Calling all bored designers - feedback please...
Discussion
If any of you web types are bored today, I'm looking for advice...
I've finally landed a big sponsor, so will be heading out to the Arctic in April
and I'm planning changes to my site ( www.northpole2003.com )to reflect what I'm up to...
At the moment, it has a splash screen (bit where you choose Flash or html) & then two separate sites - an all-flash site & an all-html one.
The site is designed by a company in Canada, and won 3 awards last year - it's very snazzy, but I'm worried about whether or not it'll do the job I want it to - namely to be the main point of contact between the public & me on the ice this spring.
My thoughts:
1) It seems to break a lot of the Flash usability "rules" - launching into a full screen/disabling browser navigation/no print facility/etc etc
2) Does the choice of Flash vs. html confuse people?
3) Would I be better off having a single site (& no splash screen)- currently around 1 html visitor for every 5 flash ones.
4) Will it be difficult to update 2 sites every day? - I'll be updating with text/pics/audio & video
5) Does the flash site take hours to load on a dial-up?
6) Do all the bells & whistles detract from the actual content?
Anyone have any ideas? I'm thinking along the lines of simplifying the Flash site - maybe no animations in the open windows, no sound,etc etc. But then again, I'm not a designer...
I've finally landed a big sponsor, so will be heading out to the Arctic in April
and I'm planning changes to my site ( www.northpole2003.com )to reflect what I'm up to... At the moment, it has a splash screen (bit where you choose Flash or html) & then two separate sites - an all-flash site & an all-html one.
The site is designed by a company in Canada, and won 3 awards last year - it's very snazzy, but I'm worried about whether or not it'll do the job I want it to - namely to be the main point of contact between the public & me on the ice this spring.
My thoughts:
1) It seems to break a lot of the Flash usability "rules" - launching into a full screen/disabling browser navigation/no print facility/etc etc
2) Does the choice of Flash vs. html confuse people?
3) Would I be better off having a single site (& no splash screen)- currently around 1 html visitor for every 5 flash ones.
4) Will it be difficult to update 2 sites every day? - I'll be updating with text/pics/audio & video
5) Does the flash site take hours to load on a dial-up?
6) Do all the bells & whistles detract from the actual content?
Anyone have any ideas? I'm thinking along the lines of simplifying the Flash site - maybe no animations in the open windows, no sound,etc etc. But then again, I'm not a designer...
Well, I'm no designer but,IMHO, it breaks all the rules for an accessible website and would be better as a POS display. I can't comment on whether or not it the Flash detracts from the content. Because I can't see any content.
I've tried it in Netscape-nothing happens, Opera-crashes the browser, IE6.0-deadly slow on dial-up, loads quickly on broadband (but at 1mbs it would want to...) but the pull-downs don't do anything. What's wrong with well designed, small HTML pages with thumbnails of the images linking to larger jpegs.
I've tried it in Netscape-nothing happens, Opera-crashes the browser, IE6.0-deadly slow on dial-up, loads quickly on broadband (but at 1mbs it would want to...) but the pull-downs don't do anything. What's wrong with well designed, small HTML pages with thumbnails of the images linking to larger jpegs.
jondokic said: Well, I'm no designer but,IMHO, it breaks all the rules for an accessible website and would be better as a POS display. I can't comment on whether or not it the Flash detracts from the content. Because I can't see any content.
I've tried it in Netscape-nothing happens, Opera-crashes the browser, IE6.0-deadly slow on dial-up, loads quickly on broadband (but at 1mbs it would want to...) but the pull-downs don't do anything. What's wrong with well designed, small HTML pages with thumbnails of the images linking to larger jpegs.
Yikes! I've not heard of people having that many problems with it... does confirm a lot of my fears. On the other hand, I want something professional in appearance, rather than something I could knock up in my lunchbreak... aaaarrrggghhh!
The Flash/HTML debate is one I have with my designers regularly. Their opinion, and I tend to agree, is that when you present users with an option of Flash or HTML a lot of them will assume that the Flash version will be slower, which is not necessarily true.
Secondly, content is the primary objective of a website IMHO. You can have all the bells and whistles you like, but if there is nothing on the site to read or interact with, users will leave.
As far as updating the site goes, you can drive Flash dynamically in the same way as you can an HTML site. You can load data into a back end database and use that to drive both portions of the site.
You are on a losing battle with accessibility rules. A classic example of this is the "Bobby" approval system (see www.cast.org). You can point "Bobby" at your site and it will tell you what accessibilty problems it finds. If you point it at itself, it picks many, many holes in its own site. So you can see, even the accessibility police can't get it right.
