Looking for feedback on my website...

[Inst!nct]

I saw flash haters and just skipped till the end, what bugged me the most was when navigating through your site, the main box, when not in galleries, it changes by like 20 pixels every time, and its very frustrating IMO

 

[Christie Photo]

Honestly, not sure why you feel the need to bash on people for giving their honest opinion, like they were asked. Oh, wait, I take that back... I'm pretty sure I know why.

Oh, common. You know I'm not bashing. I was compelled to respond to Derrel's attack, which (you must admit) you did encourage.

You've explained in detail why you deem flash an unsuitable choice... very helpful.

Derrel, on the other hand, went for the jugular, scoffing at the OP's abilities. When you gave him affirmation, I was compelled to speak up.

So, I'm sure you know very little about me if you think I have a need to "bash on people."

-Pete

 

[Rekd]

I was compelled to speak up.

Uh huh... :lmao:

 

[mindyf]

Whats so bad about flash anyway? I mean I would have used it to protect my photos on the site I plan to make for my business. I don't want people stealing my photos and if there is a better way I would like to hear one. I thought it was a nice site, it is simple enough to show his work without being too cluttered like some of the others I have seen. :thumbup:

 

[Rekd]

Whats so bad about flash anyway?

I explained that on page 1...

I don't do flash only sites. Reasons being is that I have to enable java on sights I don't know/don't trust, and it's too damn slow.

And for the site owner, it sux for SEO. Having a business web site without SEO is like having a hamburger stand without a stand. Not to mention those poor saps on less than 1mb/sec downloads, like me. (Which is a step up form the dialup I've been on for the last 5 years.)

I suggested they do an HTML site for the lowly dredges like me (of which there are a lot, BTW) to become potential clients.

My suggestion would be create an HTML only version of the gallery if you want to reach out to the other 30% of us that won't go to flash sites.

At least now they've got an off-site link to a gallery, but I don't see myself clicking on it. There are other sites out there that will make it easier for me to patronize, and they prolly know how to do a meta refresh so I don't have to.

Oh, and I'm sure it's a positively lovely site. I just won't see it.

 

[dawssvt]

I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page.

Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM

 

[Rekd]

I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page.

Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM

YAYS! Good job!

And I was right, the site IS a "positively lovely" site. Nice and clean. Not a bunch of stuff going on. Colors are easy on the eyes. Not sure about the navigation through the pictures because it loaded slow, but I'm at work with a really really crappy connection. I'll check it again when I get home. :thumbup:

 

[dawssvt]

I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page.

Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM

YAYS! Good job!

And I was right, the site IS a "positively lovely" site. Nice and clean. Not a bunch of stuff going on. Colors are easy on the eyes. Not sure about the navigation through the pictures because it loaded slow, but I'm at work with a really really crappy connection. I'll check it again when I get home. :thumbup:

Thanks :thumbup: The weird thing is that I have NEVER had a problem with the flash site loading. It never takes more than 3 seconds to load for me - it's always been that way and I've looked at my site from several different computers. Hmmm...

 

[Rekd]

I just added a non-flash version of my site available on the opening page.

Captured Moments - Photography by Dawson - Las Cruces, NM

YAYS! Good job!

And I was right, the site IS a "positively lovely" site. Nice and clean. Not a bunch of stuff going on. Colors are easy on the eyes. Not sure about the navigation through the pictures because it loaded slow, but I'm at work with a really really crappy connection. I'll check it again when I get home. :thumbup:

Thanks :thumbup: The weird thing is that I have NEVER had a problem with the flash site loading. It never takes more than 3 seconds to load for me - it's always been that way and I've looked at my site from several different computers. Hmmm...

Flash is always slow for me, even when I was on Cox hi speed (6mb/sec). Having choice is always the preferred method.

Like I said, I'm at work on a really bad connection that seems to stop every few seconds so I'll try again at home.

 

[mindyf]

Yea that is better. Who setup your site for you? Or did you do it? I am currently looking for someone to help me set one up. I don't even know where to start, but I know once it is set up and someone shows me how I am sure I can take it from there....

 

[Rekd]

That's much better. I didn't check out the flash site, but the html site was killer. Which dunes were those? Were there any OHVs there? What a wedding that would be. Imagine an 80 thousand dollar sand-rail roosting a huge wheelie in the background, or a pair of quads jumping in sync. :lmao:

Lol, sorry, I have a real vivid imagination.

You did a great job, Dawson. I hope your extra time and trouble pays off for you.

 

[bigtwinky]

I hope I'm not rehashing what others said, here are my 2 cents:

- if you are planning on running a business, I'd not reference facebook on your main page. Facebook can be a great tool, but unless it is giving the user something more than what is on your site, don't add a link to it.

time is money. When I develop an online application/page, the less clicks the better. The less choices the better. I want to see something easy, quick, and know where to go without thinking much. Lead me to the treasure, dont make me hunt for it.

So right off the bat, getting to the main page, I have 3 choices. I went for the non flash one.

- I was viewing the portraits and I didn't like the colour of the font up top. Its a dark green on a dark background. I liked the ease and quickness of the images loading, but at first glance, I didn't see any buttons or ways to get out of there...until I noticed the hard to see font colour of your links.

- If all you have for now are two galleries, center the icons more. Having them left aligned like that makes me think that the site is unfinished and there is more to add. If there is, and say you add 2 more, then reposition the icons to have the 4 centered

Bio page and Investment page, nice.

Contact page... a little small thing I noticed is that when I hover my mouse over your email address, I get the small info box that says: "contact image 1". Might want to change that for something a little better sounding, or funny... just not so generic

FAQs... While I don't mind the background image in Conact, I find the one in here is a bit busy, specially when this is a section that should be easy on the eyes for the user to read. If the page is busy, people won't read.

I then checked out the Flash site. It took under 10 secs to load (I'm at work, so we have a great connection). I do like the somewhat jazzier feel, but I don't feel that the flash site offers THAT much more over the non flash, not to the point of having an intro page with the option.

Hope this helps!

Sending you a PM with a bit more

 

[ecnal]

Looking only at the HTML only site, I like it. What other's have said stands; simple, easy on the eyes, etc.

A couple things that stand out to me:

1. When clicking on 'Galleries', the teal box gets smaller width-wise by about 20-30 pixels. That's the only one.
2. In a gallery (either one, doesn't matter) the links and header image disappear! This is using Firefox v3.5.4, on Windows XP Pro on a 20/5 fiberoptic connection. Same thing happens in Chrome v3.0.195.27. I have to hit the 'back' button to get the links back.

Also, who designed the site? Yourself? Or is it a template?