|
Post by john101477 on Sept 22, 2009 18:13:48 GMT -5
hey guys, I made some changes to my website and wondered what everyone thought. main changes are the logo colors and the contact page. also changed all of the pages to black instead of having the wedding and portrait pages in white. thanks - John
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 22, 2009 20:36:30 GMT -5
Looks good, John, but I'd make the following suggestions: - The page is too wide. I had to scroll left and right too much to see the pics and read the text.
- Lots of misspellings and mechanical errors in the text.
- The advice to models is of debatable merit. The bit about photographers who don't allow escorts is ultra-bad advice that could really mislead models about the industry. If nothing else, it leaves the photographer -- including yourself -- open to a fat lawsuit, even if protected by proper liability coverage.
I can help you with the proofreading of the text.
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Sept 22, 2009 21:00:47 GMT -5
Bob makes good points on the changes that could be made. I would like to point out that the uniformity is nice with all of the pages having the same background. It provides a nice flow to the whole site.
In addition to making the pages narrower, you might want to think about resizing your photos just a tad. They are nice and large which is great for viewing, but is a bit overwhelming when you are looking at the page. If you want to keep the large pictures, try using a thumbnail image which opens to a larger image. This will clean up the pages very nicely. You could also size down to about 300px on your posted pictures and make the page more manageable.
On the professional side of things, be careful what text you decide to add. There is a lot that screams amateur which is in direct conflict with the image you are after. Bob hit on most of it so there is no reason to go back over it. Just read everything through a pro-filter. Think about how you would feel going to this website of a photographer you were considering paying for services or prints. If you get that twinge of "this is a website I've set up so my family can see my pictures" then you need to make a change.
I spent a lot of time looking at other photography websites when I was building mine. I incorporated ideas from many different ones that represented things that worked and I liked. The culmination of all this research has resulted in a gallery that I am very happy with and does present the image that I want it to.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 23, 2009 0:30:34 GMT -5
I did not realize that the most common webpage size was 1024x. I have shrank the page size as well as aligned the name graffic and buttons. shrank the images to what I hape is a viewable size. on my monitor it just looks small and hugs the right side. I also removed the model list completely. Some proof reading would be apriciated. Not a whole lot of words left, so if you find miss spelling it is probably in the about me page. in regards to the About me page, I used the page because one of the galleries requires a piece like this, should I remove this and just make it basic?
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 23, 2009 1:37:23 GMT -5
Corrections and modifications emailed directly via Word Doc attached.
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Sept 23, 2009 6:10:03 GMT -5
Everyone has different opionions on the "About Me" portion of the website. I personally like it, and it gives a chance to let people in on your personal side...At least to let them know that you are approachable and a real person. It will aid in your marketing, and give a warmer atmosphere if potential clients can read about you.
As you get things put together, I will be considering you for a spotlight article. This could actually be used for the About Me page. It adds validity when it comes from somebody else and sounds less like tooting your own horn.
Yes, 1024px is the standard size webpage, but even that is wider than a lot of monitors. I fell into the same trap when I was developing my site. I have a very wide (high res) monitor that allowed me to do lots of great things. However, when I went into beta testing, I realized that it looked horrible on everyone elses monitor and had to tone it down to fit without scrolling. These are just tweaks that are part of web design and I'm sure you will get them worked out in time.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 23, 2009 10:38:24 GMT -5
Thanks Bob, I will check it out and make the adjustments this afternoon. Greg, I was reading that the second most common size is some where near 900x but that it is getting less and less common. So do you standardise it to fit every monitor or find an in between or??? How did u test beta? What does it do to the site, pages, images
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 23, 2009 12:51:26 GMT -5
"Beta testing" isn't a kind of testing that affects the system, John. You don't test the "beta." It's not something to test, it's the level of testing.
Alpha testing is testing which the system developer performs before the system or its changes are ever exposed to users.
Beta testing is simply letting users give the system or its changes a test run.
Some software companies, such as Microsoft but definitely not confined to them, have a tendency to do less alpha testing (done by paid employees) and rely too much on beta testing (done by paying customers). It's a good practice to include the input of real users in the design of the product, but it's very bad to crank out buggy software and expect paying customers to find the problems for you.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 23, 2009 13:02:31 GMT -5
The most common standard display dimension is 1024x768. With larger monitors and more powerful video adapters these days, more and more people are using larger display settings, but 1024x768 is still what you should assume in your design.
But that's your whole display, not what can cleanly fit into a browser. My display (on a 19" monitor) is set for 1024x768, and I have to scroll a teensy bit on my website that's 1,000 pixels wide.
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Sept 23, 2009 13:37:33 GMT -5
When I was putting everything together I did it based on my monitor and that was alpha testing doing the page previews. My beta was publishing the website, but not changing over my links from the front page which still went to my last site. I sent the direct link to the new site to my newsletter mailing list and asked them to try it out and tell me what did and didn't work. The width of the page was the biggest concern which was fixed before I linked the opening page to the rest of the gallery.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 23, 2009 15:09:26 GMT -5
ok thanks for the explanation there. I am still some what computer iliterate in many ways. generally I can do what i need to do or find a way to do it but thats about it. Bob, in the changes i made do you still have to scroll left to right on your monitor? scrolling down does not bother me because thats the only ways to see the images and not have them 2x2 inch. not sure how Greg gets images to pop up larger in a new window. another worry I have would be being able to right click protect from a pop.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 24, 2009 4:21:16 GMT -5
Your webpages fit better now. Little or no left/right scrolling required. Vertical scrolling is almost never a problem, though it's good to get the essentials into the default display so no one has to scroll to get to the click-to-enter controls. It's okay to have the users scroll to access more content, but don't force them to scroll to reach basic controls.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 24, 2009 10:31:28 GMT -5
yeah that makes since. I will fix that as well as a few other problems today. Thanks Bob and Greg. if you see anything else that would make my site more user friendly or just plain better, your advise is apriciated.
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Sept 24, 2009 13:17:43 GMT -5
I've just had a minute to check out the changes. You have been busy, and doing lots of postive changes. Things fit perfectly on my work laptop which means that on a normal computer it will fit with no problems at all. Sizes of the pictures are great, and easily viewable.
You have achieved a good balance of text as well. You say what needs to be said. The intro bio is a nice touch the way you have it worded. Shows that you have a long running history with the scenery of the area starting with the hospital room window.
You asked about how I did my thumbnails. This is a trick that I learned through my AOL site years ago. It makes the page quicker to load in for slower connections. Basically I upload two files to my server...one 150px and the other 500px. The smaller picture goes on the gallery page, and it is linked to the larger picture on the server.
I'm not all that concerned with right click protection since the pictures are so small you can't really get a good quality print from them. I keep the name stamp on there for protection from web posting, and it has paid off a couple of times when I've been notified of unauthorized postings. A quick copyright related email and the pictures were removed.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 24, 2009 13:35:58 GMT -5
yeah I have been at it pretty constant for the last three days. The feed back has been great and really helped to bring it together. I just need to keep adding to it for now I think and possibly add a page here and there to fill it out and make people want to come see my site. The hard thing is finding whats relivant and will be a good addition to the site vs. taking away from it. I will have to keep the thumbnails in mind as my library gets larger. The last thing I want to do it have 10 pages with random images. I like the fact that you have the images seperated like you do but I do not have enough images yet to make it work.
|
|