Your thoughts, ross930.org.nz

Hi,

Would like your thoughts on a few aspects of http://www.ross930.org.nz/,
which I did an overhaul for a little while ago. I mainly just provided them
with a new template, graphics, etc. A lot of the content is out of my
hands, for example while I did design the image gallery, I would have
personally broken some of the pages up as they load a large number of thumbs
per page, quite bandwidth intensive. I think there should be a contact form
too, in fact I may offer to do that for them today some time. The rules
page I was quite proud of, did that in conjunction with someone else as
pretty much their first semantic html project. It's a fairly complex
document. I also think the gallery page is quite neat and tidy.

Anyway, enough blather. What I was specifically interested in is your
opinions on:

* Having resizable image buttons. Try changing the text size and look at
the nav buttons.
* Having the image on the front page fluid.

I know that normally allowing the browser to resize images looks bad, but I
specifically prepared the images so that they would resize well, even using
the pixel resize algorithm common to most browsers.

Any other comments on the code/css/layout etc. would be most welcome but the
site is now mostly out of my hands, though I can of course pass any
suggestions on.

--
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" - Blair Houghton
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.nrkn.com/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:51:07 +1300, Nik Coughin
<nrkn!no-spam!@woosh.co.nz> wrote:

What I was specifically interested in is your
opinions on:

* Having resizable image buttons. Try changing the text size and look at
the nav buttons.
* Having the image on the front page fluid.

At the smallest text size, the picture is the biggest, and vice versa.
Seems counter-intuitive to me. I know you're filling the remaining width
with the pic, but just feels funny.

Overall, no complaints. At least on my machine it renders well on all
browsers and text sizes/zooms. The big thing for me is that the pic is so
small when the text size is large.

Neal wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:51:07 +1300, Nik Coughin
nrkn!no-spam!@woosh.co.nz> wrote:

What I was specifically interested in is your
opinions on:

* Having resizable image buttons. Try changing the text size and
look at the nav buttons.
* Having the image on the front page fluid.

At the smallest text size, the picture is the biggest, and vice versa.
Seems counter-intuitive to me. I know you're filling the remaining
width with the pic, but just feels funny.

Overall, no complaints. At least on my machine it renders well on all
browsers and text sizes/zooms. The big thing for me is that the pic
is so small when the text size is large.

I get what you mean. Do you think it matters terribly? The image isn't
very important, so I designed it to "give way to the text". Thanks for
taking the time to have a look.

Nik Coughin wrote:

Hi,

Would like your thoughts on a few aspects of http://www.ross930.org.nz/,

Nik,

Clean look. I especially like the subtle hover effect on the link buttons.

As you make the window larger or smaller, or change text size, the home
page image scales nicely, BUT the dark gray border around it works
against you:
- If you reduce the window size, the border top and bottom are
unchanged, so the border becomes more prominent at small window sizes.
- If you change text size, the side borders are unchanged, so at large
text sizes the fixed side borders squash the image into a tiny space.

I didn't look at the source, but you should apply the same scaling to
the image and its border, so they grow and shrink proportionately as a set.

The entry form at http://www.ross930.org.nz/Files/2004 ShortHanded Entry
Form.doc is an MS Word file, a proprietary format that exists in
numerous incompatible versions. If the form is to be submitted in
hardcopy, I'd use a .pdf; if it is to be submitted electronically, I'd
use an HTML Form. Each, of course, has its own related issues.

Similar comment on the Sailing Instructions at
http://www.ross930.org.nz/Files/2004 ShortHanded Sail Instructions.doc
(and probably at other places). This one could be HTML with one .GIF.
It depends on how important it is to be able to read all of the site
with only a good web browser or if other tools can be required and how
available those tools are. Do most UNIX users have Word available?

Yep, too many images on one page:
http://www.ross930.org.nz/gallery.html. On the same page, if I narrow
the window until all of the thumbnails are in one vertical column, then
narrow it just a bit more, the images project to the right outside their
gray matte (and the text is centered on the matte, not the photo).

On the Rules page, link #20 doesn't work.

The stability certificate .jpg is huge (displayed size) compared to
other images on the site. Have you tried to print it, using several
browsers? I don't think it's going to work, and it seems that printing
is the most likely thing for a user to do with it, to wave at some
official. I did previews, which looked awful, but didn't actually print it.

