Howling Acres
It's in progress, there are some details still to be worked out, but I'd like some opinions and cross-browser testing et cetera.
Thanks in advance!
It's in progress, there are some details still to be worked out, but I'd like some opinions and cross-browser testing et cetera.
Thanks in advance!
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 09:20 — 6th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Nice. It's neat and clean. Generally quite usable, and it was immediately clear what the site was about and what I might find.
Just a few points mostly on visual and usability technicalities:
I'm using Mozilla Firefox 0.8 on Linux. Everything appears to be appropriately placed -- nothing seems dysfunctional.
I've been deliberately harsh, you understand. Overall, it's a very slick site.
Renegade posted this at 10:05 — 6th June 2004.
He has: 3,022 posts
Joined: Oct 2002
I don't really like it. Yeah, kinda blunt...
I like to see interactivity in a site - colour change on hover is enough I guess. I don't really see it on this site. Try getting your links doing something on hover.
The header at first I thought was a banner so I simply skimmed over it. Maybe be make it a bit more noticable?
Try making the navigation stand out a bit more as well. I didn't really notice it untill Abhishek pointed it out in the post.
Centered text looks wrong... :S What about if you tried right aligning the block of text on the right and left aligned the block in the middle? How would that look?
Busy posted this at 11:06 — 6th June 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
I like it
At quick glance I thought that wolf was peeing at the trees, the smaller images look worse than the index one.
At 800x600 it sits nicely, the links on the top make it a little crowded though.
I can't see the top and bottom sections in one screen, but am thinking it could look mismatched? maybe the top section flipped for the bottom, make a framed appearance (picture frame not html one)
Does the bottom need a set of links, or at least a "top" link
I'd like to see a next and previous link in the gallery pages.
I get the comment about white/grey text on black background on my site as well but I think I just figured it out, in all my browsers I use the default, which is grey boxy look, but in Opera it's white with blue here and there. The text is easy to read with grey browser but with white skin it makes it hard to read as it's conflicting with the text.
Awesome work this gal does.
Displays same in Firebird 0.7 and Opera 7.23 but in IE6 there is a white line under the top section (between yellow and black) sing out if you want a screen shot.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 11:25 — 6th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Now that you mention it...
Interesting idea. I use a "default" chrome grey for my interface, and I still find the text notably affected. The black overwhelms in the anti-aliasing. Much of the darker greys in the a-a. gradients are lost also due to my low monitor settings. Lemme try with a whiter interface theme... using "HighContrast", it does become harder to read, yes, but not by that much. The big white area at the bottom of the page does the most "damage" in any case.
Suzanne posted this at 17:25 — 6th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Picky is good.
I'm taking all the feedback, stuffing into my head and fixing things that need fixing, altering other things. The centered text, rest assured, isn't a design choice, it's me failing to fix things in the CSS. heh.
Thanks guys, back to the text editor and Illustrator to deal with some of the problems. The white part was much moderated by the extra shadow in the footer (it was more stark before), but it's come up again so another fix will be needed, eh?
Whee!
Thanks again, I'll be back in a week with a revised site, I hope.
Suzanne posted this at 21:45 — 6th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I've made some heavy alterations on the site, though I haven't dealt with the navigation "interactivity" things yet.
The black background and light text are mostly not negotiable. I did increase the font size a little and make some other changes that hopefully balance it out better.
I've killed most of the redundant and pointless images on the site. Boom! I think the result is a lot tighter (and it works better at 800x600).
The white line remains in IE6. I'll attend to that at a later date -- it's a spacing issue but I'm not sure why (in the CSS I think).
The gallery pages -- here's my problem, in the slideshow, you have all the linkage you need. In the order pages, you don't. Different functions. How can I make that more clear?
Also, you should all buy macs so you have nicer visual displays... Okay, I know, the white is too bright, but I haven't come up with a good solution yet.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 22:23 — 6th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Whelp... I'm used to it, so I can't single this site out.
Yes, it does feel more pointed.
It's pretty clear to me. But I can see how one might get confused... can't think of a solution atm.
Oh believe me, if I had the green stuff, I would!
Roo posted this at 01:23 — 7th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Looks good! I just have a couple of pickies:
The trees that are under the site tiile text in the header look strange to me the way they are cut off. The wolf is fine, but the trees sort of look like something was just chopped off to me.
Horizonal scroll on the contact page (800 X 600 - Opera 6.5). Funny thing is that I'm seeing anything that would be causing it. ??
I love the white howling acres logo on the bottom of the main page. It seems to add something. It's just right.
