critique: take 2 for vision2sight.com

Hello gang.

Thanks for all the input...I think I've implemented many of your
suggestions. The only thing I haven't done yet is a portfolio page (partly
because my portfolio would be small in this new category, everything I've
done in the past was corporate).

You might think 'what is the relevance of that picture' when you see them on
the content pages. Well, have no fear. The next step is to create
wallpapers for people to download and each of the images will relate to a
parable in the bible.

So, I'd like to get everyone's feedback on the new -and hopefully improved-
site.

www.vision2sight.com

Thanks.

mb

"michael" <no more spam> wrote:

www.vision2sight.com

It's a mess at 800x600. The design is off-balance.
The rollovers are jarring. The interface is a puzzle.
The text over the fish is hard to read.

The clownfish on the web development page is oddly appropriate for all the
wrong reasons.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

It's a mess at 800x600. The design is off-balance.
The rollovers are jarring. The interface is a puzzle.
The text over the fish is hard to read.

The clownfish on the web development page is oddly appropriate for all the
wrong reasons.

Any recommendations to help balance the site on a 800x600 screen?

What do you mean by the rollovers being jarring? You just don't like them
or the images don't stay in the same place?

How did you find the interface to be a puzzle? I thought it was pretty
simple and to the point.

Thanks for the input...would like to get not only the things people don't
like about but also how to make those things better.

mb

i would say the main problem is the nav.. its just so small. it doesn't
stand out like it should. you can't really tell that you should click on it.
if you look at the content inside the boxes.. the text is bigger then the
nav..

goodluck with it
ak

"michael" <no more spam> wrote

Hello gang.

Thanks for all the input...I think I've implemented many of your
suggestions. The only thing I haven't done yet is a portfolio page
(partly
because my portfolio would be small in this new category, everything I've
done in the past was corporate).

You might think 'what is the relevance of that picture' when you see them
on
the content pages. Well, have no fear. The next step is to create
wallpapers for people to download and each of the images will relate to a
parable in the bible.

So, I'd like to get everyone's feedback on the new -and hopefully
improved-
site.

www.vision2sight.com

Thanks.

mb

The home page looks confused. I didn't know where to look. I couldn't
tell where the links were, either. This is not good usability.

ok, I'll have to think that one through a bit, not sure how I'd fix that...

I still can't read the text in those graphics, especially on the colored
post-its.

Fixed width layout, causes annoying horizontal scrolling in smaller
window sizes and big empty spaces in larger ones. This is another
usability negative.

What's the alternative here? Though it is intended for 1024x768 I do want
it to be resolution friendly and I don't want the scroll bars anywhere.

You have only set a background color for the home page. My browser
default page color is not white, so the other pages look odd. You can
easily correct inconsistencies like this by using an external
stylesheet. You should also dump all those inline style rules. They will
only make maintenance a real PITA anyway.

Dang, missed the backgrounds! Thanks for catching me on it (again.) I am
not familiar with how to begin with external style sheets...where should I
start.

The content is inaccessible with JavaScript disabled.
The content is inaccessible via keyboard.
The content is inaccessible when image loading is disabled. Image maps
are particularly problematic in this case, since no graphical browser
handles this condition well. Ironically, Lynx does the best job.

Don't let your editor generate the code for you. So-called WYSIWYG
editors generally do a pretty lousy job of things. If you are going to
code yourself, please take a little time to learn HTML and CSS so you
can do it right. You will end up with a better quality product.

Not sure that the problems with browser that have disabled certain functions
is a concern since the audience will not have disabled them or even know it
is an option.

I'm just not much of a coder...I guess that's the big wall I continue to run
into-translate paper design to web. It's a lot easier when you pick the
paper.

mb

"michael" <no more spam> wrote:

Any recommendations to help balance the site on a 800x600 screen?

First, preview the site at 800x600.
Why get this second-hand, after all?

What do you mean by the rollovers being jarring? You just don't like
them or the images don't stay in the same place?

They are visually jarring.

How did you find the interface to be a puzzle? I thought it was
pretty simple and to the point.

Your menus are phrased as one-word questions. Your visitor has questions,
and that is why they came to your site - so basically, you are answering a
question with a question. The technical term for obscure navigation is
"mystery meat navigation". Okay, it's not that technical.

would like to get not only the things people
don't like about but also how to make those things better.

Carve me an elephant, and we'll talk.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

"michael" <no more spam> wrote:

What's the alternative here? Though it is intended for 1024x768 I do
want it to be resolution friendly and I don't want the scroll bars
anywhere.

Approximately HALF the viewers to your site are using a screen resolution
of 800x600 - just like me. If you aim for 800x600, your site will scale UP
nicely. If you aim for 1027x768, well, fitting your site into a smaller
space is MUCH more difficult than fitting it into a larger space.

The Doormouse

--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:17:17 -0500, kchayka <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote:

I also hear the w3schools.com online
tutorials are pretty good, but, again, I haven't tried them myself.

They are no worse than anything else on the web, and maybe better. I
haven't found a tutorial for HTML or CSS which didn't have some flaw. But
their information is factual as far as I've seen.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:51:08 -0400, "michael" <no more spam> wrote:

It's a mess at 800x600. The design is off-balance.
The rollovers are jarring. The interface is a puzzle.
The text over the fish is hard to read.

Any recommendations to help balance the site on a 800x600 screen?

Take a look for yourself.

How did you find the interface to be a puzzle? I thought it was pretty
simple and to the point.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/myst...avigation.html

The user shouldn't have to sweep the mouse pointer all over the page
to see what might or might not be significant.

The images used for text are small and difficult to read, and
un-resizable. You've made a choice between 'cool-looking' and 'usable'
and chosen 'cool-looking.'

Any recommendations to help balance the site on a 800x600 screen?

Take a look for yourself.

Yes, I see the problems in 800x600 what I was hoping for was some of your
expertise to recommend a way to layout the current design to fit
800x600...or if there was a way to help through coding it differently.

How did you find the interface to be a puzzle? I thought it was pretty
simple and to the point.

http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/myst...avigation.html

The user shouldn't have to sweep the mouse pointer all over the page
to see what might or might not be significant.

If the cube next to it said: services or menu would that make a difference?

The images used for text are small and difficult to read, and
un-resizable. You've made a choice between 'cool-looking' and 'usable'
and chosen 'cool-looking.'

This I am definitely going to have to address as I've had a number of
comments.

Thanks for the input. It is appreciated. The balance between aesthetics
and usability is a tough one. It has to look great but the end user has to
be able to use it all at the same time. That's what I like about paper,
everybody knows how to use a magazine.