% per accessibility guidelines.
BTW, the topic of font-size has come up here and in other web-related
newsgroups about a zillion times. Go look up the arguments about why
absolute font sizes are bad, then why Verdana is bad.

Looking at the code, I think I see one of those silly no-right-click
scripts. I hate to burst your bubble, but these don't work. Any user
with an ounce of sense knows how to get around stuff like this. If you
are trying to protect your images, the best thing you can do is put a
watermark on them, coz the only way to prevent people from taking them
is to not put them on the web at all.


Thanks for your honest response/criticism. Being on a fast connection,
it is not always easy for me to judge how long some of the images
would take to load on dial-up, so that was my error. I removed the
larger images from the preloader script, so hopefully it moves faster
now.

As far as splash pages go, the people I designed these sites for
wanted them, which is why I created them. I'm interested in your
opinion though; do you honestly think they are so bothersome that
people would actually abandon the site rather than click through them?
And why are frames generally "a bad idea"? As far as I can see, on
these pages, they don't hinder the viewer in any way.

As for the right click code - I appreciate the fact that you assume I
am an idiot and that I need my bubble burst to clue me in to the fact
that the code isn't a foolproof way to protect the images. In fact, I
know there are always ways around these things, but I thought if it
were a hindrance, it would be worth it.




Hi Rebecca,

Great looking site!

But I am not surprised people left before looking at it... The main
problem it has is file bloat!

The file sizes of the images are too big and they could do with some
more 'dumbing down'. For example, 'painting_gift.jpg' is a whopping
219kb. Exporting it through Fireworks and reducing the quality to 75%
made the file size drop to 28.53kb. Afterall, you want to provide a
preview of the file and not a high quality one that someone would want
to steal.


I agree with kchayka on Frames. Frames are not so good, If frames must
be used, Iframes (inline) are better as there is actual content in the
'parent frame'. No one seems to like frames because one cannot save a
page to favorites, search engines have problems with then and... I am
sure there are more...


I think the font size was alright. Nothing the "CTRL +" could not solve.
But hey...

Anyway, If you go through and reduce the size of your image files, the
website will already be vastly improved. That is, if you concentrated on
the design usability side a little more and a little less on the
hinderence side, you would be a great website designer.

Good luck!

Just out of interest, are you hard coding this? If not, what editor are
you using?

MMD

MMD,

Thank you very much for your advice. I did reduce the file sizes on the
images, so hopefully it will make a difference.

I know some people don't like frames, but as long as they are done in a
non obtrusive manner (which I feel these are), I personally don't mind
them. Perhaps I will eventually change the site over to a frameless
version though.

I work primarily in Homesite and occasionally in Dreamweaver (MX), but I
do hand code the majority of it myself.

Thanks again for the critique.

-Rebecca

rebecca wrote:

Thanks for your honest response/criticism. Being on a fast connection,
it is not always easy for me to judge how long some of the images would
take to load on dial-up, so that was my error. I removed the larger

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone else has

mentioned the "mystery meat" navigation. Suggest you
read about this problem at length at:
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

It took way too long to see that, reading across, these
actually are words -- only to find that the words have
nothing to do with the page they lead you to. For
instance -- what does "E V O K E" have to do with a
contact form? If you want to do concrete poems, don't
use them for navigation.
--
mbstevens http://www.mbstevens.com

rebecca wrote:

Hi there. Any critiques on this design are also welcome.

http://www.stephenkasner.com

Thanks!

-R

Rebecca, I loved it, but I see what other people are saying about load
time. All those little images used for the main navigation? This is
crying out for the use of Flash (and a static image for those who dont
have Flash). I love the site, and I like the layout, but there needs to
be a better visual way of indicating how to navigate and a reduction in
load time. Still, good work!

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #