After weeks of different designs, I've finaly have one I like. Please give me all of the criticism you can.
Thank you!
Clifton Griffin Web Development
P.S. This is NOT BLUEDesign! I ditched that--too opressively blue.
Printable View
After weeks of different designs, I've finaly have one I like. Please give me all of the criticism you can.
Thank you!
Clifton Griffin Web Development
P.S. This is NOT BLUEDesign! I ditched that--too opressively blue.
Outstanding! You may want to force the browser window to open to accomidat the full higth of your stage or shorten the heigth of the stage. Also with the format you set it up, I would have made it more of a blend of HTML and Flash and not a solid Flash site.
As for the look, I like it a lot. Good job.
Thanks! Fixed height issue.
Others, please review! Thanks.
[Edited by clifgriffin on 04-02-2002 at 11:46 PM]
sorry no complaints from me :D
great site
very nice...godd eye for design.! The only thing I can think of is some of your text. It is not crisp. Maybe use a pixel font/ check to make sure that the text fields are on whole number values, ie: 55.0 and not 55.4/ Or try making the field type DYNAMIC instead of STATIC. :)
FLASH just handels text very badly!!
Good work!
-whispers-
Few comments.
1. Colours are excellent; bright and inviting.
2. Text!! As mentioned in the above post, not crisp. Not appealing.
3. Transitions. The transitions between sections are not smooth. Having the section just 'appear' reminds me a lot of <HTML>. With flash, you have the power to create creatively! Make the transitions. At the least, make it fade! That will impress most users.
4. I like the simplicity of the site. Not too complex and busy, and not plain like Basic HTML.
5. Overall, i must say - inviting, appealing, and I will definitely check back to see the page in it's future stages!
Wonderful!
Irfaan
[Edited by Irfaan.com on 04-03-2002 at 02:20 PM]
Thanks for all of the feedback. I knew I'd get some reminders about the text. This movie was originally for 780x700, if your screen resolution is 1024x768 it changes in to 550x525(?). For the small version, the text is horrible and I can't figure out why. Flash is supposed to scale things better than that. Any suggestions? I will try the exact pixel thing.
<edit>I fixed the text. Alot of it was scaled making it appear dirty. Others please lend a hand... Do the loaders for each sub-section work properly? Can someone with dial-up try? Thanks.</edit>
<edit2>Okay, I've fixed the portfolio text problem. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can get the information from my contact page to an asp page that sends the message. I already have a working html version. I need the movie to send that info to asp page. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I can't be this good... I need some more feedback. Others please check...
</edit2>
[Edited by clifgriffin on 04-03-2002 at 10:52 AM]
I'm not a professional designer. But your site is really eye candy to me. Also I found some text is a little bit blur in the contact list. And I don't know what the point with "85" in the buttom?
your site is very clean designed.
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=289823
[Edited by udreamer on 04-03-2002 at 12:12 PM]
Quote:
Originally posted by udreamer
And I don't know what the point with "85" in the buttom?
That's a temporary counter I set up.
More feedback please... If you review my site I'll review yours. Just leave me a link... Thanks.
I liked your site. Very proffesional and clean. As for your fonts it looks okay to me I'm on a 19' monitor and resolution at 1024 x 768 but who am I to say I'm just a bigginer myself.
Keep up the great work.
Aloha - Marc
http://www.iacdesign.com
Thank you. I just looked at your site. You don't look like a begginer to me. :)Quote:
Originally posted by iacdsn
I liked your site. Very proffesional and clean. As for your fonts it looks okay to me I'm on a 19' monitor and resolution at 1024 x 768 but who am I to say I'm just a bigginer myself.
Keep up the great work.
Aloha - Marc
http://www.iacdesign.com
i think there is a lot of wasted space on that site.
can't get the site to load...
I'll check back later this evening.
visit my thread http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=290861
Gloomycus, please elaborate.
Selah, I just checked it, it worked fine. Try again.
Guys, I need all of the help I can get. Tear into me. Knock me out. :) Be brutal!
What keeps this page from being professional.
I know there's issues you're being silent about.
RIP ME TA SHREDS!
too boxy
personnaly.. i don't like the layout..
instead of having the info appear at the bottom.. try to make it appear in the 'view' area. NOT at the bottom... you want the info in the users first glance.
Irfaan
Thank you!Quote:
Originally posted by Irfaan.com
too boxy
personnaly.. i don't like the layout..
instead of having the info appear at the bottom.. try to make it appear in the 'view' area. NOT at the bottom... you want the info in the users first glance.
