I NEED YOUR HELP!!!

PHOTOMANTY · Jun 9, 2004

Hello All,

I'm new to the this community. I wanted to share some of my work with you. Just moved into a new pad, so I don't have any of images to up load at the time. However, you can log onto my site

www.urbanframes.com

My site is a porfolio piece. I would appreciate any and all feedback. Thank you for your time.

Photomanty
[/url]

oriecat · Jun 9, 2004

I don't think this is the right forum for that. This is the critique forum for a particular work. If you have something specific you want critiqued, why don't you give us a direct link to it....

Geronimo · Jun 9, 2004

There are somethings that really annoy me about your site. First the media playing in the background. If I wanted to listen to music then I would play music. If you want your audience to experience something, then make it an option with it turned off at first. Not playing on the load.

Second, the navigation is a tab bit thrown together it seems. A good rule is to keep the navigation in one area, doing a hort and vert navigation is not a good idea.

Third, keep the preload smaller. Either reduce your sizes of images in the flash files or dont preload. Nothing worse then waiting, waiting........

Personally I dont like flash designs either, but please let there be a way to stop a preload and go back to the earlier screen. Maybe mark your links areas better as well.

But hey well to the forum.

PHOTOMANTY · Jun 10, 2004

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry, Oriecat, for not placing my thread in the wrong forum. I didn't see the other link below this one.

Geronimo, thank you for your insight. I agree with everything you said. I'm in the middle of re-designing the site. It will have brand new look once it's complete with easier navigation.

Just so you know, each page gives you the option to stop or pause the music. The button are in the top right corner of each gallery.

So, tell me, what do you think of my work. That's what I really want to know about. Thanks again.

Geronimo · Jun 10, 2004

While I tend not to like a lot of street or portait photos you do have a good eye for them.

Sorry about that rant, just got done with a geeky web design discuess with my brother.

StvShoop · Jun 11, 2004

'snot geeky

if you're gonna redesign the whole thing, may i strongly suggest that you don't do everything in flash? I don't think i got around to seeing any of your stuff because the flash took too long to load (probably just my impatient mtv culture need for instant gratification)
do html stuff with some flash stuff inside it

the loading time might have been increased by my long distance from anything... wv is the east coast center of nowhere

neomatrix · Jun 16, 2004

StvShoop said:
'snot geeky

if you're gonna redesign the whole thing, may i strongly suggest that you don't do everything in flash? I don't think i got around to seeing any of your stuff because the flash took too long to load (probably just my impatient mtv culture need for instant gratification)
do html stuff with some flash stuff inside it
the loading time might have been increased by my long distance from anything... wv is the east coast center of nowhere

Hello I am the one who did the programming for UrbanFrames.com ; I figured id post so that we could have a better dialog and reach a good midgrounds for site improvement and progression.

Very Very little of the site is actually done in flash, only one thing per page is flash (streaming mp3 player on the gallery pages, and the intro on the homepage). The site is a mixture of HTML, PHP, CSS, JavaScript, and DHTML; it was done as such to meet certain programming standards that would allow viewing from multiple platforms and browsers (albeit some old ones will have to be excluded). The loading time comes as a bi-product of the size of the photographs; each photograph is a full quality jpeg and the navigation was done in interlaced png's (to allow for crispness and quick loading). If the jpeg's where reduced in size that would also reduce them in quality which is not a viable option for this site (quality is the top priority). The only option arising from such a predicament would be one of two things (A) Less Pictures (B) More Galleries, aside from those options do any of the readers of this post have anything to suggest that would help the loading time but maintain the quality of the photographs? If one was to do a complete redesign for the site, would would some suggestions for that be?

Geronimo · Jun 17, 2004

I would suggest removing of the scrolling images links. There does not seem to be a good way to navigate the different photos on the site.

About your comments on the photo quality: It is a balancing act for sure. I would suggest reducing the image quality to improve the load time. It appears to be preloading the full images into the flash file. IF you are only loading the music file into flash, then I would suggest finding a looping clip instead of the full song. My personal preference is to load thumbnails and then load the full image upon a click of the thumbnail. The action is expected to take awhile. While pre loading saves time for loading the full image, it also loads photos that a vistor would not want to view.

I do have more thoughts but need to run.

StvShoop · Jun 17, 2004

no need to get snappy.
go with plan A

neomatrix · Jun 17, 2004

StvShoop said:
no need to get snappy.
go with plan A

I apologize if you interpeted my post as being snappy it certainly wasnt intended as such

neomatrix · Jun 17, 2004

Geronimo said:
I would suggest removing of the scrolling images links. There does not seem to be a good way to navigate the different photos on the site.

About your comments on the photo quality: It is a balancing act for sure. I would suggest reducing the image quality to improve the load time. It appears to be preloading the full images into the flash file. IF you are only loading the music file into flash, then I would suggest finding a looping clip instead of the full song. My personal preference is to load thumbnails and then load the full image upon a click of the thumbnail. The action is expected to take awhile. While pre loading saves time for loading the full image, it also loads photos that a vistor would not want to view.

I do have more thoughts but need to run.

wow thanks I never thought of that; currently we are loading the full images AND the thumbnails; thanks

johnb. · Jul 2, 2004

hey guys-

this is my first post, cause i normally hang out on web design forums, but have recently gotten into photography and therefore stumbled upon this site.

There have been some really good points made, but the key to getting the best site is all about balance. You can't think of the site as "form vs. function" like so many designers/developers do. form and function can't be opposing, or "vs.", they have to relate to each other and create leverage in the site. the best thought was to get rid of the full images until the user clicks on the thumbs. that will cut down a good bit of load time. also, the fewer pictures in each section, the quicker the user can view them. i'm on dsl so i'm not use to waiting, especially for photography sites, cause they're normally very well done (because i see the links on the web design forums), and short and concise. either choose some of your best works and put them in the catagories you had, cutting out a good bit of photos, or divide the categories into sections so that there aren't 94 pictures loading, but only 20, and then 20 more on the second set, and so on. Lots of ideas to play around with, but go to a forum like www.were-here.com and go to the site check or coolsites forum and search for photography sites, get some good ideas from those. Side note, if anyone needs a good site done, email me sometime.

take it easy-

johnb.