Practical question - how important are thumbnails? I've always considered them a necessity - but now I'm becoming more of a fan of shorter galleries that lead you and showcase the work in focus rather than an archival of many trees of hundreds of photos.
First rule: it has to load to be seen. After a period of "waiting to connect", it returns "This document contains no data".
kush wrote:
Practical question - how important are thumbnails? I've always considered them a necessity - but now I'm becoming more of a fan of shorter galleries that lead you and showcase the work in focus rather than an archival of many trees of hundreds of photos.
Depends on purposes. You have identified a good division. Some sites (e.g. stock photo sites) want a multiply connected tree (graph) of thousands of photos. Others want to showcase a small sample. For a small sample, it is possible to dispense with thumbnails if the images are smallish (e.g. 500 pixels on longest dimension).
Navigation, navigation, navigation! I don't like web sites that have hidden links that you have to start moving your mouse around to maybe, hopefully roll over a hot-spot and hunt and find the navigation clicks. Why should I have to figure all that out? Too much work. A good site should be easy to use. Intuitive, I think they call it.
Flash was nice when it first came out because it was new and exciting, but unless your target audience is from 14 to 25 and has an attention span of about 30 seconds I think flash should be used very sparingly. I agree with the poster earlier that said, "why should I waste my time having to download some third party program just to see your site?" Besides, my Mozilla still won't run it. If you feel you have to run Flash, offer a skip button or an alternative site.
One question to all you web site builders - Why do you some of you have an opening page that requires me to click a "enter" or "enter here" button or some other type click to open your site? Is that really necessary? Seems like a kinda useless step to me.
(Although we are working on a few changes, such as adding a shopping cart system.)
We wanted the site to be as clean and simple as possible, while still providing a very advanced image search tool in the "Photography" section. We purposely kept the colors monotone and the additional graphics virtually nonexistent in order to let the photography speak for itself.
WITHOUT VOTING FOR YOURSELF & NOW THAT A LOT OF WEBSITES HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR CRITIQUE, WHICH THREE WEBSITES HAVE MADE IT TO 1ST, 2ND, & 3RD PLACE?
__________________________________________________________________
I have to say, when I posted this thread I did not expect so many people to tout their own website. I really glad they did because it has been very helpful to me to see just what all is out there.
Reading all the critiques, comments, criticisms, compliments, suggestions, and praises will surely help me build a better website.
___________________________________________________________________
As for my personal opinions on this subject.....
I absolutely agree with MR. BURNS and others.
It ticks me off to have to enter a web address and then click on another button/link to enter the website. (That was why I entered the web address in the first place - so I would be on the site.)
One of the first few replies to this thread posted his website and when I tried it I could not figure out how to get past the very first page - so I gave up after about 30 seconds.
Thumbnails are important, but they are way too small on most sites.
A fast loading website is vital.
Thanks for everyones' feedback - please keep them coming!
Monito wrote:
No. You still don't get it. Whether or not the copyright notice is on the image, if you don't have permission, you would be stealing intellectual property, which is theft. Credit is not sufficient, and may or may not be necessary, depending on the image owner's choice, if they even give you permission to display it. Without permission you are not allowed to display it and may be legally liable for punitive damages and lawyers' fees if the image is registered. If the permission is not written, you would have a hard time proving it.
Please don't steal photographer's images.
OK...that is all I needed to know. I will be sure to take the image off of my site. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
impressnow wrote:
It ticks me off to have to enter a web address and then click on another button/link to enter the website. (That was why I entered the web address in the first place - so I would be on the site.)
My website has this.
I like it, because it introduces the site like a book to new visitors. It is the cover page that introduces the site. It also makes or breaks the site. If you have a good cover page, the person might be curious to actually surf the interior pages.
This works for some sites, and others it does not. Mine being a personal site, it works well for that application. However, a company site, it doesn't work. Nor does it work with a site with heavy traffic flow and impatient people looking for content only , I.e. CNN.com or Microsoft.com , or Fredmiranda.com .
