fotofutzi Posted July 8, 2008 Share #21 Posted July 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hallo Jaap, ich mag Deine Gegend um Oostvoorne. Viele Grüsse Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/57235-please-criticize-my-new-website/?do=findComment&comment=598985'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2008 Posted July 8, 2008 Hi fotofutzi, Take a look here Please criticize my new website. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share #22 Posted July 8, 2008 Thanks everybody for the feedback; I am very grateful . Three things are abundantly clear: 1. We must do someting about readability. 2. It is apparently not clear that clicking the medium photograph will enlarge it to full screen, so a "click for full size" seems indicated. 3. Opera on mac seems to give some problems; we must look into that @ Stuart: somehow I cannot reproduce your problem. Can you send me a screenshot? Thanks As I said, thanks again, it is a big help. It will be a juggling act, to keep the "artsy look" which I wanted and make it practical as well.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted July 8, 2008 Share #23 Posted July 8, 2008 Jaap Nice site, my only comment is that I think the font for the menus etc is difficult to read and detracts from the overall impression of the site. Sometimes, less is more. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 8, 2008 Share #24 Posted July 8, 2008 2. It is apparently not clear that clicking the medium photograph will enlarge it to full screen, so a "click for full size" seems indicated. IMHO that's not the problem. I expect that everyone here clicked the medium photo because that's the way one expects to get a larger version. For me, the failings are (a) that the "medium" image is too small, especially in relation to the amount of the page occupied by the "design" elements. The page has much too low an information content. In my browser window the medium image, thumbnails and metadata use only about 10% of the pixels. ( once you get an enlarged image, there seems no way of moving to the next image except by returning to the previous screen and then trying to hit the right moving thumbnail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted July 8, 2008 Share #25 Posted July 8, 2008 A lot of useful feedback so far. I agree about the font. Too gimmicky. Look like excellent pictures, but they just don't load fast enough. Many sites load much faster. That's crucial. It's totally different from mine, which I tried to keep as simple as possible (needs updating.) Best of luck! David David Killick, Freelance Journalist and Photographer, New Zealand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 8, 2008 Share #26 Posted July 8, 2008 I let foliosnap look after the site I look after the images Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted July 8, 2008 Share #27 Posted July 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jaap - Below is a screen capture as it appears on Internet Explorer 6.x, on a PC running XP Professional. BTW: At least 10 years ago IBM ran an advertisement on TV in which you see these two young web developers admiring their web design and extolling how cool it is. A woman (who appears to be management) in her 30s walks by, and the developers excitedly show her the page, to which she say, yeah, but what’s it do. Too many people designing webs are like that to this day. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/57235-please-criticize-my-new-website/?do=findComment&comment=599122'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share #28 Posted July 8, 2008 Thank you, Stuart. I'm amazed. I run this site on five PCs, some in Firefox and some in IE, all on XP or XP professional, and none does this:confused: Nor in OSx, nor in Linux.... We'll have to figure out the cause... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted July 8, 2008 Share #29 Posted July 8, 2008 Thank you, Stuart. I'm amazed. I run this site on five PCs, some in Firefox and some in IE, all on XP or XP professional, and none does this:confused: Nor in OSx, nor in Linux.... We'll have to figure out the cause... IE6 is notorious for lets say 'idiosyncratic' rendering of content. The requirement to support it always causes gnashing of teeth in the projects I work on. In my opinion the best solution would be to put a 'This looks better in Firefox' message on the site and link to the Firefox download. Even if only one person actually follows the link - you will have done web-developers the world over a favor My feedback echoes what's been said before. The font is unreadable without a fair amount of effort - which is not likely to be forthcoming for a casual visitor. I understand there is probably a fair amount of design invested in it, but font design is a very specialized field - good ones don't come easily. The standard images could be larger, with an option to show smaller ones if the user has bandwidth issues. Most people viewing your site will be on some form of broadband, and will have at least a 19" monitor. It would help to retain the image navigation bar and other navigation aids when the large image is displayed. You might find using a selected image as a key into each slideshow is more visually appealing than textual links alone. The images are good, they deserve to be more prominent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_peter_m Posted July 8, 2008 Share #30 Posted July 8, 2008 Thank you, Stuart. I'm amazed. I run this site on five PCs, some in Firefox and some in IE, all on XP or XP professional, and none does this:confused: Nor in OSx, nor in Linux.... We'll have to figure out the cause... Could be the png, IE doesn't fully support transparent png. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted July 8, 2008 Share #31 Posted July 8, 2008 I partly disagree with David. He suggests, "In my opinion the best solution would be to put a 'This looks better in Firefox' message on the site and link to the Firefox download. Even if only one person actually follows the link - you will have done web-developers the world over a favor", …which is a good idea, but it also implies not optimizing the site for as many viewers as possible, which would effectively deprive you of many potential viewers. I'd direct the site developers to make the site work universally with any recent browser, and then perhaps include David's suggestion to help move more people onto Firefox. