wcbert wrote:
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?
I think the photos themselves shouldn't be a consideration in how good a website is, since they're two separate matters.
In my opinion, a good site looks at least somewhat pleasing (is clean and well-structured, not chaotic as to cause headache) and is easy to read (no white text on pink background...), loads quickly, is easy to navigate (no obscure navigation stuff) and isn't cluttered by irrelevant stuff and gimmicks. It should also work on all browsers. Now, while I'm not claiming my site to be great, it's all of the above to at least some extent, so at least it is somewhat functional, which is something many "fancier" sites are not, and flash sites are usually slow-loading, even if they fill the rest of the criteria for a good site.
For an example of things done with flash when they shouldn't be... Steve Tinetti's site looks nice and is easy enough to navigate. However, why on earth the flash? Too much time is spent on the site "Loading", when the browsing would be pretty much instantaneous if it were made with regular image files and HTML/PHP/CSS/whatever. There isn't really anything on that site that couldn't be done with those, so why on earth the slooow option? I see way, way too many sites like that around. Often a waste of a good website.
A bit off topic: By the way, anyone recognize that song on Tinetti's site? It's familiar to me, but can't figure whose it is. Or maybe it is just so similar to something, like the piano is indeed reminiscent of Moby's track "Porcelain"... maybe that's what has me fooled.
This is a little late for your polls, but I have a friend in Colorado that has what I think is a really good website. He is a regular on the DPReview forums, but I'm not even sure if he has been to FredMiranda. In any event I think most of you will like the website and you will really like the pics.... www.arrowphotos.com
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.) ...Show more →
donrisi wrote:
Now there's a great web site for you. Loads fast, runs fast, is easy to navigate, has everything one could want.
And the photos are pretty good, too!
Excellent work, on both fronts.
Don
thanks very much Don
It is a new site, I am just begining to add pics to it
Does my heart good to hear that it loads fast enough
That was my one biggest concern
I just looked at ALL of them. These are my top five in order.
1. Kyle Madison for simplicity, ease of use, and speed. When I designed deanpatrick.com, I designed for a simple but colorful look, and absolute simplicity and intuitiveness in layout. I love this design.
2. Fuse for its overall "look" and layout design.
3. Sandierox starts off good, but I don't like the opening of pictures and then having to click back.
4. Jason Ahn for style and coolness, but the music, loading pages etc. make it something I would want to flip through. But I look at it and say "that's cool!"
5. Pell has the most commercial feel to it. You definitely feel like it is a a "pro" site... Like you'll be going into a nice high rise studio if you go there.
Too many sites had music, which was an instant disqualifier for me. If I'm browsing, and someone is watching TV, etc, I don't want to have to go running for the mute button as music blares through.
Some sites looked great, but I had to search for what was a "button". Others had animations after I clicked buttons that seemed to play for 20 seconds before loading the page I asked for.
rocketpop wrote:
I just looked at ALL of them. These are my top five in order.
1. Kyle Madison for simplicity, ease of use, and speed. When I designed deanpatrick.com, I designed for a simple but colorful look, and absolute simplicity and intuitiveness in layout. I love this design.
...
Thank you so much! My goal in designing this site was to keep it clean and easy to use. I'm glad you appreciate the simplicity.
kmadson wrote:
Thank you so much! My goal in designing this site was to keep it clean and easy to use. I'm glad you appreciate the simplicity.
Kyle
My only crit is that the first 3 "galleries" open to a new page. I much prefer to stay in the same format as the rest. More continuity, more simple navigation. The latter half of the galleries are done just as I like to see!
maxim_me wrote:
Wish i have the funds for such an elaborate one
It's actually rather simple, especially if you do it the non-flash way. Which no one seems to bother with such sites anymore, sadly so. Heck, I could make a non-flash version of Tinetti's site using the same graphics in no time (relatively speaking).
Once you have the graphics, it's easy. With graphical site, it's making the graphics where I have the troubles Granted, with non-flash you'd lose all or most of the fancy gimmicks, but those really don't make a site any better than it is otherwise anyway.
rocketpop wrote:
My only crit is that the first 3 "galleries" open to a new page. I much prefer to stay in the same format as the rest. More continuity, more simple navigation. The latter half of the galleries are done just as I like to see!
The black backgrounds are reserved for my music photography. I felt that it is more dramatic that way. I do agree that I need to find a better way to differentiate between the two styles. Thanks again for the praise!
Nothing but simple html without tables. Why you ask? Because the site had to display an every computer capable of internet accesss and work with third world computers with problematic phone and like access. Page presentations had to be instantaneous and be the most accessible main pages on the planet. The site can do this though:
I have three more but involve artists and are not really ready as the albums are not out yet - but you get the idea. Lets see if anyone can beat those two. Oh - and if you get past the first page you will see 1970's flowcharting.....
Granted, with non-flash you'd lose all or most of the fancy gimmicks, but those really don't make a site any better than it is otherwise anyway.