I design stuff for a reason, and the first question you must ask yourself before even putting pen to paper, or finger to mouse is, "Who is my target audience" . After you establish that, then you know whether it is appropriate or not.
It would be good if we could get a list on one page to look at some contenders.
Many of the ones I have looked at have something that turns me off right off the bat, such as slow loading, the "enter" button, etc.. But it is personal preference.
My suggestion is that you decide what you want to do with the sight. As I said earlier, my site is built for the customer that wants a "quick view". They want to find their photo and order. My Sub-goal, is to get their attention for other types of photography. If you are a commercial photographer, then you need (IMHO) quick loading, stunning images. If you are after portraiture work, then you need easy to find contact and "pricing" info. Basically this is the internet, and in a microwave society, people dont want to shop, they are looking for an image.
Oh, one other thing, remember that photographers are probably not your target audience. So it is nice to have their feedback, but I rely on my customers opinion and at 22K unique visitors in last 12 months and 144K hits, I depend highly on what they say. I get an avg of 2 "complaints" per month, and they usually admit that they are net challenged. But I encourage the negative, because it lets me know what doesn't work.
(Although we are working on a few changes, such as adding a shopping cart system.)
We wanted the site to be as clean and simple as possible, while still providing a very advanced image search tool in the "Photography" section. We purposely kept the colors monotone and the additional graphics virtually nonexistent in order to let the photography speak for itself.
Any feedback?
Since you specifically asked for feedback, here it is:
Your site contains my second biggest complaint about web sites. The "hunt and seek" method of navigation. I think buttons or hot spots or what ever you are going to use for the visitor to click on to browse your site should be clearly that. While the text that are links on your site are in a slightly different font (a little thinner on my screen) to the casual viewer, they are not distinct. If you want to do it that way, might I suggest an additional navigation bar for all you major links at the bottom of the screen.
Nice photography, BTW.
-Mickey
Edited by Mr.Burns on Aug 01, 2005 at 06:01 PM GMT
Edited by Mr.Burns on Aug 01, 2005 at 06:01 PM GMT
Don - I checked out your site and I really like it! So far it is the best for what I would like to have.
It is very much how I would like my site to eventually look like.
If I built my site after yours, I would make the following changes:
1. The thumbnails would be a little bigger. - My eyes aren't what they used to be!
2. When I click on a thumbnail the photo that pops up covers the other thumbnails blocking them from view. I'd have the photo popup in the box above the thumbnails.
3. When I hover the mouse over a menu item, it doesn't seem to give me long enough to decide if that is the item I want to click on. I found myself having to reposition my mouse to make the menu dropdown again and then try to click before it closes.
For someone who wants a site strictly as a means for customers to view their "proofs"
I think you're right on the money. (Which is what I'm trying to achieve.)
Whats more important to you...the website or the contents (i.e. your photography works)? Its nice to have a nice site but its more important to have an eye catching photo...just my .2.
Monito wrote:
First rule: it has to load to be seen. After a period of "waiting to connect", it returns "This document contains no data".
Depends on purposes. You have identified a good division. Some sites (e.g. stock photo sites) want a multiply connected tree (graph) of thousands of photos. Others want to showcase a small sample. For a small sample, it is possible to dispense with thumbnails if the images are smallish (e.g. 500 pixels on longest dimension).
I tried this on 3 computers and it comes up very quickly (T1 and broadband). Not sure what your technical issue may be.
Unfortunately the billing for my hosting just went loopy, so my site, www.ekphotodesign.com, will probably be down until tomorrow! (As you can see my avatar is busted)
Just FYI.
EDIT: Oops, youve also got albouyphotoart on there twice! Not that it really matters unless there is a poll...
Come to think of it what is the criteria used to judge. The Flash/HTML appearance of the website? How the photos are presented? The photos themselves and the website appearance second? The unique appearance of the website?
The person I nominated is using PBase, boring website, fanatic photos. So again what is the criteria?
Also is anyone that nominated themselves, I will say I think they have a big ego.