The slideshow confuses me. I mean what's the difference bewteen it and viewing the larger images from the gallery thumbnails? I half expected it to be something automatic....something I'd sit back and watch with no clicking.
The drop shadow at the bottom is a nice touch. That's someplace where I never would have thought to see a drop shadow since you always see them on the sides, but I think it works well.
Going back to the header again...something there just isn't setting right with me, and I'm just not able to put my finger on it..
Is it that it could be wider? Is it that it could use some kind of accent under it? It's something........I'm going to think on it to see if I can put my finger on it.
Roo
Suzanne posted this at 01:29 — 7th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
The slideshow is just the ability to step through all the sculptures, whether you can order them or not. Perhaps I'll integrate it in to the rest?
The gallery is a pile of thumbnails. You can open the image larger (popup) or view purchasing details. As I'm waiting for those details, they look the same right now, but they won't in the future.
jbxel posted this at 06:13 — 7th June 2004.
They have: 6 posts
Joined: Jun 2004
I like it - interesting name as well.
I would consider or at least try a different backcolor - white maybe.
I don't like black I'm afraid.
The telephone number - what if it was an international order? There is no Intl code.
Otherwise well done!
Megan posted this at 13:57 — 7th June 2004.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
I don't really like this very much either. That's just my personal opinion. I like the way it shows off the artwork. I like the colour scheme and the black background (IMO, black often works best for art sites. It shows off the work like nothing else. Especially when they're photographed with a black background! No other way to go here).
I don't like the size of the header. It's too small and seems crammed in at the top. I would make that bigger and consider putting the navbar underneath the title text and phone number. What happens if you want to add another option to the navigation here? No room. I do really like the little trees and wolf but they're so small, they can't shine. I also really dislike that white footer. Why not do that in yellow to match the header?
The FAQ isn't really a FAQ, it's more of an "about" sort of thing. On the artist bio page I would really like to see a photograph. I think people might be more inspired to buy if they could connect the artwork to a human being.
Everything works fine and looks good in O7.5
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Suzanne posted this at 15:53 — 7th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
re: phone number -- she doesn't ship, so if you're not local, you're out of luck. or she is? I'll ask her for her wishes on this.
re: header -- we're trying to get it all fitting into 800x600 when viewing the art. Should I go another route? A larger header will cause problems. I can see that it would look squashed at the top, yes... hmmm. It's only really a problem for the slideshow/order pages but those should be the most important pages on the site.
I've tried white, yellow/orange, black, et cetera, but it just doesn't work with colours, it takes over visually even more. I think we may need to entirely rethink this. Argh!
I have thought about moving the nav down, though, to the right under the number. Changing FAQ to About would work wonders, too.
Suzanne posted this at 15:55 — 7th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Oh, also, I've started to wrap the slideshow more tightly into the gallery and will be integrating it with the order page -- further cinching of the functions for best effect and to not leave people confused.
Roo posted this at 18:36 — 7th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
With Megan saying the header is too small, I think I've put my finger what what's bothering me about it.
It seems to be an issue of balance. On the main page with the size of the photo, which is actually a good size, and the thin header (and maybe with it being a gradient), it just feels off balance.
I'm wondering what would happen if that gradient bar was dumped, if the whole header was just solid black, if that logo at the bottom right was moved up there, and the site title text was beside it, with the links and phone number maybe toward the right side.
Would it look more fluid, and make it less choppy at the top? Can you picture what I'm seeing in my head?
Roo
Suzanne posted this at 01:41 — 8th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Stuffing that tidbit into my head. I'll be rethinking some parts over the weekend. Thanks!
Roo posted this at 03:27 — 8th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Cool I forgot to say that with the photos and with them on the black background it's all very rich feeling, so to my eyes it doesn't need that whole gradient bar. I betcha that picking up some color with the eye dropper from that photo on the main page would probablly make nice color for just a plain old text image header.
Roo
modulargaming posted this at 15:34 — 8th June 2004.
He has: 152 posts
Joined: Jun 2004
I think its good the sculpture looks good as well
Suzanne posted this at 16:53 — 9th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
I've revised it quite a bit since the last viewing -- http://testzone.zerocattle.com/howlingacres/ -- and there are more revisions coming. The look is mostly established. I'd really appreciate those who were put off by the "big white space" to come take another look!
Roo posted this at 19:58 — 9th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
That tab adds a lot to the header, and makes it seem pulled together. I actually liked the white before, but this change makes it just that much nicer.
This one is a picky, and it could be just be since I am anal about this particular thing:
[More Sculptures] looks a bit squashy to me. Maybe some space? [ More Sculptures ]
Oh gosh and i totally forgot to mention this before!