Rules page looks great, but it goes into horizontal scrolling a little
below a window width of 800px. I don't see anything in the content that
would prevent a bit more fluidity. Looks like #7 Standing Rigging is the
culprit. Also I didn't see anything about armaments...

Chris Beall

Nik Coughin wrote:

I know that normally allowing the browser to resize images looks bad, but I
specifically prepared the images so that they would resize well, even using
the pixel resize algorithm common to most browsers.

Nik,

What specifically did you do to prepare them? I'm interested using in
such scaling (um, and am aware of the usual concerns raised...).

Chris Beall

Chris Beall wrote:

Nik Coughin wrote:


I know that normally allowing the browser to resize images looks
bad, but I specifically prepared the images so that they would
resize well, even using the pixel resize algorithm common to most
browsers.

Nik,

What specifically did you do to prepare them? I'm interested using in
such scaling (um, and am aware of the usual concerns raised...).

Chris Beall

Hi Chris,

I first created the base image so that the text on the image looked about
the same size as default text in most browsers -- yes, I know this varies,
but I needed a base size of some kind.

Then I resized the image by 400% with a smart size algorithm, applied a 1
pixel gaussian blur, then resized the image back down by 50%, or 200% of the
original. The gaussian blur is the important part, because it creates just
enough similarity amongst neighbouring pixels to counteract the horrible
pixel-resizing algorithm used by most browsers.

Then I set the widths of the buttons in ems so that the text looked about
the same as default text size. I find that the lower limit of readability
using this method is at about the same point where I can no longer read the
text in my browser anyway. As for scaling upwards, because the image is
~200% of its view size anyway, you can double the size of the text before
any upwards scaling takes place. The upwards scaling works quite well
anyway for the same reasons that downward scaling works.

Probably could have gotten away with a little more jpeg compression, as the
downwards scaling hides the jpeg artifacts, but I think jpeg artifacts are
one of the ugliest things around so I am a bit leery of using too high a
compression level.

I haven't personally seen this technique used before, but I would be
extremely suprised if noone else has done it before

Cheers,

Nik Coughlin

Chris Beall wrote:

Nik Coughin wrote:

http://www.ross930.org.nz/,

I didn't look at the source, but you should apply the same scaling to
the image and its border, so they grow and shrink proportionately as
a set.

Container div has 2em padding, img is 80% of the width of the containing
div. Container div has a min-width of 96px and the img 64px, but of course
IE doesn't honour these. Perhaps I should be using % for the padding
instead of ems.

The entry form at http://www.ross930.org.nz/Files/2004 ShortHanded
Entry Form.doc is an MS Word file, a proprietary format that exists in
numerous incompatible versions. If the form is to be submitted in
hardcopy, I'd use a .pdf; if it is to be submitted electronically, I'd
use an HTML Form. Each, of course, has its own related issues.

Yes, unfortunately the content is very much out of my hands. I will forward
this on to Andy, who is maintaining the site. I just came up with the
overall layout, the front page, the gallery layout and the rules page.

Similar comment on the Sailing Instructions at
http://www.ross930.org.nz/Files/2004 ShortHanded Sail Instructions.doc
(and probably at other places). This one could be HTML with one .GIF.
It depends on how important it is to be able to read all of the site
with only a good web browser or if other tools can be required and how
available those tools are. Do most UNIX users have Word available?

Once again, I'll let Andy know.

Yep, too many images on one page:
http://www.ross930.org.nz/gallery.html. On the same page, if I narrow
the window until all of the thumbnails are in one vertical column,
then narrow it just a bit more, the images project to the right
outside their gray matte (and the text is centered on the matte, not
the photo).

I see what you mean. It is a very narrow width before it happens though,
and the captions are still readable. Not sure what I could do about that.

On the Rules page, link #20 doesn't work.

I will let Andy know. There's a # in the anchor that shouldn't be there.

The stability certificate .jpg is huge (displayed size) compared to
other images on the site. Have you tried to print it, using several
browsers? I don't think it's going to work, and it seems that
printing is the most likely thing for a user to do with it, to wave at
some
official. I did previews, which looked awful, but didn't actually
print it.

I hadn't even seen it before That would be something Andy added post my
involvement.