Irfaan
What do you mean by boxy?
What screen resolution do you use?
Where would you recommend putting the information part?
(Others please provide resolution info. Keep in mind that I currently only support 1024x768 or larger. )
I have to agree with whispers about the fonts, especially in the form submission fields. Try typing something in them and you can't see the text. Pixel fonts will work better. Also, regarding the forms, you may want to add some validation code that checks for input and a field that indicates successful submission as well as code that bumps the selection back to the top when tabbing. For kicks I typed in some gibberish text in all the fields and hit submit and I really didn't get a sense of whether my data had been processed.
I do like the whitespace and simplicity. Maybe you could have condensed the design elements into a format that fits a standard browser window without scrolling down. When clicking on links I had to scroll up and down to navigate. Just a little issue but overall it seems cleaner and better designed than many sites that are just crammed with junk with no attention paid to the classic design principles like line, type, shape, contrast, repetition, alignment, etc. These are the elements that lift a site above the ordinary and when people see them well-used in a site they like it without really being able to say why. Anyway, good work and get some pixel fonts. ;)
Oh, here's a site that I did that I think is pretty well-designed and clean. Full-screen was needed due to the size of the photos and thumbnails but overall I think you'll agree that simple and logical is often better. I was pretty happy with this one. Cheers.
http://www.minimldesign.com/john.html
Thanks! Your site looks great. Love the way each picture scrolls into view. Nice photography!Quote:
Originally posted by dzlpwr
I have to agree with whispers about the fonts, especially in the form submission fields. Try typing something in them and you can't see the text. Pixel fonts will work better. Also, regarding the forms, you may want to add some validation code that checks for input and a field that indicates successful submission as well as code that bumps the selection back to the top when tabbing. For kicks I typed in some gibberish text in all the fields and hit submit and I really didn't get a sense of whether my data had been processed.
I do like the whitespace and simplicity. Maybe you could have condensed the design elements into a format that fits a standard browser window without scrolling down. When clicking on links I had to scroll up and down to navigate. Just a little issue but overall it seems cleaner and better designed than many sites that are just crammed with junk with no attention paid to the classic design principles like line, type, shape, contrast, repetition, alignment, etc. These are the elements that lift a site above the ordinary and when people see them well-used in a site they like it without really being able to say why. Anyway, good work and get some pixel fonts. ;)
Oh, here's a site that I did that I think is pretty well-designed and clean. Full-screen was needed due to the size of the photos and thumbnails but overall I think you'll agree that simple and logical is often better. I was pretty happy with this one. Cheers.
http://www.minimldesign.com/john.html
I assume you have 800x600? As said before, I designed this site for 1024x768 or larger.
What are pixel fonts? I have a feeling that the text looks messy because it is being scaled down. I designed the original swf for 1280x1024. I have it scripted so that it will display right on smaller res.
Thanks again.
Thanks! Your site looks great. Love the way each picture scrolls into view. Nice photography!
I assume you have 800x600? As said before, I designed this site for 1024x768 or larger.
What are pixel fonts? I have a feeling that the text looks messy because it is being scaled down. I designed the original swf for 1280x1024. I have it scripted so that it will display right on smaller res.
BTW, the forms don't work yet. I have a post in the MX forums trying to figure out how to get 'em to work.
Thanks again.
Please?
If you designed this site for 1024x786 then why would your font be "SCALED" down when others look at it?....and it doesnt matter..vector can scale anyway!
Here take alook at this link: http://www.dmstudios.net/tutorials/fonttips1.html
These are somedifferent fonts on whole number values...some or in DYNAMIC text fileds....some are static...the right side is all PIXEL fonts...left is regular. Take a look to see the difference! CRISP and blurry!..
-whispers-
Thanks.Quote:
Originally posted by whispers
If you designed this site for 1024x786 then why would your font be "SCALED" down when others look at it?....and it doesnt matter..vector can scale anyway!
Here take alook at this link: http://www.dmstudios.net/tutorials/fonttips1.html
These are somedifferent fonts on whole number values...some or in DYNAMIC text fileds....some are static...the right side is all PIXEL fonts...left is regular. Take a look to see the difference! CRISP and blurry!..
-whispers-
What are pixel fonts?
I designed it for 1280x1024 'cause that's the resolution I use. However, if the person has 1024x768 or less, it redirects to a different page that has a scaled version.