Maybe this is a browser issue? (Opera 6.5)
When viewing the larger photos from the gallery, the bottom edge of the photo is like hanging below the white border...it covers up the white border.
Yeah......just looked at it in Mozilla...it is a browser thing.
In Opera is resembles a photo that is too long for the frame you're trying to put in in...it aint behavin'!
Roo
Suzanne posted this at 20:49 — 9th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Does this happen for the popup or in the slideshow/order pages (the slipping photo, lol)?
Will add in the extra space around More Sculptures right now. Thanks!
Busy posted this at 22:02 — 9th June 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
couple of small points,
the banner wolf looks like it has it's head in the smog
The phone number looks like a serial code, our numbers are 7 digits so seeing it next to the name is kind of confusing, maybe put it all the way to the right or under and right like the links. - might want to mention its country and that don't do overseas orders.
Might need a 'home' link, so many people these days dont realise most icon/banners are home links
I think I liked the other top banner better, on bigger than 800x600 you can see the roll in effect which looks good but dont quite get it on 800x600
Roo posted this at 23:15 — 9th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Ooooooo..I'm not getting a popup in Opera 6.5. I'm clicking Curiosity thumb on the gallery page, that takes me to the full sized page - /order.php?id=2.
Same deal with the slideshow....photo is slipping off it's rocker!
Are you using css for positioning? Could be some Opera 6X flukey thing with that?
Roo
Roo posted this at 00:04 — 10th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Oh cool I didn't know you could attach files here! Now I can show you what Opera 6 is doing to this without launching my e-mail!
Roo posted this at 00:06 — 10th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
Ooooooooookaaaaay....never mind. I'll e-mail it after dinner.
Suzanne posted this at 02:34 — 10th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
lol, good point, that doesn't seem to show up for some reason. I usually copy the url and paste it into the message. Thanks for the email, though! The border should be around the image itself, it's applied to the image.
Busy, I'll rethink the banner and the phone number. Perhaps giving it an area code would help? Also I will add to the copy so that it indicates no international sales or shipping. I'm hoping she will change her mind on that. Also the home link, yes.
Busy posted this at 04:25 — 10th June 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
To me an area code would show it's overseas but to others having an area code would just be more confusing as there would be more numbers.
Maybe just change the title= to something like "In Canada ph ...." not everyone will mouse over it but every little bit helps.
IMO you don't need the phone number there as you have it on the contact page. Maybe just put the word "Canada" or "Canadian made" or even "100% Canadian"
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 04:00 — 10th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
I'm still suffering the same problems as with the previous version. The nav shies away, and I had to search for it. And the coloured under-the-footer-area isn't all that much better... still very distracting. Why not have it be the same colour as the current navigation background? That shade is much subtler.
Suzanne posted this at 13:21 — 10th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Abhi, I think your monitor settings are whack, baby. The whole thing's in danger of disappearing into a low-contrast mess. It's in progress and at the mercy of the client, but we'll see what we can do, we will we will!
The phone number is being considered, I'll report back asap.
Megan posted this at 13:23 — 10th June 2004.
She has: 11,421 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
Looks better. I agree weith busy about the phone number, and I also think that the tree and wolf outline shoudl be less covered up. So maybe move the phone number to the footer and put the trees & wolf in that space instead.
The new navbar looks good. I kind of think it would be better if it took up more space and maybe on the right side instead of the left.
The new footer looks a lot better, although it's not fading ou right for me. You can see the line where the gradient ends.
Megan
Connect with us on Facebook!
Suzanne posted this at 13:34 — 10th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Megan -- what's your colour depth? I'm using a non-web-safe colour (can you imagine, me?) for the background. It may be getting shifted from what I have in Illustrator, too... I can't see it, but I'll check into it and see if I can resolve it.
Marje posted this at 15:48 — 21st June 2004.
They have: 11 posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Suzanne.... I made that recommendation because having created nearly 20 art galleries and photography sites ... I've received a ton of feedback from viewers and site owners. The "back" button was something lots of people requested. And yes, it's redundant ... alas, many viewers need redundancy.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 22:56 — 10th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Suzanne, you're absolutely right -- my settings are whack. Sadly, that's the best I can squeeze out of my meretricous monitor, while also satisfying the needs of my overused eyes. Worse still, I know too many other people, at least in this locale, who have similar systems going. If your user base contends with the same issue, then it might be worth considering it.
I'm viewing the site now on IE6 from a uni box, and it looks much, much better. The colours are starker, and the text is very readable.
