Favour please - new web site test

[rhubarb]

Hi all, I wonder if I could ask a favour. I've been working on a new website recently, just as a gallery for my images. It's here: www.kantryla.net. I'm just after some feedback, on speed, usability, overall layout, general thoughts etc. I'm aware as of last night it doesn't display very well on small monitors - I thought everyone these days were on a minimum of 1280*1024, but it seems like people still use 1024*768, so I need to figure out what to do here.

Thanks Giles

[GetCarter]

All works fast and looks great here. Well done that man.

As for 1280 - I've been doing a small survey, looks like a fair few of the visitors to my site are not yet on that screen res (results - bottom of this page): http://www.stevecarter.com/picaday/page4.htm

[Olivero]

rhubarb said:

Hi all, I wonder if I could ask a favour. I've been working on a new website recently, just as a gallery for my images. It's here: www.kantryla.net. I'm just after some feedback, on speed, usability, overall layout, general thoughts etc. I'm aware as of last night it doesn't display very well on small monitors - I thought everyone these days were on a minimum of 1280*1024, but it seems like people still use 1024*768, so I need to figure out what to do here.

Thanks Giles

Speed - good on my very slow dial up connection.
Usability - not too bad. The pics don't show in full in 1024x768. The bottom is cut off. It might be a good idea to number each photo if you want to make it easier for people to order. No home page button. Your email link could be a button - easier to see.
Layout - the text would be easier to read if it were all in white and a bit bigger. Your headline text could also be bigger and a more sexy font. You don't need so much text on the home page - let the pictures speak for themselves.
General - It would be nice to know more about you on the site. This is especially true if you want to sell your images.

Great photos, what camera and lenses are you using.

Oh, and don't think I am being critical in a bad way. All websites go through lots of revisions before they are right.

[Gemm]

Looks good to me on 1280/XP/Firefox, and very fast to load images. I'll check with my laptop (1024/Mac/Firefox) later.

Edited by Gemm on Monday 2nd July 17:27

[miniman]

Couple of things:

1. It's too wide for 1024 x 768 (e.g. http://www.kantryla.net/motorsport-2007.html) - I would go for 3 images across instead of 4

2. All the images are missing their alt and title tags - I don't think the fact that this makes it fail accessibility checks is a big deal given that the whole point of it is to view images, but it is worth noting that you are losing out a bit on SEO by not having them.

3. It doesn't validate Again, no real big deal, bit of an SEO advantage making it validate and you are very close (e.g. homepage is just missing a "/" at the end of the stylesheet include).

HTH

[cw42]

Likee! 1280x1024 here and works fine. Love the way my scroll wheel moves onto the next image Some cool pictures there, excellent

[rhubarb]

Thanks all for the feedback, and no I don't take it as being too critical, it's exactly the sort of thing I was after. I developed it on a wide screen monitor, and it wasn't until I got my dad to look at it on his laptop I realised what I'd done. Originally it resized itself, but I added some stuff to try and keep a static layout, looks like I'm going to have to rethink that.

As for lens and camera, they're all taken on a Nikon D70 with lenses varying from kit lens, 70-200mm and 120-300mm Sigma lenses and Sigma TCs.

BTW anybody know anything about the Photobox Print Button, I remember people talking about it on here in the past, but reading the FAQ it seems like you need to be a business generating over 100k revenue a year from the site . I'm affraid I don't quite meet that criteria !!! Is there anything else out there that's similar?

Thanks

[Kinky]

Viewing it here on genuine 1024x768 screen .......

It took 11 seconds before anything happened on the screen (according to my fasterfox add-on).

I see the scroll bar - so I scroll down but there's nothing to see there - so un-necessary.

Looking at Motorsport - I have to scroll across to see the 4th picture - I see the 1st 3 OK and just the edge of the 4th.

And again to scroll down to see the 2nd row.

Now these are all a bit 'finicky' - but the 1 thing that I would look at is the actual gallery themselves ....... I seem to only see 3/4 of each picture - and I have no scroll bar to scroll down to view the bottom part of the picture.

I can take some screenshots if you like - so you can judge what's where, etc.

But all that aside - I have to confess it's pretty cool

K

[corozin]

Reviewed using 1268x1024 using 8mb broadband line.

Layout & usability are excellent. I wish there were more websites like yours frankly.
Use of space, colour & design also well thought out. Performance was very good, but you need to seek feedback from users on 1mb lines & 1024x768 / 800x600 screens. There are still a surprising number of 800x600 people out there.

Comments:
1) Consider numbering the images in some way on screen, to make ordering easier.
2) Consider adding a small copyright message to the bottom of each photo as even though you are using flash it's still possible to screen grab the pictures straight off the screen at 800x600 and as a commercial site I'm sure you want people to buy them and not nick them.

Aside from that, well done. A very professional piece of work.

John (an IT Test Manager)

[GetCarter]

corozin said:

There are still a surprising number of 800x600 people out there.

...but out of interest - less that 1% that visit my site (and decreasing every month - was 10% a few years back when I last conducted a survey). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 1% of internet users worldwide are on 800x600 - just that those that visit our sort of sites generally have higher res (as seen by my current survey).

Yours (and my) sites look complete crap at 800 x 600, just change the screen res on your computer and have a look. You just have to decide if you need to take the 1% into account. For me, the good of the many outweigh the ancient systems of the few.

[imperialism2024]

Worked well for me with 1440x900 over a cable connection in the US. Very simple layout, IMO, and thus easy to navigate.