It doesn't make sense that the larger one looks so much better.
I like the modern look of the site layout.
You do need to use preloaders to indicate what is happening on the initial site load and when the buttons are clicked.
I use a 19 inch monitor for my main display and a 14 inch for testing. What I found on the 14 inch is when I clicked on the buttons the only indication I had that something happened was that my modem lights were flashing. Even when the content actually loaded, I didn't know until I scrolled down. You need to make it more obvious to the user that content is being loaded and if not visible, direct them on how to view it.
I know, I've already identified that the loaders aren't working properly. I'm working to correct this issue.Quote:
Originally posted by ablair
I like the modern look of the site layout.
You do need to use preloaders to indicate what is happening on the initial site load and when the buttons are clicked.
I use a 19 inch monitor for my main display and a 14 inch for testing. What I found on the 14 inch is when I clicked on the buttons the only indication I had that something happened was that my modem lights were flashing. Even when the content actually loaded, I didn't know until I scrolled down. You need to make it more obvious to the user that content is being loaded and if not visible, direct them on how to view it.
Thanks.
When I first came to the site, I clicked on a bunch of links above, and didn't see any action. I thought they weren't working, and then they started to load. Were they not pre-loaded? Overall I like it. I agree on the text with above comments....Jer
me: http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=291459
I assume you're on dialup, yes I'm working to get the preloaders up and runnin'. Right now just wait a minute, they'll come.Quote:
Originally posted by jerguar
When I first came to the site, I clicked on a bunch of links above, and didn't see any action. I thought they weren't working, and then they started to load. Were they not pre-loaded? Overall I like it. I agree on the text with above comments....Jer
me: http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=291459
Thanks.
Got my pixels at miniml.com ($100 for the set, ouch) but they're worth it. Once used they need to be aligned at whole pixels so they remain sharp but they are the best for anything small. They even work well in input fields which is the case here and they were used for everything in that photography site except the main copy. For me at least they help preserve whitespace so I like them a lot.
One more thing, when you test the movie they'll look like poop since the movie isn't scaled properly. To see the true appearance open the swf from whatever folder it's in or publish and then test the movie in a browser. Crisp. Good luck. :)
I agree with jerguar and ablair about when first entering the site and clicking on your buttons I did not know anything was happening and thought your site did not work. I am using 800x600 resolution, IE5.5 DSL, PIII 800mghz 1GB RAM. I do like the site though it is simple yet has a good clean feel to it.
Though I like the look/feel of the site and the clean prof. look, I'm not sure that the large middle area housing static graphics and info is an efficient use of real estate. IMHO, this area should be used for the content that changes. I also agree with dzlpwr that the overall page size should be scaled so that scrolling down is not necessary.
Peace.
i'll be honest i aint read the entire thread, so if i touch on something again i'm sorry
personally i saw it as a decent flash site that could have been just as easily created in html, maybe with just a hint of flash animation
two things to consider in this statment:
1 - i generally dont like flash sites - yes i know the irony of me being here :p
2 - i thought the site was okay, nothing wrong with it, i always look at flash as an extension from html, in my opinion you've skipped the html step and jumped right in the deep end
nice job tho! :p
cs
[Edited by crashedstar on 04-13-2002 at 04:16 PM]
First why have you use this font ... It's ugly .... Second why have you use those scaring color ... specially for your art section flower (discusting).. Next why do you use the litle bottom space to display your information ... Your giving first user look to a space that as always the same content...And you should use animation for going to a section to an other the section disapearance is a bit newbie ... And where have you get this light blue hospital color... Plus why is you transition anim so long ... Anyway they have nothing to impress... POWER THROUGHT DESIGN I don't see any design power use in that site .. First you two different navigation is nothing but a way to confuse user .. And what is that pic that you have there is this suppose to represent design ...
I'm usually not so rude but since you are so rude yourself better let you know that you suck's at designing..
I really dislike the fact that the center area of the site just sits there, dead, nothing happening, and what we are supposed to see upon clicking links is at the bottom, below the bottom of the browser window. Flash + the need to scroll is not really a good or favorable thing. And fyi I am at 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor, with the browser not fully maximized.
Pink flower on the art part: Doesn't seem to go with anything there at all. I'd get rid of it perhaps.
Other thoughts:
"I assume you have 800x600? As said before, I designed this site for 1024x768 or larger."
