Finaly! A design I can live with! PLEASE REVIEW!

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-

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-

---

Thanks.
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.

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.

---

I know, I've already identified that the loaders aren't working properly. I'm working to correct this issue.

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

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

---

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.

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

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

---

Okay, that's it, I'm going to redesign art totally and make it look good. :)

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.