Website for C&C...

conkeroo

Just looking for a bit of feedback on my website . I had this thread in the photography section but im looking for some feedback on the tech and design side. Im just about done but dont know if it looks "professional" enough. What do you think? All comments much appreciated.
http://www.callaghanphotography.com/

Bob the Builder

Thats a brilliant website IMO. Colours seem to fit pretty well with each other as you have not really set a "colour scheme" for the user to interpret. To be a bit knit picky, and to enhance your website even more, be sure to validate it.

Well done.
nev

conkeroo

Thanks for the input mate, really appreciate it. If I can just ask you, what would be the purpose of validating it? I know it checks the code to see if alls well but ive tested it on Firefox and IE and it seems to be okay. What exactly does the validating do? Thanks again.

aidan_walsh

1) Splash pages are always unnecessary, IMO.
2) The Flash warning is slightly misleading. I was expecting the entire site to be in Flash. If you need to have one at all, put it where the Flash aspect is and only when Flash is detected as outdated or not installed.
3) Why do you use Flash for one gallery and then Lightbox for the About Us page? Would not a consistent approach be better?

Other than that its pretty good looking.

aidan_walsh

conkeroo wrote: »

Thanks for the input mate, really appreciate it. If I can just ask you, what would be the purpose of validating it? I know it checks the code to see if alls well but ive tested it on Firefox and IE and it seems to be okay. What exactly does the validating do? Thanks again.

Validating means that it will look the same in all compliant browsers. For example, I'm using Safari on a Mac. Just because you don't have access to browsers or platforms doesn't mean people won't be using them to look at your site.

conkeroo

aidan_walsh wrote: »

1) Splash pages are always unnecessary, IMO.
2) The Flash warning is slightly misleading. I was expecting the entire site to be in Flash. If you need to have one at all, put it where the Flash aspect is and only when Flash is detected as outdated or not installed.
3) Why do you use Flash for one gallery and then Lightbox for the About Us page? Would not a consistent approach be better?

Other than that its pretty good looking.

Much obliged and agree with all your points. The problem is im not proficient enough in web development so research it is! And I had thought about the consistent approach between the two things you mentioned, I was thinking the about page as less part of the portfolio, more showing off some creativity so in that respect I wanted the presentation to be slightly different. But yeah, that could be at the cost of fluidity within the site.
Appreciate the input.

conkeroo

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Validating means that it will look the same in all compliant browsers. For example, I'm using Safari on a Mac. Just because you don't have access to browsers or platforms doesn't mean people won't be using them to look at your site.

Cheers!

Liam Byrne

Agree with aidan.....wouldn't have used either Flash or Lightbox for the site - would've simply kept the style of the gallery used in the Flash application and coded it in jQuery or using style sheets - that way there's more for Google to work with for search results.

At the moment, you're relying purely on the keywords within the header tag, which isn't enough to get a decent position - especially in the Dublin market.

Overall look is very good, though - you just need to sort out the consistencies and add enough to the site in terms of SEO so that it's worthwhile having there.

Sully

I liked the into page.. and I expected a great designed site which I didnt think I got.

- Splash Pages I dislike, unless its a loading page for flash but even at that I can think of better ways to do it
- Navigations a bit blocky and off putting.
- Header block colours are off putting
- Logo very nice
- Pictures very nice but the page itself is to cramped

Just my opinion.

conkeroo

Appreciate the input. Please elaborate on the navigation and the header being offputting. I want as much feedback as i can so i can improve. What in particular isnt cohesive? Can you tell me why its cramped? Cheers.

conkeroo

Cheers for the feedback. Which would you suggest, lightbox or flash? Thanks.

Goodshape

I agree with what others have said about the splash page. You should get rid of that and put a simple script (I'm sure a google search will find you one) on the Portfolio page to determine whether or not the user has Flash.

I also think you could get a very similar result without using Flash at all, but each to their own I guess.


The 'Services' page appears blank to me.

The 'Home' page looks far too empty. A collage of images might work better here - a selection of the best that takes up the full space available.

As it is, the About page is far too similar to Home. At first I thought it was just another one of the random photographs. Also, it seems to me that the full sized photograph would sit well in the space available. Why bother with the thumbnail/lightbox job?

But really, why have an About page at all if there's no 'About' information on it?

The Portfolio page does look a bit cramped. There's too much space on the left hand side, and buttons/links underneath which don't really look like buttons/links and seem a bit out of place -- you've got all that space in the header, why not put them up there along with the rest of the links?