By the way, I noticed the gradient boundary thing last night on Firefox at home. I was on 24-bit. That doesn't seem visible here now on 32-bit.
Suzanne posted this at 02:51 — 11th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Thanks Abhi -- I am duly considering all the bits, even if I lament the whack-i-ness of some monitors! I think I have fixed the gradiant issue -- the rgb() in the CSS was one number off (246 instead of 247 for r) and I ended up making a change with the gradiant regardless. Hopefully those two changes fixed things, including the distraction potential of the bottom colour (it's slightly less saturated now).
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 03:29 — 11th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Back home now.
There's still a remarkable difference in shades between the lightest part of the footer's background, and the expanding block underneath which is a touch darker.
It does feel less distracting. That could just be placebo effect, since I read your post before revisiting.
Something still doesn't feel right, layout-wise. I think it's the navbar being left-aligned... it disagrees with the centred body and header. Even the footer has an axis in the middle. Try centring the nav?
Disregarding those few nigglies, the only serious outstanding issue I have is the lack of underlining on them links. I think they're far too subtle (even on the Win/IE/bright/32-bit setup).
Suzanne posted this at 04:39 — 11th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Thanks, Abhi -- I'll be addressing the links this weekend coming and hopefully will find a better solution. I assume the navigation links are fine, you're talking about within the text?
I'll try out the navigation being centered or right aligned per your and Megan's suggestions. Of course things must be approved by the client, so we'll see how it all shakes out!
Thanks again, mille fois, for taking the time and for being so clear and direct and not holding back. Clear feedback has very much helped this project.
Abhishek Reddy posted this at 04:57 — 11th June 2004.
He has: 3,348 posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Yes, only the links in the body text.
JeevesBond posted this at 08:46 — 11th June 2004.
He has: 3,956 posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Heh, finally... Have read my way through all these posts - sorry I'm late
I agree with Abhi regarding the links, there needs to be some kind of underlining there. The top does indeed look unbalanced, perhaps right-aligning the logo (in the header) will make it look more balanced?
As for the design in general, I'm having some problems working out whether I like it or not; it could just be that I'm not a fan of dark designs, but as has been said the black shows off the products better than light colours would...Hmmm.
Also when there is little content on the page the footer seems very large and quite distracting to the eye.
And what's going on with that commented-out menu in the code? I'm intrigued... Have you got a funkier menu under that plain text? And does it really need to be done in JavaScript - won't CSS do what you need?
So, sorry if I've ranted a bit - I'm sure it'll end-up looking great
a Padded Cell our articles site!
Suzanne posted this at 14:11 — 11th June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
re the code -- beware, there is multiple versions herein.
it's still in flux, but not for much longer. this isn't supposed to be that long of a project!
Roo posted this at 19:52 — 11th June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
HA! I once spent three freaking weeks on a little image that was supposed to go in a sidebar. Just a little freaking thing that the client wanted to convey. I ending up doing something completly different than my original concept. It worked well, but that one little element took almost as long as the whole site!
Roo
Marje posted this at 14:45 — 21st June 2004.
They have: 11 posts
Joined: Jun 2004
1. Congratulations on using tables only when they are appropriate .. not for overall layout ...
2. Congratulations on putting your styles and your javascript in external files.
3. Congratulations on writing in XHTML.
4. I'd add metatags ... Google is still looking at the description metatag.
5. You'll want the site to validate http://validator.w3.org/
6. A thought about navigation ... you may want to put a "back" graphic on the pages with large versions of an artwork. This would make it very easy to get back to the gallery page. The way it is now, the viewer has to hit the "back" button on their browser.
Nice job!
Suzanne posted this at 15:35 — 21st June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Thanks Marje, as I noted originally, I haven't validated yet, and I don't have all the content. When I have the content, I will add the meta tags as desired.
I do find it funny being congratulated for something I advocate, but thank you anyway, lol. Good to know I'm not alone in my crusade!
Well, no, the user always has the option to click "gallery" in the navigation!
However, that appears to be either not obvious or inconvenient, so I'll add the redundant link, thanks.
Roo posted this at 19:10 — 21st June 2004.
She has: 840 posts
Joined: Apr 1999
LOL! Suzanne's pages will validate, and be usable and accceable.
Suzanne posted this at 22:10 — 21st June 2004.
She has: 5,507 posts
Joined: Feb 2000
Oh, Marje, I'm not discounting your opinion at all -- I did add the link. I do appreciate your walk through very much.
Want to join the discussion? Create an account or log in if you already have one. Joining is fast, free and painless! We’ll even whisk you back here when you’ve finished.