Rules page looks great, but it goes into horizontal scrolling a little
below a window width of 800px. I don't see anything in the content
that would prevent a bit more fluidity. Looks like #7 Standing
Rigging is the culprit.

Only thing I can think of is reducing the padding in the table. Other than
that there are no fixed elements, so not a lot can be done, short of
reducing the font size -- and that 'aint gonna happen.

Also I didn't see anything about armaments...

Ah, you're right, I accidentally omitted that section. Armaments to a
maxium weight of 750kg, no nuclear armaments permitted, a rule that American
Ross 930 owners find a little contentious, but one on which the Association
has so far been unswayable.

"Nik Coughin" <nrkn!no-spam!@woosh.co.nz> wrote

: Hi,
:
: Would like your thoughts on a few aspects of http://www.ross930.org.nz/,
: which I did an overhaul for a little while ago. I mainly just provided
them
: with a new template, graphics, etc. A lot of the content is out of my
: hands, for example while I did design the image gallery, I would have
: personally broken some of the pages up as they load a large number of
thumbs
: per page, quite bandwidth intensive. I think there should be a contact
form
: too, in fact I may offer to do that for them today some time. The rules
: page I was quite proud of, did that in conjunction with someone else as
: pretty much their first semantic html project. It's a fairly complex
: document. I also think the gallery page is quite neat and tidy.
:
: Anyway, enough blather. What I was specifically interested in is your
: opinions on:
:
: * Having resizable image buttons. Try changing the text size and look at
: the nav buttons.
: * Having the image on the front page fluid.
:
: I know that normally allowing the browser to resize images looks bad, but
I
: specifically prepared the images so that they would resize well, even
using
: the pixel resize algorithm common to most browsers.
:
: Any other comments on the code/css/layout etc. would be most welcome but
the
: site is now mostly out of my hands, though I can of course pass any
: suggestions on.

its very simplistic and boring, those buttons shout "amateur" and theres not
even a proper logo. if u had some nice close up pics of the different parts
of the yachts and integrated them into the design more it would be better
--
Hung Diep
http://www.intro-spect.co.uk:

Barefoot Kid wrote:

Nik Coughin wrote:
http://www.ross930.org.nz/

its very simplistic and boring, those buttons shout "amateur" and
theres not even a proper logo. if u had some nice close up pics of
the different parts of the yachts and integrated them into the design
more it would be better

Typical graphic design mindset. I bet the sites you design use fixed width
tables for layout and microfonts.

In context your comments have no relevance. If the site was a commercial
site, then yes. It should be slick, have a proper logo, etc. Commercial
sites should generally be designed by graphic designers - and generally
should *not* be coded by them, as the vast body of work on the Internet
proves.

I just had a look at your work, and I was right about the fixed width tables
for layout/microfonts etc. You are nonetheless a very talented graphic
designer. I really like your work, especially the photography (I'm assuming
the graphics from your portfolio site are your own?). Pretty much every
site you've made could have been fluid without compromising the design
though.

Take a look at the original page for Ross 930:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ross930.org.nz/

My instructions were literally "don't spend too much time on the layout,
just make it cleaner and get rid of the frames". I'm a coder, not a
designer. I think I get by OK with design, but I wouldn't attempt anything
too large and commerical without enlisting the aid of a designer.

"Nik Coughin" <nrkn!no-spam!@woosh.co.nz> wrote

: Barefoot Kid wrote:
: >>Nik Coughin wrote:
: >>http://www.ross930.org.nz/
: >
: >its very simplistic and boring, those buttons shout "amateur" and
: >theres not even a proper logo. if u had some nice close up pics of
: >the different parts of the yachts and integrated them into the design
: >more it would be better
:
: Typical graphic design mindset. I bet the sites you design use fixed
width
: tables for layout and microfonts.

pah typical coders mindset theres more than 1 way to skin a cat blah blah
blah...

: In context your comments have no relevance. If the site was a commercial
: site, then yes. It should be slick, have a proper logo, etc. Commercial
: sites should generally be designed by graphic designers - and generally
: should *not* be coded by them, as the vast body of work on the Internet
: proves.

u asked for comments on the layout etc i gave them to u, i woulda thought my
comments were very relevant. but if u cant take criticism... just cos a site
aint a commercial site dont mean it has to look crap.

--
Hung Diep
http://www.intro-spect.co.uk: