Textile Designer Website

eoghanhickey

Hi,

I'm just looking for some constructive criticism, and feedback for a site I built for an Irish textiles designer. Site can be found here. I'm quite happy with it, but a fresh pair of eyes would be welcome.

All suggestions are welcome, and many will be acted upon (oh and please don't be gentle).

Thanks for taking the time.

p

Overall it's not bad at all. Gets some flavour of the company and functions as a website, easy to navigate etc... Here's some key points where it gets let down however. I think the opportunity to do something right, textured and typographic here are huge. Or, go completely the other way and strip it right back to ultra minimal and let the products jump off the screen.

Feedback here:
http://www.bounceapp.com/46314

eoghanhickey

p wrote: »

Overall it's not bad at all. Gets some flavour of the company and functions as a website, easy to navigate etc... Here's some key points where it gets let down however. I think the opportunity to do something right, textured and typographic here are huge. Or, go completely the other way and strip it right back to ultra minimal and let the products jump off the screen.

Feedback here:
http://www.bounceapp.com/46314

Hi P,

Wow, that was quick. Thanks for taking the time for the constructive criticism. It's really appreciated.

I've looked at the points you've made and I'm inclined to agree with you on some of the issues.

There are however some points that are a little out of my control.

I didn't design the logo, or the background-motif, they were provided by the designer themselves. Personally, I feel that the site works better without the background motif at all — I'm a big fan of clean, straightforward design.

The footer does need something, and I will work on improving it. I'd actually meant to remove the email link (done now). Apparently there is a risk of mailto:links being harvested.

Can I ask you what browser/system you used to view the site?

Just, that I noticed on the bounceapp screenshot, that the page wasn't displaying the type correctly(Arial?). The site is supposed to be laid out using Linden Hill reg and Linden Hill italic— which I quite like, and feel reflects the work presented.

I see where you're coming from in regards to the Facebook/Twitter links. I'll work on integrating them a little more. I'm a little wary of making them blend in too much (as they tend to get ignored)

The thin line around the navigation is intended as a subtle highlight that "these are buttons". I'll experiment without it.

Thanks again,
I'll have a look at altering the above.

ChippingSodbury

It doesn't look anything like that when viewed in IE8. Looks fine in Firefox and Opera though.
On the Facebook & Twitter buttons, stick to what people recognise i.e. the logos rather than text.
Also, don't use strange fonts on the page: if they're not installed on the viewer's PC, they won't show (it'll pick another to replace your one).
As the other guy said, I hate the background and think it detracts from the content of the page. It's also a little more difficult to read the text at the bottom.
I don't think the menubar at the bottom fits in: leave it at the top only.
Users are unbelieveably unpredictable in what they do on a site and what they just don't see e.g. there is no indication that the 'Textiles' button contains more choices before you hover over it. Also, the idea of displaying the description for each design when you hover is a little dangerous: some users will miss it.
Remember, you have 30 seconds max to catch their attention before they're gone and some, unfortunately, are dumbos!

eoghanhickey

Hi ChippingSodbury,
Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I think I definitely need to do some proper Internet explorer testing (the pitfalls of being mac/linux based). I don't think that there's a problem using a variety of fonts, as long as font-stacks are utilised. @font-face is pretty well supported now.

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

Also, the idea of displaying the description for each design when you hover is a little dangerous: some users will miss it.
Remember, you have 30 seconds max to catch their attention before they're gone and some, unfortunately, are dumbos!

I agree that some users might not realise that the images correlate to posts. However, it's not really possible to cater for everyone. I don't think that it is drastically against conventions.

I do plan to rework the footer, but I intend to keep links to each page. More to do with giving choice (some people prefer to navigate sites through the footer), and allowing quick jumps at the bottom of longer pages.

Anyway, I can't write anymore. I'm up at 7. Thanks again for the response.

p

eoghanhickey wrote: »

I didn't design the logo, or the background-motif, they were provided by the designer themselves. Personally, I feel that the site works better without the background motif at all — I'm a big fan of clean, straightforward design.

There's two versions of the logo on that site. That's an issue. Also, you're the designer of the site, and it doesn't matter what the client gives you, ultimately what matters is what comes out the other end.
http://www.disambiguity.com/live-design-is-gold/

eoghanhickey wrote: »

Can I ask you what browser/system you used to view the site?

Just, that I noticed on the bounceapp screenshot, that the page wasn't displaying the type correctly(Arial?). The site is supposed to be laid out using Linden Hill reg and Linden Hill italic— which I quite like, and feel reflects the work presented.

Checked on Chrome and Firefox on Mac OSX. I think you haven't used the font-embedding stuff to fully make it cross platform & browser.

eoghanhickey wrote: »

I see where you're coming from in regards to the Facebook/Twitter links. I'll work on integrating them a little more. I'm a little wary of making them blend in too much (as they tend to get ignored)

Yea, well right now you're in the worst of both worlds. You haven't got the logos but you have got a brash colour. Either go the whole way with full on colour logos, or, my suggestion of high contrast, but monochrome logos.

tricky D

+1 to points already mentioned.

Link the logo to the homepage.

You have some pages using not so regular characters like: ....com/%e2%80%98aisling%e2%80%99-cushion/ which isn't a good idea (doesn't even copy and paste properly) Stick to using a-z, 0-9, -_,. only in your folder and filenames.

I would put the mailtos back in. Plenty of users prefer to use their email clients as opposed to forms. Spam happens, with or without harvesting. You wouldn't nail your front door's mailbox shut because of some junk mail, would you?

Some parts need better contrast and more than just grey.

hth/gl

eoghanhickey

Hi, Apologies for the delay in responding to the advice given. I've taken on board the suggestions, and reworked the footer area, type, and colour schemes. I hadn't actually realised the urls were putting out those strange characters (Something I just overlooked). Anyway, thanks for the feedback. It's appreciated.