Some feedback about my new website

[Dikkie]

... there is virtually nothing about this site that is consistent with the UI/UX design principles I follow.

Maybe, if you read what I wrote, you could see that this was the purpose to not follow the design principles, usability principles, readability principles.

I could do worse, I could do much more fun to frustrate visitors.
But I kept it neat, no animated Gif's on every first page with 'under construction' signs.
I could place the unnecessary scrollbar at the left too, fun for confusing people
No buttons mentioning that this site is made with frontpage.
No bad color contrasts so the font that is already small enough, won't be readable anymore.
No hided navigation that will only show if you hover with your mouse.
No annyoing mouse cursor in another style like crosshair or when you hover a link it changes the cursor to the progress or wait cursor.
No image in the header of the site that is 500px height so people with a 800*600px screen have to scroll down to find a navigation. No circular button in front with the logo of the site that ain't clickable neither.


You obviously have no clue of the intentions that I had. You could have, but you readn't.

But the funny fact is that if you compare the website with ranking/value meter like Alexa or something else, it still rates good, or anyway better than Tyler's one that is made "the good way". (as an example I compared for fun).

bulevardi.be is worth $ 347 - Worth Of Web
tylerdrummphoto.com is worth $ 132 - Worth Of Web
Mine: By Alexa Traffic Rank 5,350,126
Reputation: 26
Tyler's by Alexa Traffic Rank 13,205,797
Reputation: 2
Or on Webuka - Website worth calculator you can see the difference too.



Ironically, I'm not in competition, not anymore. I don't have to find clients or have to do marketing.
I don't need the good principles anymore of what a good website should be, I can do without any rules what I want
Ironically I knów how all stuff should be the correct way because I came from webdesign business and with my previous sites I did it the good way. I don't need any explainations about that

 

[Benco]

You obviously have no clue of the intentions that I had. You could have, but you readn't.

Well you've stated yourself that you intended your site to look and work like it does and everyone's agreed with that, you suceeded in making it very archaic. As to why you'd choose to do that, who knows? It's as if you've got yourself a horse drawn wagon when everyone else is driving cars and when asked why you say 'because I like horses'.

 

[Dikkie]

It's as if you've got yourself a horse drawn wagon when everyone else is driving cars and when asked why you say 'because I like horses'.

Almost.

It's more like I've got myself a horse drawn, and asking for feedback about it, and everyone begins about cars that are better, faster, more usable etc.. and not about that horse that could be better in brown instead of black

In this example, I'd choose the horse instead of the car aswel. As I'm also using public transport rather than a car, shaving myself with a blade instead of a machine. I'm way back in time here. Would you read this message in time if I post it with a pigeon?

 

[Benco]

Right. Reading between the lines it looks like you're trying to present yourself as someone edgy, someone different from the herd by deliberately making your site different in the only practical way, by making it old fashioned. That doesn't really work though, unless people know exactly why you've made the design choices that you have made your site just looks like a old, poorly built relic from an earlier internet age. If people do know what you're trying to do then for one thing they already know about you which renders such manipulations obsolete and for another it just makes you look as if you're trying to present an artifical image of how 'different' you are.

 

[Dikkie]

why you've made the design choices that you have made your site just looks like a old, poorly built relic from an earlier internet age.

Well it's not all that.
A good example of a prehistoric website would be this: Website van Robert Vanderkuylen

In comparison, mine is still 'modern', it just has sober layout.
There is in fact a big difference, certainly if you look at the code: tables, inline scripts, ...

While I've used quite modern ways like jQuery, proper HTML markup, SEO friendly built,...

It looks like only 1 page, but you can access it with different urls:
bulevardi or ?page=people, ...
It looks like I used PHP instead, with 'include' functions, but it isn't, it's plain html with a whole javascript process that I built up, just to have some fun beating a php system.
No one would know that from the outside. No one would care neither, but if I compare with a prehistoric site... there really are big differences. Compared to the other site I mentioned... I could go worse than you can imagine

 

[Benco]

However good it may be under the skin is irrelevant, it looks old, dull and stale, that's as far as a lot of people will go with it. My reaction to your site is 'Meh' and I suspect that's how most people will react to it. If you wanted to make a site that was off putting to the largest possible number of people then well done, you've achieved it.

 

[Dikkie]

My reaction to your site is 'Meh' and I suspect that's how most people will react to it. If you wanted to make a site that was off putting to the largest possible number of people then well done, you've achieved it.

HOORAY !!

 

[o hey tyler]

The difference between your website and my website is that my website actually gets clients. Which apparently Alexa doesn't count for. Great job, you used the snapsort of websites.

You are potentially the most backwards thinking person I've ever met. Just be glad you're not doing paid or commissioned work, as the layout of your website would actually matter. I'm still lost as to why you'd want to have a website that you coded by smashing your head on a keyboard, but to each their own, I suppose.

 

[o hey tyler]

P.S. I am completely certain that calling yourself a web designer is stretching the truth. You may have coded and built sites in 1998, but web design has changed and left you very far behind.

 

[Tee]

P.S. I am completely certain that calling yourself a web designer is stretching the truth. You may have coded and built sites in 1998, but web design has changed and left you very far behind.

It's kinda like when Facebook photographers say they've been shooting for 30 years when really what they mean is they've owned point and shoots that got pulled out for birthdays and Christmas.

I had a Geocities page in 2001 but that didn't make me a web designer. Lol.

 

[amolitor]

I didn't have any problem with the navigation.

On Chrome, however, the entire page scrolls AND the tiny little box in the middle scrolls. Both of these are annoying, since there's not enough content anywhere to warrant scrolling. Making me scroll to see your content is actually just asking me to hit the Back button, unless your content is INCREDIBLY COMPELLING.

 

[o hey tyler]

Tee, another thing I find to be funny is that if you go to Pingdom tools, and enter both of our websites, mine consistently outperforms his archaic site 82/100 to 79/100.

I wonder what other benchmarks we can test that don't really matter?

 

[runnah]

I wish people would just pony up the $$ and hire someone. There is so much going on behind the scenes that make the difference between success and failure.

65% of my clients are people who tried to build their own site or had their friend/brother/cousin build it for them.

 

[sekhar]

Dikkie, I appreciate your passion and conviction, but please also follow basic forum etiquette (and common courtesy). All of us went to your website, spent time there, and took the effort to give you feedback. We did it as fellow TPF members, and we did it gratis. And instead of saying thanks, you come back and insult us because you don't like how we feel?

I don't think it's productive to extend the discussion, but I did want to part with a suggestion (more to others like you, not to you specifically) that if you do start a post asking for feedback, please do state your intention better. E.g., in your case, your original post asked: "...But I don't know how it is for the visitors as for usability/readability etc... Any feedback will be welcome." And that's what we did: we assessed it for usability/readability/etc. and told you what we thought. If you'd asked us if we thought it was edgy, we'd have given you a different assessment. Anyway, enough said.

 

[Dikkie]

In your case, your original post asked: "...But I don't know how it is for the visitors as for usability/readability etc... Any feedback will be welcome." And that's what we did: we assessed it for usability/readability/etc. and told you what we thought.

I fully understand. But no one seems to get the irony in that ...

E.g.: If I made a website in black and white only, and asked for a review of the colors I used. I wouldn't think I'd have to explain later on that it was not actually the colors... but I fully understand some people would try to assess the colors.

Even after explaining it 3 times, some people still miss the point and react as they haven't read anything I explained. But I guess they've just been playing a game the whole time.

The difference between your website and my website is that my website actually gets clients.

If you read what I wrote, you'd know I don't need clients. The site is definitely not a visitor card.
Anyway, I guess it's furthermore pointless to explain all this to you, again.
I already know it's not me, in other topics you react the same to anyone else

You are potentially the most backwards thinking person I've ever met.

First of all, you never met me. Second, I have the ability to think in other directions than only forward, too.
Besides in some situations in life, forward is not always the good way.