Looking for some good feedback - http://www.eclectic-world.com An Eclectic World

Thanks...but that wasn't the site I was asking for a review on. I was asking for the site listed in the description...for reference, http://www.eclectic-world.com

----------
Summer S. Wilson
http://www.eclectic-designs.com

Many of JP's comments for your other site also apply...

- I personally find the no frames site much better than the frames one. It's a bit simple, but the frames version is way too confused. I'll list some problems with the frames version first:

- Background on main page repeats.
- Background on navigation tiles very badly.
- Navigation images are too confused and difficult to read. I would strongly suggest that you give all the section names the same style image (add rollovers if you want some eye candy).

The biggest problem with the rest of the pages is, in my opinion, the backgrounds. You use a different background for every page - generally not a good idea - and many of the backgrounds are so jarring that not only does it distract from the page but the stranger-textured ones sometimes blend in with the text. If you want to use a different background for each page, I would recommend putting the page content in a solid-coloured table in the middle of the page.

Thanks...mind if I ask what your resolution is? I use 800x600 so the background on the intro page only tiles down (which its supposed to do).

I know about the bad tiling on the menu background and am redoing that one. All of the other pages have different backgrounds though because its in keeping with the eclectic nature of my site and myself. =) I'm working on correcting the few that are hard to read on, however. It would help to know which ones are the hard ones to read, in others opinions, to see if they match my own.

As for the frames, I like frames and intend to keep them. I don't know why so many people dislike them, but they are effective to me. I don't want to put tables on all the pages (the front one is tabled and Netscape takes ages to load it because of it) to put the menu on it. I only put the no frames/no javascript version for those people who absolutely refuse to use frames, but that version, as you mentioned, is very simple, is not fully featured, etc.

Thanks for your responses,

----------
Summer S. Wilson
http://www.eclectic-designs.com

I can understand that you like frames many people do, they can be very useful. However I fail to see why you prefer them to tables.

I would love to hear your point of view on this.
Thanks,
JP

----------
[red]The Next Step in Website Development [/red] - http://www.what-next.com
The Webmaster Promotion and Resource Center

I agree, the tables version I think is much better. I think the frames version is well, nasty looking. I don't like:

1) the different background on each page, it makes it look unprofessional.

2) how when you click on a link on the right frame a image drops down, i would just make text links, cause the images look terrible.

3) you might want to make the images on the right frame have to border.

You have alot to fix, but with lots of work it will look good.

----------
FireBurn Web Publishing - fireburn.com
[red]Low cost web design, graphic design, and more![/red]

JP Stones>
I prefer frames to using tables because its faster loading (Netscrape has so many problems with tables, my page loads slow enough with the current tabular arrangement), frames is also more convientient for me and allows me to have the effects that I want to have.

Kidjustino>
For the different backgrounds on each page...its the same on the no frames version, so I don't see why you say the frames version is unprofessional with it? Both front pages are tabled, one with frames one without. I hate the no frames version, is not as easy to naviagate, in my opinion, and I only put it up for die hard no frames users (and the anti JS paranoid peoples). I am going to change the images, simply because they are inaccurate now and they do appear to have been squished (PD2000 just isn't easy to get to do the exact size stuff).

Anyway, last night I finally got around to finishing cleaning up the unreadable backgrounds, fixing (I hope) the horiztonal tiling on the main page background in the frames version, and making a new background for the menu that I just love the look of.

----------
Summer S. Wilson
http://www.eclectic-designs.com

It sounds like you're set on keeping things the way they are, so why did you ask for a critique in the first place?

I think that frames can work well in some cases - when you will be changing the menu from time to time (and don't/can't use SSI), and if you can do it without having a scroll bar - they really cut up the page.