You designed it at that resolution because that's what you use? Is every possible viewer of yours the same as you? Hate to say it, but designing sites for 800x600 resolution is still the norm when you're designing something towards a wide audience. Have you researched just who may be looking at your site? I see alot of Doctor's Office stuff, and certainly it should be easy to figure they're resolutions aren't geared towards that of a designer.
Overall I think you could really condense alot of what you have there into a window size that would fit for just about anyone. I'd also have to agree, however harsh it may be, with some of the comments in the post above. I don't see "power through design" and I see a design that could benefit from using a grid, and consistency from section to section. They don't seem to match at all, nor do they seem to match the main layout of the site (talking about when you click a button). And it doesn't scale either, as I think you may be describing.
Sorry if I seem harsh, I'm just being honest, and I think with some examining of the site you'll eventually be where you want to be. I'd look into maybe coming up with a logo as well, might look better than just a font.
Good Luck with it.
mg33
[Edited by mg33 on 04-17-2002 at 12:26 AM]
I like the general feel... going with the basic shapes and whatever. but the animations are a little jumpy. speed up the frame rate a little!
I can't get it to load. I've tried several times. Don't know what's wrong...
sorry..
------------>>
rush!
http://www.mirage-studios.com <<-- my site
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=282553 <<-- my thread
------------>>
hi there
nice site!
on a slow processor but with cable connection - about section had a large delay before loading - couldnt get into the portfolio for about a minute or so - thought it had jammed somewhere - might well be server is too busy or something
Are all the sections loading in the background at the start? or just on request?
thought the general design is fairly light and relaxed, which is good and keeps the focus on the content - the simple navigation helps here too! Thought perhaps the portfolio section is a little weak - doesnt stand out enough-the greys are way to plain/boring just look a little bare, perhaps like colour has somehow leaked out - the balloons are also faded, and it can look like the content box is too short for the screen - also, it's off center and might be perceived as 'messy' (just opinion).
On the ART section, the green rectangle instantly is refreshing after all the other grey parts - although its there is a little white gap between the green rect and the main image (pwer thro design) - the picture of the boy has white specks all over it - is that meant to be?
Again the stronger blacks on the RESOURCES section are a welcomed contrast to the plain greys
One othere thing - not convinced which is the main menu - is it the top menu with portfolio or beneath with art etc ...
anyway, hope some of this helps
Cheers
G
ps could u take a look at my post
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=299253
Okay, that's it, I'm going to redesign art totally and make it look good. :)Quote:
Originally posted by glasjazz
hi there
nice site!
on a slow processor but with cable connection - about section had a large delay before loading - couldnt get into the portfolio for about a minute or so - thought it had jammed somewhere - might well be server is too busy or something
Are all the sections loading in the background at the start? or just on request?
thought the general design is fairly light and relaxed, which is good and keeps the focus on the content - the simple navigation helps here too! Thought perhaps the portfolio section is a little weak - doesnt stand out enough-the greys are way to plain/boring just look a little bare, perhaps like colour has somehow leaked out - the balloons are also faded, and it can look like the content box is too short for the screen - also, it's off center and might be perceived as 'messy' (just opinion).
On the ART section, the green rectangle instantly is refreshing after all the other grey parts - although its there is a little white gap between the green rect and the main image (pwer thro design) - the picture of the boy has white specks all over it - is that meant to be?
Again the stronger blacks on the RESOURCES section are a welcomed contrast to the plain greys
One othere thing - not convinced which is the main menu - is it the top menu with portfolio or beneath with art etc ...
anyway, hope some of this helps
Cheers
G
ps could u take a look at my post
http://board.flashkit.com/board/show...hreadid=299253
I didn't even notice the off center portfolio section. I have plans to tweak its layout/colors as well.
I will make the movies load in the back so that they are faster. (Although not one is above 50k.)
Thanks for all of the advice. I'll mess around with some of the colors as well. I used gray alot as it seems to compliment just about anything nicely.
Okay, I did a face lift on a few of the sections and cleaned everything up. I found numerous examples of dirty edges. Can you look at art? Is it to bold? Does it compete with the bottom image?? Thanks.
Thanks.
For everyone else.... I've done TONS of changes since you first saw it. Go ahead and check it again and tell me what you think.
"Copyright (C) 2002, Clifton Hamilton Griffin II
Webmaster | Info | Legal | Support "
Is all I get on a grey screen, I suppose something is wrong. I'm at mac maybee that is it.