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share #32 Posted July 8, 2008 As far as I could make out the answer from the experts, the problem seems to be that your computer is functioning as a server in combination with IE6, Stuart. We're working on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest joewehry Posted July 10, 2008 Share #33 Posted July 10, 2008 Also, go to http://validator.w3.org/ It's a web site that you can plug in your web address (or that of any page in your site) and have it validate the html or css code of the web page. It will let you know at what level you web site validates and what you can do to make it better for current web browsers. BTW - there is a great program out there called RapidWeaver by the guys at RealMacSoftware. The program is cheap, easy to use, supports the imedia browser so you can drag in your photos from iPhoto or Aperture. It also supports current web standards. The templates may not be what you want for your site, but there are a half-dozen designers who create styles for this program. For the money, I don't think you can go wrong. I think you can also download a trial version. ( It looks like Erwin Puts is porting his site over to one of their designs. A nice change of pace, and a format I'd have used for my own site. Basic black - great for photos.) Of course, if designing your own site is part of the fun of DIY, go for it and create a unique home for your photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 11, 2008 Author Share #34 Posted July 11, 2008 Thanks again everybody Your comments have generated a number of improvements . Of course I'm pigheaded enough to stick to some of my own ideas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted July 12, 2008 Share #35 Posted July 12, 2008 Thanks again everybody Your comments have generated a number of improvements . Of course I'm pigheaded enough to stick to some of my own ideas Pigheaded can be seen as a virtue. In your case Jaap, it will guarantee a unique website. A good practice is to re-visit the design as well as the content regularly, at least till you are happy with the look and function. It will grow and improve with time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 12, 2008 Share #36 Posted July 12, 2008 I partly disagree with David. He suggests, "In my opinion the best solution would be to put a 'This looks better in Firefox' message on the site and link to the Firefox download. Even if only one person actually follows the link - you will have done web-developers the world over a favor", …which is a good idea, but it also implies not optimizing the site for as many viewers as possible, which would effectively deprive you of many potential viewers. I'd direct the site developers to make the site work universally with any recent browser, and then perhaps include David's suggestion to help move more people onto Firefox. Unfortunately, Stuart, Microsoft in their arrogance choose not to make a web-compliant browser. There are so many better offers out there that people are voting with their feet. Internet Explorer is probably the worst browser there is these days. You should try one of the alternatives for general web-browsing (not business applications). You'll notice a huge improvement in your experience. You could use Safari, Opera or Firefox (which is rapidly becoming the browser of choice across all platforms), for example. Jaap - I agree with most of what has been said above. It's too complicated to navigate and the fonts are a disaster. Point your designers to portfolio websites that you enjoy using, and that are simple to use. By all means they can use their design flair to reflect your personality, but the basics of navigation and ease of use must be there before they tart it up, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooky Posted July 12, 2008 Share #37 Posted July 12, 2008 Visually - the font style and the front page is okay by me. I had no problem reading the font style. It's how it is for you in the long run and if it represents your style, that's all that matters. Technically I wasn't able to get past the main page, and on my screen setup the page 'spilled over' the borders just a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike kim Posted July 13, 2008 Share #38 Posted July 13, 2008 I don't think this has been said, but the background color of the buttons is not the same shade of black as the background. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted July 13, 2008 Share #39 Posted July 13, 2008 Hi Jaap, I dont mind the fonts - actually I quite like it (which is probably a good reason to change it ). What I would like to see is a slide show option - or when looking at the enlarged version, to be able to go to the next one without going back to the selection. Also, the titles/data area is on a white square against the black which is leading my eye away from the photo. Also (maybe this is just me) I prefer the data under the photo. Enjoy the experience Ravi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 13, 2008 Share #40 Posted July 13, 2008 Hi Jaap, compliments for the pics, first of all: I hope you'll add many others... The font, oh well, one can or cannot like: imho, isn't "the best.." but I couldn't say which is "the best"... don't care, it's unusual, it can stay. The style of presentation is also unusual, with the pic's data at the two sides... personally, I like it. Two issues : - when you enlarge a pic, the images of the group it belongs to, continue to roll OVER the pic itself... annoying, and a pity... it covers part of the picture - in my browser (IE) the "back to selection" command appears inserted on a gray rectangle... not nice to see, and the words result almost unreadable... surely can be fixed in some way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.