I'd also love if I could click and get a full-screen version of the images in Portfolio.

Sully

conkeroo wrote: »

Appreciate the input. Please elaborate on the navigation and the header being offputting. I want as much feedback as i can so i can improve. What in particular isnt cohesive? Can you tell me why its cramped? Cheers.

I just feel the overall site is pushed down and cramped so the content is stuck in the middle with little room to move. Feels like being stuck inside a small box and not having much room to move!

The navigation is okay, just not my cup of tea. Just the design and the way it juts out and in depending on the page your on. The colours of the header are a bit weird.

Like, the splash page and the site are nothing a like apart from the logo.

Just constructive comments, dont be offended

conkeroo

Not offended at all. Honestly, appreciate the input. The only reason why I asked you to elaborate was so I could gain an understanding as to what im doing wrong. Appreciate all the feedback. Thanks again.

Sully

conkeroo wrote: »

Not offended at all. Honestly, appreciate the input. The only reason why I asked you to elaborate was so I could gain an understanding as to what im doing wrong. Appreciate all the feedback. Thanks again.

Good. Sometimes I dont like giving feedback as people take offense.

conkeroo

Not me! Appreciate you takin the time.

p

I'd probably classify the site as good amateur.

As people have mentioned, the technical production of the site is low quality, not validating, using splash pages etc... and that makes sense given you mention your not a professional developer. Design-wise it's fairly strong, you've avoid all the key mistakes and generally speaking it does a decent job. Given you're saying your not a professional web person, I think you've managed to do a great job. If you were to hire a professional designer, they would naturally produce something of a higher calibre, but for your experience, you've created a good site.

Depending on your clients and your photography business, it's most likely that this site will do you for a few years as you build you business and skills, but at some stage down the line it might be worth the investment to get someone to take it to the next level for you.

All the best!

conkeroo

Cheers for the feedback. Ive taken on board everyones input and so Ive changed things a bit. If you wouldnt mind takin a quick look and see what you think. Bear in mind Ive yet to put the about/services/contact details in but from a design point of view I think its improved. Its not yet validated which I will be doing, but no splash screen! Thanks again. I had a look at your work. Excellent stuff.

6th

Change the font for "home" "portfolio" etc.

p

Overall looks much better. The new nav is nice but you're trying to do too much. The coloured bar & the white flash are over the top. I'd suggest one or the other, but not both.

One other thing, the outlined h looks very bad. It might work in print, does it's kinda pixelated there and doesn't work on screen. Consider trying to tighten that up or else remove it. Doesn't really do the logo any justice at the moment, as it's fighting for attention with the mark, rather than complimenting it.

I think one thing you really need to consider is context. For a visitor who doesn't know much about the site they'll be very confused. Is this someone's personal portfolio, an aspiring photographer, someone's who's available for work etc... Giving the user a context for the site is critical.

conkeroo

Cheers again mate for the input. I see what your saying about the nav and the logo, i'll look into some other options for them. And you're right about the context but that'll become clearer when the relevant info is put in. I'm takin my time putting that together cos I want to get the tone right. Again much appreciated.

cgarvey

Just had a quick look. Nice site. 2 things that struck me was that the use of Flash for the gallery seems to be overkill (given that you use JavaScript lightbox stuff elsewhere). That and the "tabs" used in navigation aren't very noticable on my LCD monitor (not it is bright outside, but even so!). The inactive and selected shades of grey are a bit too close to make the tabs noticable.

conkeroo

Dont know if that was the one I had up previously but ive updated it since. Ive gotten rid of the lightbox for the same reason you said. It was a bit too much. I still have info to put up but feel free to take another look if you like! Cheers.

Sully

Looking a hell of a lot nicer now. Not to sure if I like the roll over but its nothing big. Much more impressive site then it was

conkeroo

Cheers for that. I got a good bit of feedback on it so I took on board what people were saying. Always good to get an objective point of view.

Goodshape

Lovely. Huge imporevemnt, well done.

Not sure if you've changed the menu rollovers since P's comments, but - in terms of design - I like them as they are now.

conkeroo

I did change them, yes. They were a bit to much but I wanted to keep some colour, if only to hint at it. Many thanks!

Eoin

Looks very well - good job. I think the simpleviewer gallery is a great tool.

p

Nav looks much better with the changes.

It's easy to get carried away when you're designing stuff for yourself!

Good luck with it!

conkeroo

It really is. Cheers.

conkeroo

Cheers P, really appreciated the input.