I think your Flash site is OK. It suffers a bit with pixellation of some of the images, but this is what happens when Flash tries to rescale raster images. The most confusing bit for me is the progress indicator at the bottom! It currently says that you've completed 574km of the journey. This is where it comes back to content. If the content is inaccurate, not updated regularly or missing altogether, you will not get return traffic.
Now, if you're looking for another website provider, you know where to find me
>> Edited by miniman on Friday 7th March 10:12
Secondly, content is the primary objective of a website IMHO. You can have all the bells and whistles you like, but if there is nothing on the site to read or interact with, users will leave.
As far as updating the site goes, you can drive Flash dynamically in the same way as you can an HTML site. You can load data into a back end database and use that to drive both portions of the site.
You are on a losing battle with accessibility rules. A classic example of this is the "Bobby" approval system (see www.cast.org). You can point "Bobby" at your site and it will tell you what accessibilty problems it finds. If you point it at itself, it picks many, many holes in its own site. So you can see, even the accessibility police can't get it right.
I think your Flash site is OK. It suffers a bit with pixellation of some of the images, but this is what happens when Flash tries to rescale raster images. The most confusing bit for me is the progress indicator at the bottom! It currently says that you've completed 574km of the journey. This is where it comes back to content. If the content is inaccurate, not updated regularly or missing altogether, you will not get return traffic.
Now, if you're looking for another website provider, you know where to find me
>> Edited by miniman on Friday 7th March 10:12
jondokic said: You can see it then s2n ? I'm off to try the other computer (IE5). [cantankerousoldgitmode]I wouldn't bother if this wasn't a PHers site[/cantankerousoldgitmode]
Yup! no problem.
I went in the Flash option and I found it a bit slow and im using an ADSL connection. But what do I know about IT techy stuff?!?!
Working fine in Opera now (had to play with the image loading settings.) Problem with IE6 seems to be that the pulldowns take so long to load (dialup) it gets into a loop where they pulldown but there's nothing in them and then they get 'stuck.' Works fine on IE5/6 Opera with broadband, toooooo slow with dialup, still can't see a thing with Netscape.
Edited to add: Now I can see the whole site, all the nec. information is there but I think the presentation gets in the way of the content and it remains slow at 1mbs. Navigation that doesn't follow any of the 'rules' seems an odd choice, and I suspect most people would like to be able to escape the site, before the page has finished loading in fullscreen, otherwise if their modem goes down they will be stuck.
It would, IMHO, be nice to be able to see the gallery pics in good resolution and in the whole of the browser window, rather than as background. Also, assuming you have a sponsor pack, why not pdf it and put it on the site, rather than having people phone a mobile number.
Edited again to add: really impressive undertaking and a great cause
You've got mail.
>> Edited by jondokic on Friday 7th March 10:32
Edited to add: Now I can see the whole site, all the nec. information is there but I think the presentation gets in the way of the content and it remains slow at 1mbs. Navigation that doesn't follow any of the 'rules' seems an odd choice, and I suspect most people would like to be able to escape the site, before the page has finished loading in fullscreen, otherwise if their modem goes down they will be stuck.
It would, IMHO, be nice to be able to see the gallery pics in good resolution and in the whole of the browser window, rather than as background. Also, assuming you have a sponsor pack, why not pdf it and put it on the site, rather than having people phone a mobile number.
Edited again to add: really impressive undertaking and a great cause
You've got mail. >> Edited by jondokic on Friday 7th March 10:32
I really hate the way it launches a new browser and removes all the navigation buttons. Even choosing the no full screen option sizes the browser window to full screen size, and doesn't allow the user to resize afterwards. This is deeply irritating, particularly if I'm trying to be subtle about looking at the site at work! I can understand the reasons from a look and feel point of view, but I'd rather be allowed to resize the thing myself if it doesn't work in a small window than be forced to have a large window open.
You've got some sort of Java scrpt error on the page - to point whoever is tweaking your site in the right direction, it's trying to call the method sponsorWindow(), which doesn't exist on the page (at least, not at the point it's currently being called).
The bells and whistles look really groovy. As I'm at work, I don't know if it takes an age to load them though...
For reference - IE6/Win2k with flash installed, and it all seems to work fine for me.
Good luck with it all!
Dan
You've got some sort of Java scrpt error on the page - to point whoever is tweaking your site in the right direction, it's trying to call the method sponsorWindow(), which doesn't exist on the page (at least, not at the point it's currently being called).
The bells and whistles look really groovy. As I'm at work, I don't know if it takes an age to load them though...
For reference - IE6/Win2k with flash installed, and it all seems to work fine for me.
Good luck with it all!
Dan
I can see it just fine.
(Running IE5 on Win2000 via broadband)
Can't comment about the loading speed since I'm on broadband.
But as a designer (Graphic Designer not Web Designer) I think your site looks really good - what you do is percieved as glamourous/heroic so the site should reflect that. Slick and snappy which is just what you need to cope with your avarage Joe's short attention span.
I think it holds ample choices for those who don't want to run it as fullscreen Flash. I did find the HTML site a bit clunky but that's to be expected.
Why don't you introduce a new section to your existing site which can contain your Updates/diary entries?
Final bit of advice.
In design it is best to never play down to your audience - they will often smell a rat and feel patronised. Do what you believe is the very best.
Also (apols if this sounds patronising to anybody), take with a pinch of salt what people say about designs when asked what they think.
Translating the feeling of visual stimulus into words is very difficult - I get more genuine feedback from my clients through their facial expressions within the first 2 seconds of seeing a design than I do from the following 20 minutes chat while they try and contrive something clever to say.
(Running IE5 on Win2000 via broadband)
Can't comment about the loading speed since I'm on broadband.
But as a designer (Graphic Designer not Web Designer) I think your site looks really good - what you do is percieved as glamourous/heroic so the site should reflect that. Slick and snappy which is just what you need to cope with your avarage Joe's short attention span.
I think it holds ample choices for those who don't want to run it as fullscreen Flash. I did find the HTML site a bit clunky but that's to be expected.
Why don't you introduce a new section to your existing site which can contain your Updates/diary entries?
Final bit of advice.
In design it is best to never play down to your audience - they will often smell a rat and feel patronised. Do what you believe is the very best.
Also (apols if this sounds patronising to anybody), take with a pinch of salt what people say about designs when asked what they think.
Translating the feeling of visual stimulus into words is very difficult - I get more genuine feedback from my clients through their facial expressions within the first 2 seconds of seeing a design than I do from the following 20 minutes chat while they try and contrive something clever to say.
Using IE 6 I'm getting various runtime errors asking me if I want to debug them..
Used to work in the usability field, will dig out some resources for you to look at and have a think about.. In the meantime I'll have a play with it when I get a little more time and let you know what I think..
did you get anywhere with the IPAQ hunt?
Used to work in the usability field, will dig out some resources for you to look at and have a think about.. In the meantime I'll have a play with it when I get a little more time and let you know what I think..
did you get anywhere with the IPAQ hunt?
Who's the big fish that took the bait then Ben? Or can't you say yet. Very glad to hear you are on your way. Look forward to hearing more about your efforts in the media.
Suggestions re the website. I don't like the layout at all. I use a big screen, and the gallery pictures are tiled, which looks naff. I hate sites which get rid of my browser buttons and go full screen, so drop that.
Suggestions:
Regular updates/press releases available on the site.
A 'Ben in the media' section. My company website (QinetiQ) has a section listing all national media coverage, which I think is a very good idea.
Suggestions re the website. I don't like the layout at all. I use a big screen, and the gallery pictures are tiled, which looks naff. I hate sites which get rid of my browser buttons and go full screen, so drop that.
Suggestions:
Regular updates/press releases available on the site.
A 'Ben in the media' section. My company website (QinetiQ) has a section listing all national media coverage, which I think is a very good idea.
Firstly, I had no problems with speed (on 512k) and found that the site was real eye candy, it all worked well, I can see what people were saying about the no full screen option though, choosing not to have full screen simply leaves the title bar at the top.
If you have a dynamicly driven site (i.e PHP/perl/asp etc) then there should be no problem with updating two sites, just have both feed off of the same database/textfiles (maybe even add a printer friendly option as well).
BTW best of luck with the next trip (understatement!)
If you have a dynamicly driven site (i.e PHP/perl/asp etc) then there should be no problem with updating two sites, just have both feed off of the same database/textfiles (maybe even add a printer friendly option as well).
BTW best of luck with the next trip (understatement!)
Which is the correct way up for a Union Flag?
I don't know this properly myself, but think the one on the coat is the correct way[url]www.northpole2003.com/html/img/gal1024/bg8.jpg[/url].
Pedant-mode-on: Just thinking, it might be better to learn the right way now, so that it does not adversely effect your achievement in getting to the Pole :-pPedantmodeoff:
On 2nd thoughts maybe getting it wrong on purpose might be improve your chances of some extra publicity :-):-)
Good Luck.
I don't know this properly myself, but think the one on the coat is the correct way[url]www.northpole2003.com/html/img/gal1024/bg8.jpg[/url].
Pedant-mode-on: Just thinking, it might be better to learn the right way now, so that it does not adversely effect your achievement in getting to the Pole :-pPedantmodeoff: On 2nd thoughts maybe getting it wrong on purpose might be improve your chances of some extra publicity :-):-)
Good Luck.
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff