Ken Elliott posted this at 15:41 — 7th April 2004.
You can go to their site and see the old version. (not done by me). But here is the new version ( http://www.ifae.com/cedric/website/index.html ). Done in html, css, and perl. Has a password protected administration section, but I can't show you that 
. Which allows the client to add, edit, delete catagories, items and images and some preferences of the site. The only thing that the client didn't like so far is he feels that the images are two small (the images in the andirons section have been enlarged for testing). Basicaly I am wondering if it looks screwy on any of the browsers you guys are using. I've checked it in linux, mac os x, os 9, and win xp. But it still awaits the test of the masses. Let me know what you think. Appreciate the attention
webG
Pimpin like a pimp with an electrofied pimpin machine!
The Webmistress posted this at 16:34 — 7th April 2004.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
First thing is can't you get better quality photos? The photo on the home page is awful as he looks like he has a smudge across his face, or a very deformed nose and the furniture is not shown to it's best either!
I don't like black backgrounds and I feel that the yellow is made tacky on here rather than having a rich gold feel and the blue doesn't work well with the black either.
The header section just feels lost/disjointed on a larger screen (maybe it's just me) and compared to the swirly font used on the home page, the font in the header seems really quite bland and boring. Why is there such a big gap between the top of the page & the top of the header?
It's ok, but to me it just feels a bit ameteurish and I prefer to get all thumbnails the same size & orientation so that the page with them on doesn't look jumbled.
Sorry if that's too harsh!
Julia - if life was meant to be easy Michael Angelo would have painted the floor....
teammatt3 posted this at 16:52 — 7th April 2004.
He has: 2,102 posts
Joined: Sep 2003
I don't think it's that bad. The photo looks like crap though. I like the yellows and greys. You have to find a better hover color because blue looks really bad. Looks very professional in my opinion
BIGMONAY posted this at 18:32 — 7th April 2004.
They have: 34 posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Ken Elliott posted this at 19:59 — 7th April 2004.
They have: 358 posts
Joined: Jun 1999
webmistress what resolution are you viewing it at, browser, and OS? I'd like to see what you see. I know all about the image on the frontpage, still waiting on a newer photo, since he has had that photo on his homepage for the past 3 years. You really think the website looks 'amateurish'? The layout is based on the layout of his brochures, which my friend did. They use the same font scheme. Whoops, forgot I was doing some testing and added an increased width attribute to the left handed images. They are all scaled above what they were made at..lol.
webG
Pimpin like a pimp with an electrofied pimpin machine!
Busy posted this at 00:01 — 8th April 2004.
He has: 6,151 posts
Joined: May 2001
you have a few HTML problems, things between and , no width and height tags on images which make the layout very jumpy on dialup.
The blue links are really hard to see on the black and the "welcome to .." bit is really hard to make out.
There is a white line under your dropdown box on the nesest arrivals page (mozilla firebird), ignore that, its meant to be there, hr set to white.
I get the idea of what your trying to do with the black and gold but with the images being so dark you'd be better off using a white (a light coloured) background for the content and using black and gold for the top, bottom and even sides. The sites all about antiques, it may be cheesy but I'd look at using an old antique mirror or picture frame to base it on. look at some old old catalogues, they used to have lines (forget what they are called, used them around wanted posters as well) around the pages making it look upperclass type thing. this is just my 2c worth so feel free to totally ignore it, the site is to square looking, antiques have curves so making the site look old while keeping it new could be the wow factor
The Webmistress posted this at 07:27 — 8th April 2004.
She has: 5,586 posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Sorry that's just my opinion. I was viewing it with IE6 at 1152*864 win2k
disaster-master posted this at 23:30 — 8th April 2004.
She has: 2,154 posts
Joined: May 2001
Just a couple of things here.
I am viewing the site on 800X600 IE 6 and Mozilla.
The blue links and brown background are clashing IMO and I agree with Webmistress about the thumbnails. Have you tried making them the same size or grouping each size together? For example; small thumbs at the top, medium in the middle and larger ones at the bottom.
Also, make the background color the same as the bg.gif. The background color is almost black and the gif is brown. I use very slow dial up and the color difference is very obvious.
I think overall the site is nice.
Jozi posted this at 15:35 — 10th April 2004.
She has: 2 posts
Joined: Apr 2004
Typos I noticed:
Catagory should be Category
In the glossary:
Ouvarage should be Ouvrage (my first language is french)
Jardiniè should be Jardinière
Commode Secretaire should be Commode Secrétaire
There may be more but I am not 100% familiar with all of the antique terminology but I would get it checked by somebody who is.
Other points:
Secrétaire en Armoire is on the glossary twice
I found the glossary very difficult to read due to the small font size.
I also find that the gold looks more orangey than it should. The blue mouseovers don't seem to go with the warm feel of the site.
I actually like the two background shades. It breaks up the darkness a bit.
Overall, I found the site very easy to navigate, which is extremely important to me. I think with a few touches, it could be perfect!
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.