You state in your FAQ that the definition of "Eclectic" is:

<blockquote>1--selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles; 2--composed of elements drawn from various sources.</blockquote>

You may be applying this differently, but if you are adhering to the definition described in no. 1, I would think that you would study web design theories (generally accepted proffessional practices) and apply them to your particular situation. Most good professional designers will probably agree that:

1. Frames must be used carefully if at all
2. Patterned backgrounds are almost always a no-no
3. a site needs a coherent look

Maybe your interpretation of the definition is different from mine, because to me you are totally rejecting these tried and true theories.

This is all I'm going to say right now, because I really think that you need to look at the basics of web design theory and what actually works.

I hate to break it too ya, but I bet 95% will say the no-frames version is better. It would be very easy for you too change it so it will be easy to navigate.

----------
FireBurn Web Publishing - fireburn.com
[red]Low cost web design, graphic design, and more![/red]

Quick look:

- Scrollbar on the frame (I'm not using my usual computer right now and am stuck with 848x480 resolution)
- I see you've fixed the setup fee part of your hosting page [where you had the monthly fee text repeated earlier] ^-^
- If I was looking for a webdesign service, I'd be more interested a page that looks better and seems to give off a professional air (no offense meant)
- Since you're trying to sell something with your site, I suggest you make the image on the front page smaller, people with low resolutions can't see your entry statement
- Content pages are fairly uninteresting besides the information itself.

Question for the faq: "Why should I choose your services instead of those of the kid next door?"

----------
Craig Holatko - icq [icq]3263293[/icq] - [email protected]
Proud Internet Explorer/Neoplanet User at 800x600 res.

Looks like I did the same thing JP did.

Framed comments:
- Many scrollbars.
- Looks like someone made it just to play around with the span things.

No frames comments:
- Much better than your framed version for me.

I'll be back later when I've got more time (In an important chat right now on icq)

I agree with most of the recent comments, specifically Megs'...

My resolution is 1024x768.

Totally Boring.
background=boring
graphics=boring
logo=boring
menu setup=boring
frames=boring
but hey, thats just my opinion

LOL, and for today's most constructive opinion the prise goes to...Ian!!
JP

----------
[red]The Next Step in Website Development [/red] - http://www.what-next.com
The Webmaster Promotion and Resource Center

Just to update, An Eclectic World, the site I asked for the original critique on has been updated some, including changing the menu in the Frames (now called Advanced) version to stop complaints about the images being squished, I added some small, useful, JS enhancements to the front page and will also add them in the Framed version, to replace effects lost in the removal of the images. I also changed a few other things. http://www.eclectic-world.com

I have also radically redesigned the site that people keep critiquing by mistake, http://www.eclectic-designs.com and it has no frames at all, so since so many people commented, I'd love to know what you think of the new look (I'm still working on the entrance page).

I have also redesigned my third site this week, but I'm using CSS on that one and am still in the set up, however some initial comments would be appreciated. http://www.eclectic-mall.com

Hope nobody minds a three in one request, but this is the only forum to actually answer web site critique requests, and they are useful, even with the occasional extra constructive ones like Ian's...*shaking head*

----------
Summer S. Wilson
http://www.eclectic-designs.com

Hey,
Well ok, so not alot of detail was provided, but really it was just to bland and boring, the layout and colors used just about sent me to sleep. I must say that your new design for electric-world is a huge improvement on the last one...hahaha. Original layout with the menu on the right side, a few graphics to liven it up, even the backgrounds don't look so bad. Build on this a bit and add a few javascript effects or something to spice it up further and it will be cool. See credit given where credit due. hehe.
Best wishes.
Ian

Well, I hate to say this, but it's not looking good. The graphics are blurry, and don't look good. You also use frames too much!! The use of javascript you have is over-used, and doesn't need to be included. Your basic versions look better, even though they have only one graphic. Anyway, you need a big re-design.

----------
FireBurn Web Publishing - fireburn.com
[red]Low cost web design, graphic design, and more![/red]

Kid> Not to be picky, but could you tell me which site you are talking about?

----------
Summer S. Wilson
http://www.eclectic-designs.com